If you DON'T live in DC, why did you ultimately decide to go private?

[Anonymous]

NP here. I gotta say, even though I disagree with the "no redeeming value in public schools" poster, she's coming off a lot more rational and clear in her views than some of the people who are battling with her, specifically 6/7@10:06, @11:00, @17:45, @19:36, and @19:47.

It seems like she's pretty clearly spelled out her reasons. I can understand them all, and they generally make sense, even if I don't agree with them all. I still think it's a gross overstatement on her part to paint all public schools with the same brush, just as it would be to group all private schools together. But I think she's actually been pretty restrained in responding to some of the attacks from people who disagree with her.

[Anonymous]

I don't think she painted all public schools with the same brush -- she was just saying quality was irrelevant to her given that she wanted to select a school/cohort based on (her) shared values (rather than neighborhood, test scores, etc.) and publics don't let you do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she painted all public schools with the same brush -- she was just saying quality was irrelevant to her given that she wanted to select a school/cohort based on (her) shared values (rather than neighborhood, test scores, etc.) and publics don't let you do that.

Sure, but the implication I heard was that no public school anywhere could possibly share her values. Unless her values are truly obscure and rare, I don't see how she could know that's true. Maybe what she really meant is that her particular local neighborhood school does not share her values. But if that's the case, it's a long way from saying public schools generally have "no redeeming value."

Also, as an aside, even if her view is that her local public schools aren't consistent with her values, it's a pretty significant overstatement to say they have "no redeeming values" at all. In the first place, they might have plenty of redeeming values for others. And also, unless she's truly a one-characteristic shopper, I can't imagine the local public schools truly have zero redeeming value. Maybe at least the playground is nice? Maybe there is no gun violence? Maybe there might possibly be at least one good teacher there? Any of these would demonstrate at least some minimal value, which suggests her "no redeeming value" comment is overstated.

I can completely respect her desire to find a school that meets her needs, and if her view is that her local public schools don't match her values, that's a position I don't think anyone can reasonably rebut. But saying that all public schools (or even some) have no redeeming value whatsoever -- that's pretty extreme to me.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, 10:41, I was thinking the very same things. I don't think you can call sweeping generalizations, which can easily be picked apart, particularly logical.

If the poster wants, for example, a religious school, then she should say that, and I think most here including myself would understand. But she's never said what values she's looking for, or why they aren't available in public schools.

Instead, illogically, she's ducked explaining the issue of values, which she says us so important to her, and she's resorted to sweeping condemnations of every aspect, apparently, of public schools. Whatever valid point she might have has been list in the uproar from offended posters, and many of us who might be sympathetic don't know what she's talking about when she says values.

[Anonymous]

10:16/10:41 posting again.

Just to be clear, even though I think the "no redeeming value" poster may be guilty of overstatement, and I might not agree with her conclusions, I still think that once she described her positions in full, she did it in a logical and relatively non-offensive way. I stand by my original point that many of the people attacking her come off as less-logical and more-offensive than she does.

Also, I don't think she's obliged to detail her values. The specifics aren't really significant to the discussion. Whatever they are, I take her word that they aren't consistent with what she sees in her local schools.

[Anonymous]

I actually sympathize with the posters you're criticizing. The statement that no public school has ANY redeeming value is simply irrational. And it's natural for some to be offended by it. I don't think it's irrational to try to argue against a statement that's so silly.

[Anonymous]

"No redeeming value" just suggests that whatever strike public education has against it is, for that poster, such a deal-breaker that nothing else matters.

So if, for example, you don't believe that government should have the right to educate your DC, then you don't care how academically excellent a public school is -- you want nothing to do with it. There's no redeeming value because the objection you have is insurmountable.

PP never said all public schools are equal or are bad -- just that, categorically, none provide the education she wants for her child(ren). (And, yes, if your values are religious (or even, perhaps, libertarian), you can say categorically that no public school in the US will be teaching them.)

