Our first days of public school after private, what I've noticed.

[Anonymous]

NP. My middle schooler in N Arlington has PE every day. Art is also every day (art is a special this semester, next semester she wants to take Latin.) There are additional specials on Tuesdays and Thursdays that extend the day but aren't required. I'm surprised (and happy) that all of this is being offered in a public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private to public.
Class sizes are larger, but no complaints from DC about that so far. Academic teachers good. Art and PE bad; big difference. Kids are more diverse and friendlier.

OP here. I agree that the academic teachers are much much better in public school. They seem to have a more realistic understanding of what kids can handle at a particular age. They know their subject matter better.

Totally agree about art, music and PE, complete waste. Almost want to tell the public schools to give a voucher for the parents to either hire someone good for the specials or get the activities after school.

OP you just started with public and only one school at that. How much experience can you possibly have with the special teachers?

One child is in public ES. Nice friendly school, unlike the MS.
ES specials are poor too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP you just started with public and only one school at that. How much experience can you possibly have with the special teachers?

One child is in public ES. Nice friendly school, unlike the MS.
ES specials are poor too

Aha. OP has experience with TWO public schools! Specifically, two weeks (minus Labor Day) of experience.

[Anonymous]

NP here. We have experience with what you are going through, OP. Since you asked, I would say the public teachers are sick and tired of the whiner moms and do anything to circumvent the whiner moms, smartly. I'm pretty tired of the whiner moms myself, they ruin it for everyone. And they never have reasonable suggestions or solutions to their whining, predictably!

Look at it this way: at a private, the parents are pretty much on equal playing ground, having equal footing. The staff appreciates that the parents are paying big bucks to be treated like a consumer. In public, everyone is clamoring for the same resources; it is more primitive. I know I will get flamed for this, but so be it. I really don't care. You have to learn to not care about certain things, OP.

And ignore the pissy moms, they have troubles you don't want to know about.

[Anonymous]

I often feel the opposite way. In public, there are other publics that are supposed to be the same or very similar schools so there's more competition between publics plus there are many different people parents can write in complaints to complete with public hearings. In private, the administration often feels tied because there's no way for them to get more money other than fundraising and there's a feeling that you picked this school because it was different, so you should be happy with the way it's run without many changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

Well rich white people and poor brown people is a toxic type of diversity.

Why do you think that "brown" kids in private school are poor? Or that white kids in private school are rich? BTW, at our private school, there were so many types of families that the diversity was much better than at Whitman.

Not the person you are quoting, but I assume that 95% of students at expensive private schools are upper middle class/rich. To me, that's not a particularly diverse environment.

You assume wrong. Most privates have @ 30% of the student body on financial aid.

[Anonymous]

I have not read the entire thread, but is the OP indicating that the 35K tuition was for *both* children or for one child? I am aware of only one private school in DC where the tuition approaches 35K, and before I post (in its defense in terms of quality, albeit understanding that the tuition is ridiculously high) I want to make sure I'm understanding the situation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:private: nice, easy carpool line
Public: find space and walk in

private: soft spoken people who say what you want to hear
public: people much more direct and honest about your child's progress

private: poor teaching in the elementary grades
public: excellent to good

private: crazy tuition
public: reasonable fee for aftercare and lunches

private: dumb rules about birhtdays, etc
public: free for all

privte: people judging you constantly
public: nobody cares about you (in a good way)

i vote for public for sure at least until grade 5, maybe til 8th. in high school i can see making a switch

Disagree about public being more honest about kids' progress. Don't you know the joke is they tell everyone your kid is doing "just fine." Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read the entire thread, but is the OP indicating that the 35K tuition was for *both* children or for one child? I am aware of only one private school in DC where the tuition approaches 35K, and before I post (in its defense in terms of quality, albeit understanding that the tuition is ridiculously high) I want to make sure I'm understanding the situation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

There are many privates in DC and outside where tuition is I. Low 30s and extras like books, fees, lunch, expected donation, etc push it up to close to $35K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I noticed when I moved my kids from a private school to a public school:

1. Teachers and staff were uniformly supportive of my kids -- kind, gentle and understanding. They worked really hard to help my kids get where they were supposed to be and do what they were supposed to do. "Positive discipline" was the rule. That was very different from the private school, which expected kids to comply and when they didn't, there was a lot of exasperation.

2. The teachers were MUCH better trained. They had many tools in their tool box for teaching material to different kinds of kids. They had many different methods for ensuring that behavior was good.

3. We had more variety in extracurriculars and enrichment activities.

4. We had more diversity in race, ethnic background and SES.

5. We had more resources - the school has speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists -- to help us, if we need it.

6. The academic side was the same or better.

OP here. I agree with 2, 5, and 6.
We had more diversity at our private school, fewer academic resources. But we had nice teachers. The tuition of 35K was the deal breaker.

Just how do you define "diversity"? Rich white kids and rich "brown" kids? I can't imagine that there would be much economic diversity at a school that cost 35k.

Well rich white people and poor brown people is a toxic type of diversity.

Why do you think that "brown" kids in private school are poor? Or that white kids in private school are rich? BTW, at our private school, there were so many types of families that the diversity was much better than at Whitman.

Not the person you are quoting, but I assume that 95% of students at expensive private schools are upper middle class/rich. To me, that's not a particularly diverse environment.

You assume wrong. Most privates have @ 30% of the student body on financial aid.

Qualifying for financial aid at many privates doesn't mean a family is low income. There are plenty of middle class kids who get financial aid to many of the local private schools because most middle class families can't afford to pay full tuition. Some many even have a HHI that's above average (meaning above the average for the DC area at large, not above the average in Bethesda or McLean or NW DC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The negativity is a real issue. We are at a really good public school with smiling teachers, administrators, etc. and a high quality of teaching but the written communication that comes from the school is terrible. BUT it was really shocking to me how much of the text in our back to school packet dealt with do not do this and do not do that. I thought the first rule of discipline and good teaching was to always be positive? Is it just that the teachers/administrators don't know how to write?

I would guess it's more that they have lots and lots of experience of parents ignoring the rules. So they want to make them clear and get it up front so there is no confusion, excuses like " I didn't see it".

+1

Excellent summary!