Private schools are indefensible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private school parents should feel uncomfortable about the two tiers of education we are supporting. It is intellectually dishonest to act like we are trying to do anything but give our kids a leg up on the backs of others. Some people shrug and say so what - that’s life and I think that is at least reasonably honest. But to act morally superior because you decided to send your kids to GDS over a more conservative private school is reprehensible. Democrats are in many ways no different than Republicans. Everyone on top wants to preserve the status quo and why wouldn’t they. All she is doing is throwing the curtains open and I think these are uncomfortable truths we all need to face.

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

Whataboutism at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is predictively tiresome to see Caitlin "I'm going to write articles trashing WOHMs for employing nannies while I am a full-time SAHM employing a full-time nanny" Flanagan writing breathy, exaggerated articles about how people other than her are hypocrites.

You can shoot the messenger all you want but the message is still true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private school parents should feel uncomfortable about the two tiers of education we are supporting. It is intellectually dishonest to act like we are trying to do anything but give our kids a leg up on the backs of others. Some people shrug and say so what - that’s life and I think that is at least reasonably honest. But to act morally superior because you decided to send your kids to GDS over a more conservative private school is reprehensible. Democrats are in many ways no different than Republicans. Everyone on top wants to preserve the status quo and why wouldn’t they. All she is doing is throwing the curtains open and I think these are uncomfortable truths we all need to face.

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

There is a huge difference. Not sure how you don’t get it. Like the title of the article - the resources available at the wealthy private school are at an obscene level. As the difference in wealth in society grows bigger and bigger, these schools are able to hoard a vast array of resources for their privileged families. Way more extreme than the comparison between a wealthy public and a poor public. The fancy NE public schools have billion dollar endowments for a student body of approximately 1500 students. I guess if you don’t want to get it, you won’t get it. Much easier to dismiss reality than actually admitting to it.

[Anonymous]

Correction - I meant fancy NE private boarding schools like Andover and Exeter have billion dollar endowments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the author prove that shuttering these schools would in face bring about equity? They need to let us know their plan for after the elimination of all private schools. "Wow, Dalton is closed, voila, equity!"

The author doesn’t call for shuttering anything. Yes, the title of the article is heavy-handed and definitely clickbait, but The Atlantic has to compete in a messy internet landscape to make money. Surely you elite go-getters can understand that.

The author says the "fairest" thing would be for Dalton to padlock their door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there needs to be a place for giving the "intellectual elite" an advanced education at the same time we push for equity. Do we not want a vaccine developed quickly during the next pandemic? Do you not want the technology that is going to replace oil and coal? I don't know if it is this system we have now, but we do need a place to develop those future leaders if our society is going to be able to sustain this push for equity. Poor and suffering societies are not kind or equitable.

Are you assuming that intellectuals only come from private schools? That there are no bright, poor kids? Or bright ELL students? Sounds like this is what you’re saying.

That's what you are saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there needs to be a place for giving the "intellectual elite" an advanced education at the same time we push for equity. Do we not want a vaccine developed quickly during the next pandemic? Do you not want the technology that is going to replace oil and coal? I don't know if it is this system we have now, but we do need a place to develop those future leaders if our society is going to be able to sustain this push for equity. Poor and suffering societies are not kind or equitable.

Haha, this post is a bunch of nonsense. For example, we already have the technology to replace oil and coal, we have had it for DECADES.... why don’t we use it? Does it have anything to do with the so-called “intellectually elite” (read: the wealthy)? Who profits from the status quo? Use that elite brain of yours...

That's a little paranoid for my taste. Is this the Bill Gates vaccine microchip crowd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private school parents should feel uncomfortable about the two tiers of education we are supporting. It is intellectually dishonest to act like we are trying to do anything but give our kids a leg up on the backs of others. Some people shrug and say so what - that’s life and I think that is at least reasonably honest. But to act morally superior because you decided to send your kids to GDS over a more conservative private school is reprehensible. Democrats are in many ways no different than Republicans. Everyone on top wants to preserve the status quo and why wouldn’t they. All she is doing is throwing the curtains open and I think these are uncomfortable truths we all need to face.

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

There is a huge difference. Not sure how you don’t get it. Like the title of the article - the resources available at the wealthy private school are at an obscene level. As the difference in wealth in society grows bigger and bigger, these schools are able to hoard a vast array of resources for their privileged families. Way more extreme than the comparison between a wealthy public and a poor public. The fancy NE public schools have billion dollar endowments for a student body of approximately 1500 students. I guess if you don’t want to get it, you won’t get it. Much easier to dismiss reality than actually admitting to it.

Pointing to a few extremely wealthy boarding schools in no way describes “private schools” in general.