It's an extreme position but by no means an irrational one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually sympathize with the posters you're criticizing. The statement that no public school has ANY redeeming value is simply irrational. And it's natural for some to be offended by it. I don't think it's irrational to try to argue against a statement that's so silly.

10:16 again. I completely agree with you that the original statement was irrational and offensive and silly; I spelled out why in my 10:41 post. But when you look at the posts I cited at the top of this page (@10:16), I think those come across as even worse, especially when compared to the expanded discussion that the "no redeeming value" poster later gave.

If the "no redeeming value" poster had just said "You know what, you're right; it was complete exaggeration on my part. Please ignore it. Here's a better explanation of what I meant to say ...," then I'd have no beef with her.

[Anonymous]

12:34 again. I went back and looked at the posts you cited. Some do seem very angry, but none of them seemed illogical or irrational. 10:06, the first post you cited, actually seemed quite reasonable to me. While you didn't cite the meanest post I noticed, 18:38, coming from a private school mom (there may be others on this side, but I don't have time to catalog them).

Maybe nastiness is in the eye of the beholder. Or, the situation here is of public school defenders coming on to a private school site?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:34 again. I went back and looked at the posts you cited. Some do seem very angry, but none of them seemed illogical or irrational. 10:06, the first post you cited, actually seemed quite reasonable to me. While you didn't cite the meanest post I noticed, 18:38, coming from a private school mom (there may be others on this side, but I don't have time to catalog them).

Maybe nastiness is in the eye of the beholder. Or, the situation here is of public school defenders coming on to a private school site?

Well at least we can agree she's quite angry. I actually found 10:06 one of the least logical posts. This claim in particular made no sense to me: "You won't have homegeneity of values when there is real SES diversity, that's the whole friggin' point." I don't see why different people of different walks of life cannot share the same values (especially since this poster doesn't even know which particular values the PP was thinking about). And the next numbered item from 10:06 was something that the PP hadn't even said, as far as I can tell, so it also seemed illogical to me.

As for @18:28 that you mention, I can't tell whether that's a public or private parent posting. It seems to me like someone who is just fed up with the exchange. I can't say I blame her. For my own part, I'm a mutt with ties to both public and private school, and no particular allegiance to either.

Oh well. No need for us to continue rehashing their argument. That would be almost as stupid as reviving that idiotic Sidwell football thread .... Safe travels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure we're arguing about whether I would send my kids to Ballou.

I think the point is that there are some very good public schools, both magnets and non-magnets like BCC and Whitman and several others. I jumped into this debate to make this point against the private school trash who was saying that (a) a good private is universally better than a good public, and that (b) there are no redeeming features to public schools. And I do think that, by having kids in both, I'm better qualified than she is to make these comparisons.

Nitwit here. The truth is that I did not write that "there are no redeeming features to public schools." The poster above, from way back in the thread, first wrote it as a characterization of another post. I used it thereafter because it is how my position quickly became "labeled" but, the above post is where it originated. I do not think all public schools are that bad. Bottom line, public school is not the educational environment I would choose for my child(ren) as long as private is an option.

[Anonymous]

I prefer home tutors to private school. I prefer the flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It was not a middle schooler, it was me. I am a 40-something married mother and an attorney and I do not understand why anyone who could afford private, or could qualify for financial aid, would choose public over private. Yes, I have experience with both. I would do anything I could to ensure my children were educated in private schools and would never consider putting them in a public, magnet or not. Many previous posters have explained the whys and wherefors. Bottom line, I do not want my kids to be educated in any public school system when they have the option to be educated by a good private school. I see absolutely nothing positive about a public school education and many, many negatives.

For the record, the bolded language above is what got labelled "no redeeming values." It seems like fairly accurate shorthand for what's in bold. In the interests of archeology, here's the original statement you made on 5/25 @ 9:59, that you were defending above:

Anonymous wrote:Because a good private school is universally better than a good public school.

I myself would not try to defend these statements, but YMMV.