Families who can afford private but go public, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in an affluent suburb outside of NYC. GS 10, small classes (under 22), and involved active parents. In our district, people only send their kids to private school if they have attention or behavioral problems. We briefly looked into the private schools and they have graduating classes of like 20. Seems stifling to the child's social development. If you want something ultra special, then you'd do boarding school (but I'm personally against that and would never agree to it).

Are the public schools in VA really that bad?

Different types of systems. You might feel differently about the public schools in NY if you had Westchester or Nassau Counties each running a county-wide system rather than having separate districts in Scarsdale, Bronxville, Great Neck, Syosset, etc.

If North Arlington, McLean, and Vienna could operate their own schools, they would be equally strong, but the schools in those areas are run by county officials who treat them as cash cows to subsidize poorer schools (the NoVa equivalents of Yonkers and Hempstead) and otherwise ignore them. So of course people get fed up with the neglect and consider privates. And it’s a vicious cycle because the support for higher taxes to pay for public education is diminished as well.

FCPS ends up being more of a social services agency than anything else. The goal of its School Board is to spend as much money as possible on “wraparound services” in poorer areas and to ignore the wealthier areas. They have gotten away with it for a long time because people spend money on supplemental tutoring for their kids, and won’t readily admit that their highly ranked public schools aren’t that good, but the cracks in the wall are starting to show.

[Anonymous]

This is true.

They spend zero time (that I have seen, and I watch ALOT of meetings) on high-performing areas. Clearly we don't need as much, but we can't even get attention for overcrowding after millions were spent expanding a nearby school.

We're just expected to tolerate the neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in an affluent suburb outside of NYC. GS 10, small classes (under 22), and involved active parents. In our district, people only send their kids to private school if they have attention or behavioral problems. We briefly looked into the private schools and they have graduating classes of like 20. Seems stifling to the child's social development. If you want something ultra special, then you'd do boarding school (but I'm personally against that and would never agree to it).

Are the public schools in VA really that bad?

Different types of systems. You might feel differently about the public schools in NY if you had Westchester or Nassau Counties each running a county-wide system rather than having separate districts in Scarsdale, Bronxville, Great Neck, Syosset, etc.

If North Arlington, McLean, and Vienna could operate their own schools, they would be equally strong, but the schools in those areas are run by county officials who treat them as cash cows to subsidize poorer schools (the NoVa equivalents of Yonkers and Hempstead) and otherwise ignore them. So of course people get fed up with the neglect and consider privates. And it’s a vicious cycle because the support for higher taxes to pay for public education is diminished as well.

FCPS ends up being more of a social services agency than anything else. The goal of its School Board is to spend as much money as possible on “wraparound services” in poorer areas and to ignore the wealthier areas. They have gotten away with it for a long time because people spend money on supplemental tutoring for their kids, and won’t readily admit that their highly ranked public schools aren’t that good, but the cracks in the wall are starting to show.

You gotta be kidding. North Arlington operates APS for its own benign right now. You haven’t a clue how schools are funded, either. Fine, split off. You take the Cheesecake Factory and south Arlington will take amazon. Good riddance to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

How is pp’s post not clear? Houses can be resold.

It’s weird to me that someone who thinks nothing of the large down payment, taxes, and holding costs of an expensive home in a good school district balks at what is essentially the cost of a college education for a high school aged kid. But okay, you know your finances better than me.

So many things to say in response:

1) If we are going to go further into the details of finances, you would also need to factor in that houses in a better school district will generally appreciate more.

2) You act like "only" the cost of a college education isn't a big deal -- for most people it is a huge deal to do once and they aren't looking to do it twice.

3) You assume that people are only going to do private for 4 year (presumably HS) so it is "only" paying an extra college once. But, if you believe that private is that important, wouldn't you want to go K-12? Many people do that and costs then become way more than college and the added cost of a school in a better school district.