I have, at best, a small dog in this fight. My kid attends a lovely private school on substantial financial aid. Would I love it if our neighborhood school didn’t suck? Of course. But railing against private education isn’t helpful either. If private education didn’t exist than all the wealthy families would just move out of the city and into the suburbs, and the families in my neighborhood would be no better off.

Education isn’t a zero sum game. Improving public schools isn’t something that can only happen at the expense of private schools. If there were no such thing as private schools wealthy families would just cluster at an even smaller number of schools than they do now. The good public schools are already inaccessible to the less-wealthy. Do you really think that banning private schools would make that any different?

I’m just baffled about the claim that these schools are “hoarding resources”. Rich people gonna rich. Closing down private schools won’t change that. There’s not a finite number of teachers, or a finite amount of education. As a society we can make more teachers. We can produce more education. It’s not like you can somehow magically reallocate it from Dalton to wherever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the author prove that shuttering these schools would in face bring about equity? They need to let us know their plan for after the elimination of all private schools. "Wow, Dalton is closed, voila, equity!"

The author doesn’t call for shuttering anything. Yes, the title of the article is heavy-handed and definitely clickbait, but The Atlantic has to compete in a messy internet landscape to make money. Surely you elite go-getters can understand that.

The author says the "fairest" thing would be for Dalton to padlock their door.

She writes: “If these schools really care about equity, all they need to do is get a chain and a padlock and close up shop.” Because we all know the first half of the sentence is absurd, it follows that the second part is, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correction - I meant fancy NE private boarding schools like Andover and Exeter have billion dollar endowments

Andover and Exeter are the exception. The vast majority of private schools are not Andover, Exeter, or the elite NYC day schools.

Someone who sends their kid to Churchill is perpetuating inequality and benefiting from redlining. It’s not defensible.

[Anonymous]

Do people really care about what the truly elite do and have? My life is happy, fulfilling, and meaningful. I’m not struggling and have everything I could want. I could care less that families at these schools have more than I do. It just doesn’t impact me or my kids. Let them live their life. You live your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there needs to be a place for giving the "intellectual elite" an advanced education at the same time we push for equity. Do we not want a vaccine developed quickly during the next pandemic? Do you not want the technology that is going to replace oil and coal? I don't know if it is this system we have now, but we do need a place to develop those future leaders if our society is going to be able to sustain this push for equity. Poor and suffering societies are not kind or equitable.

Haha, this post is a bunch of nonsense. For example, we already have the technology to replace oil and coal, we have had it for DECADES.... why don’t we use it? Does it have anything to do with the so-called “intellectually elite” (read: the wealthy)? Who profits from the status quo? Use that elite brain of yours...

That's a little paranoid for my taste. Is this the Bill Gates vaccine microchip crowd?

No. Just a simple reference concerning the nature of capitalism...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private school parents should feel uncomfortable about the two tiers of education we are supporting. It is intellectually dishonest to act like we are trying to do anything but give our kids a leg up on the backs of others. Some people shrug and say so what - that’s life and I think that is at least reasonably honest. But to act morally superior because you decided to send your kids to GDS over a more conservative private school is reprehensible. Democrats are in many ways no different than Republicans. Everyone on top wants to preserve the status quo and why wouldn’t they. All she is doing is throwing the curtains open and I think these are uncomfortable truths we all need to face.

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

There is a huge difference. Not sure how you don’t get it. Like the title of the article - the resources available at the wealthy private school are at an obscene level. As the difference in wealth in society grows bigger and bigger, these schools are able to hoard a vast array of resources for their privileged families. Way more extreme than the comparison between a wealthy public and a poor public. The fancy NE public schools have billion dollar endowments for a student body of approximately 1500 students. I guess if you don’t want to get it, you won’t get it. Much easier to dismiss reality than actually admitting to it.

There is ZERO difference. So what if Sidwell has a fabulous reclaimed wood Quaker room or whatever the hell the author was complaining about? Rich people waste money on all kinds of overpriced unnecessary nonsense. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

Whataboutism at its finest.

I hear you, but I don't think it's whataboutism in this case – because there are a limited number of options for K-12 education and you're legally required to pick one. It's easy to say that private schools are this moral affront when you have an excellent public school down the street and the resources to choose where you live in the first place.

Our educational system as a whole perpetuates the many social inequities in this country – and while a handful of absurdly well-resourced NY private schools may be emblematic of the problem ... they're not really the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is it more honest to move out to a pricey suburb with high-quality schools? Please explain.

Whataboutism at its finest.

I hear you, but I don't think it's whataboutism in this case – because there are a limited number of options for K-12 education and you're legally required to pick one. It's easy to say that private schools are this moral affront when you have an excellent public school down the street and the resources to choose where you live in the first place.

Our educational system as a whole perpetuates the many social inequities in this country – and while a handful of absurdly well-resourced NY private schools may be emblematic of the problem ... they're not really the problem.

Exactly.