4) If you are going to do private only for HS, you presumably would have wanted to be in a good school district for the rest of the time. That means that your savings (in terms of down payment, taxes, carrying costs) are only available for 4 years, or maybe a little more if there are multiple kids. That greatly cuts into the economic benefits of a crappy school district. Plus, you need to factor in the economic and non-economic costs of moving. Moving (and transaction costs to buy and sell real estate) is very expensive and a royal pain in the rear. You also disrupt your routine and make it hard to stay in touch with friends you have made over the years. For that reason, most people who switch to HS stay in the house they have always had, rather than moving for the savings of a crappy school district. So, many of your underlying assumptions simply fall apart for families that are only planning on 4 years of private school. (If someone is K-12 or close it, they may choose the crappier school district from the outset, I'll acknowledge.)

5) Finally, you are assuming a 40% discount -- $1M to $600k -- for a crappy school district. (You assumed even more in an earlier post saying $1.3M for the good school district.) That is way overstated. If there really is a 40% difference in house price, there are many other factors in play in addition to quality of schools, which obviously does have a non-nominal impact. A 40% cheaper house likely has a worse commute, fewer neighborhood amenities, worse crime situation, and/or other factors that differentiate the two houses. Someone may still choose to move to the cheaper house to make it easier to afford private, but you need to factor in all of those other things as well. It is not simply that you can save 40% by exchanging good schools for bad.

Most of what you list comes down to personal preferences and put a subjective dollar figure on them, not directly comparing the actual sticker price comparison. That’s fine, but the point stands. You either pay for a good public, or you pay for a private. You pay either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

How is pp’s post not clear? Houses can be resold.

It’s weird to me that someone who thinks nothing of the large down payment, taxes, and holding costs of an expensive home in a good school district balks at what is essentially the cost of a college education for a high school aged kid. But okay, you know your finances better than me.

So many things to say in response:

1) If we are going to go further into the details of finances, you would also need to factor in that houses in a better school district will generally appreciate more.

2) You act like "only" the cost of a college education isn't a big deal -- for most people it is a huge deal to do once and they aren't looking to do it twice.

3) You assume that people are only going to do private for 4 year (presumably HS) so it is "only" paying an extra college once. But, if you believe that private is that important, wouldn't you want to go K-12? Many people do that and costs then become way more than college and the added cost of a school in a better school district.

4) If you are going to do private only for HS, you presumably would have wanted to be in a good school district for the rest of the time. That means that your savings (in terms of down payment, taxes, carrying costs) are only available for 4 years, or maybe a little more if there are multiple kids. That greatly cuts into the economic benefits of a crappy school district. Plus, you need to factor in the economic and non-economic costs of moving. Moving (and transaction costs to buy and sell real estate) is very expensive and a royal pain in the rear. You also disrupt your routine and make it hard to stay in touch with friends you have made over the years. For that reason, most people who switch to HS stay in the house they have always had, rather than moving for the savings of a crappy school district. So, many of your underlying assumptions simply fall apart for families that are only planning on 4 years of private school. (If someone is K-12 or close it, they may choose the crappier school district from the outset, I'll acknowledge.)

5) Finally, you are assuming a 40% discount -- $1M to $600k -- for a crappy school district. (You assumed even more in an earlier post saying $1.3M for the good school district.) That is way overstated. If there really is a 40% difference in house price, there are many other factors in play in addition to quality of schools, which obviously does have a non-nominal impact. A 40% cheaper house likely has a worse commute, fewer neighborhood amenities, worse crime situation, and/or other factors that differentiate the two houses. Someone may still choose to move to the cheaper house to make it easier to afford private, but you need to factor in all of those other things as well. It is not simply that you can save 40% by exchanging good schools for bad.

Most of what you list comes down to personal preferences and put a subjective dollar figure on them, not directly comparing the actual sticker price comparison. That’s fine, but the point stands. You either pay for a good public, or you pay for a private. You pay either way.

Except the above largely shows that is not true and there is no comparison in the “actual sticker price” between private and the cost of buying in a better school district.

If it makes you feel better to say that your point stands without actually responding to or refuting any of the points made in response, go for it I guess. But that doesn’t really make for much a discussion or debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

How is pp’s post not clear? Houses can be resold.

It’s weird to me that someone who thinks nothing of the large down payment, taxes, and holding costs of an expensive home in a good school district balks at what is essentially the cost of a college education for a high school aged kid. But okay, you know your finances better than me.

So many things to say in response:

1) If we are going to go further into the details of finances, you would also need to factor in that houses in a better school district will generally appreciate more.

2) You act like "only" the cost of a college education isn't a big deal -- for most people it is a huge deal to do once and they aren't looking to do it twice.

3) You assume that people are only going to do private for 4 year (presumably HS) so it is "only" paying an extra college once. But, if you believe that private is that important, wouldn't you want to go K-12? Many people do that and costs then become way more than college and the added cost of a school in a better school district.

4) If you are going to do private only for HS, you presumably would have wanted to be in a good school district for the rest of the time. That means that your savings (in terms of down payment, taxes, carrying costs) are only available for 4 years, or maybe a little more if there are multiple kids. That greatly cuts into the economic benefits of a crappy school district. Plus, you need to factor in the economic and non-economic costs of moving. Moving (and transaction costs to buy and sell real estate) is very expensive and a royal pain in the rear. You also disrupt your routine and make it hard to stay in touch with friends you have made over the years. For that reason, most people who switch to HS stay in the house they have always had, rather than moving for the savings of a crappy school district. So, many of your underlying assumptions simply fall apart for families that are only planning on 4 years of private school. (If someone is K-12 or close it, they may choose the crappier school district from the outset, I'll acknowledge.)

5) Finally, you are assuming a 40% discount -- $1M to $600k -- for a crappy school district. (You assumed even more in an earlier post saying $1.3M for the good school district.) That is way overstated. If there really is a 40% difference in house price, there are many other factors in play in addition to quality of schools, which obviously does have a non-nominal impact. A 40% cheaper house likely has a worse commute, fewer neighborhood amenities, worse crime situation, and/or other factors that differentiate the two houses. Someone may still choose to move to the cheaper house to make it easier to afford private, but you need to factor in all of those other things as well. It is not simply that you can save 40% by exchanging good schools for bad.

DP. Your kids aren't in high school yet, are they? Otherwise your point 3 doesn't make a lot of sense.

There is a big difference between public elementary, public middle school, and public high school in many districts. This obviously depends on the district in question. But it's not uncommon for districts to fund elementary fairly well, but not high school. There are many people who start in public and switch for HS. It's less common the other way but does happen..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

How is pp’s post not clear? Houses can be resold.

It’s weird to me that someone who thinks nothing of the large down payment, taxes, and holding costs of an expensive home in a good school district balks at what is essentially the cost of a college education for a high school aged kid. But okay, you know your finances better than me.

So many things to say in response:

1) If we are going to go further into the details of finances, you would also need to factor in that houses in a better school district will generally appreciate more.

2) You act like "only" the cost of a college education isn't a big deal -- for most people it is a huge deal to do once and they aren't looking to do it twice.

3) You assume that people are only going to do private for 4 year (presumably HS) so it is "only" paying an extra college once. But, if you believe that private is that important, wouldn't you want to go K-12? Many people do that and costs then become way more than college and the added cost of a school in a better school district.

4) If you are going to do private only for HS, you presumably would have wanted to be in a good school district for the rest of the time. That means that your savings (in terms of down payment, taxes, carrying costs) are only available for 4 years, or maybe a little more if there are multiple kids. That greatly cuts into the economic benefits of a crappy school district. Plus, you need to factor in the economic and non-economic costs of moving. Moving (and transaction costs to buy and sell real estate) is very expensive and a royal pain in the rear. You also disrupt your routine and make it hard to stay in touch with friends you have made over the years. For that reason, most people who switch to HS stay in the house they have always had, rather than moving for the savings of a crappy school district. So, many of your underlying assumptions simply fall apart for families that are only planning on 4 years of private school. (If someone is K-12 or close it, they may choose the crappier school district from the outset, I'll acknowledge.)

5) Finally, you are assuming a 40% discount -- $1M to $600k -- for a crappy school district. (You assumed even more in an earlier post saying $1.3M for the good school district.) That is way overstated. If there really is a 40% difference in house price, there are many other factors in play in addition to quality of schools, which obviously does have a non-nominal impact. A 40% cheaper house likely has a worse commute, fewer neighborhood amenities, worse crime situation, and/or other factors that differentiate the two houses. Someone may still choose to move to the cheaper house to make it easier to afford private, but you need to factor in all of those other things as well. It is not simply that you can save 40% by exchanging good schools for bad.

Most of what you list comes down to personal preferences and put a subjective dollar figure on them, not directly comparing the actual sticker price comparison. That’s fine, but the point stands. You either pay for a good public, or you pay for a private. You pay either way.

Except the above largely shows that is not true and there is no comparison in the “actual sticker price” between private and the cost of buying in a better school district.

If it makes you feel better to say that your point stands without actually responding to or refuting any of the points made in response, go for it I guess. But that doesn’t really make for much a discussion or debate.

DP. For HS only and 1-2 kids, I don't think it's so clear-cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I went to private school and I want to spare my kids the snobby, entitled attitudes. Average HHI in McLean is almost $300k. Many more people can afford private than go.

It may seems like, but it is not true. I live in McLean and my kids go private until HS. However, I know several "affluent" Mclean people who are deep in debts, even though they live lavishing lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in an affluent suburb outside of NYC. GS 10, small classes (under 22), and involved active parents. In our district, people only send their kids to private school if they have attention or behavioral problems. We briefly looked into the private schools and they have graduating classes of like 20. Seems stifling to the child's social development. If you want something ultra special, then you'd do boarding school (but I'm personally against that and would never agree to it).

Are the public schools in VA really that bad?

Different types of systems. You might feel differently about the public schools in NY if you had Westchester or Nassau Counties each running a county-wide system rather than having separate districts in Scarsdale, Bronxville, Great Neck, Syosset, etc.

If North Arlington, McLean, and Vienna could operate their own schools, they would be equally strong, but the schools in those areas are run by county officials who treat them as cash cows to subsidize poorer schools (the NoVa equivalents of Yonkers and Hempstead) and otherwise ignore them. So of course people get fed up with the neglect and consider privates. And it’s a vicious cycle because the support for higher taxes to pay for public education is diminished as well.

FCPS ends up being more of a social services agency than anything else. The goal of its School Board is to spend as much money as possible on “wraparound services” in poorer areas and to ignore the wealthier areas. They have gotten away with it for a long time because people spend money on supplemental tutoring for their kids, and won’t readily admit that their highly ranked public schools aren’t that good, but the cracks in the wall are starting to show.

You gotta be kidding. North Arlington operates APS for its own benign right now. You haven’t a clue how schools are funded, either. Fine, split off. You take the Cheesecake Factory and south Arlington will take amazon. Good riddance to you.

There is also the state aspect, where NoVa residents heavily subsidize kids in the rest of the state. Add that to how the county-wide systems allocate the money in their budgets and the public schools in the more affluent communities in NoVa are crap compared to their Mid-Atlantic and New England counterparts. But, again, as long as test scores are high, due to prep classes and tutoring that parents pay for on the side, the school systems can boast about their performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No primary school education is worth over $30,000. No secondary education is worth over $40,000.

I’m a product a huge ( good) FCPS high school. I had a great experience, but there is no contest between that school and my kid’s elite private.
Don’t kid yourself.

[Anonymous]

We split the baby: we sent kids to private school for elementary and middle, and sent to a good public HS. I am a strong believer in the early child education and it worked very well for us. Our private school don't easily admit kids with SN, so there were no much distraction as in AP elementary classes (yes, all my kids took FCPS tests and all was qualified for level 4 AP program). However, after doing a lot of research on AP program in FCPS I decided it not going to work for us. They had a great experience in HS and for both it was very easy (pulled 4.5-4.7 GPA in addition to two varsity teams), all got to top universities (including Ivy League). However, I definitely see the foundation that was built in early elementary school (impeccable manners, caring about other people, compassion, etc.). It is definitely something that usually taught at home, but it was important for us that it was emphasized at school as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We split the baby: we sent kids to private school for elementary and middle, and sent to a good public HS. I am a strong believer in the early child education and it worked very well for us. Our private school don't easily admit kids with SN, so there were no much distraction as in AP elementary classes (yes, all my kids took FCPS tests and all was qualified for level 4 AP program). However, after doing a lot of research on AP program in FCPS I decided it not going to work for us. They had a great experience in HS and for both it was very easy (pulled 4.5-4.7 GPA in addition to two varsity teams), all got to top universities (including Ivy League). However, I definitely see the foundation that was built in early elementary school (impeccable manners, caring about other people, compassion, etc.). It is definitely something that usually taught at home, but it was important for us that it was emphasized at school as well.

Are you seriously arguing that private school teaches compassion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just not worth it. We are wealthy enough to be able to afford it without any significant sacrifice, but not so rich that spending $1M+ on education would be meaningless to us financially.

In my view, any marginal benefit to private just isn’t worth the tremendous cost. In my view, there are pros and cons to public and private and, although we strongly value education, I don’t believe that means we should entirely disregard the value proposition when deciding whether to do private.

Is it “tremendous”? What kind of money are we talking here, since people will drop 1.3 to live in a “good” zone but could spend half that to live in an “average” one. Is private school tuition really half a mil?

Those numbers are off. More importantly, you ignore that you get a house to live in and have an asset you can then sell. You don’t get that with private school. $1M+ v free (zero marginal cost given taxes) is a tremendous expense.

I’m saying, if the choice was a 600k house in a crappy public zone and private school, or a 1m house in a good public zone, how is the latter such a good deal? We’re talking about 4 years, maybe a few more with additional kids. I think you’re just reluctant to admit you paid at least as much for your public via real estate as you would’ve living in a cheaper, equivalent house and going private.

How is pp’s post not clear? Houses can be resold.

It’s weird to me that someone who thinks nothing of the large down payment, taxes, and holding costs of an expensive home in a good school district balks at what is essentially the cost of a college education for a high school aged kid. But okay, you know your finances better than me.

So many things to say in response:

1) If we are going to go further into the details of finances, you would also need to factor in that houses in a better school district will generally appreciate more.

2) You act like "only" the cost of a college education isn't a big deal -- for most people it is a huge deal to do once and they aren't looking to do it twice.

3) You assume that people are only going to do private for 4 year (presumably HS) so it is "only" paying an extra college once. But, if you believe that private is that important, wouldn't you want to go K-12? Many people do that and costs then become way more than college and the added cost of a school in a better school district.

4) If you are going to do private only for HS, you presumably would have wanted to be in a good school district for the rest of the time. That means that your savings (in terms of down payment, taxes, carrying costs) are only available for 4 years, or maybe a little more if there are multiple kids. That greatly cuts into the economic benefits of a crappy school district. Plus, you need to factor in the economic and non-economic costs of moving. Moving (and transaction costs to buy and sell real estate) is very expensive and a royal pain in the rear. You also disrupt your routine and make it hard to stay in touch with friends you have made over the years. For that reason, most people who switch to HS stay in the house they have always had, rather than moving for the savings of a crappy school district. So, many of your underlying assumptions simply fall apart for families that are only planning on 4 years of private school. (If someone is K-12 or close it, they may choose the crappier school district from the outset, I'll acknowledge.)

5) Finally, you are assuming a 40% discount -- $1M to $600k -- for a crappy school district. (You assumed even more in an earlier post saying $1.3M for the good school district.) That is way overstated. If there really is a 40% difference in house price, there are many other factors in play in addition to quality of schools, which obviously does have a non-nominal impact. A 40% cheaper house likely has a worse commute, fewer neighborhood amenities, worse crime situation, and/or other factors that differentiate the two houses. Someone may still choose to move to the cheaper house to make it easier to afford private, but you need to factor in all of those other things as well. It is not simply that you can save 40% by exchanging good schools for bad.

Most of what you list comes down to personal preferences and put a subjective dollar figure on them, not directly comparing the actual sticker price comparison. That’s fine, but the point stands. You either pay for a good public, or you pay for a private. You pay either way.

I’m totally baffled as to how anyone could think this argument holds any water. If you pay for private, you still have to live somewhere. Can’t believe that needs to be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No primary school education is worth over $30,000. No secondary education is worth over $40,000.

I’m a product a huge ( good) FCPS high school. I had a great experience, but there is no contest between that school and my kid’s elite private.
Don’t kid yourself.

Yeah, but there's no way around the downsides of spending your adolescence in an elite private no matter how excellent the academics are. Don't kid yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No primary school education is worth over $30,000. No secondary education is worth over $40,000.

I’m a product a huge ( good) FCPS high school. I had a great experience, but there is no contest between that school and my kid’s elite private.
Don’t kid yourself.

What truly makes your kid’s school worth the $40,000 price tag?