Private schools are indefensible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Average students aren’t the problem. Disruptive students are. And disruptive students, in my experience, are swiftly ejected from private school classrooms.

And chuckle right back atcha if you think that teachers in public schools don’t see some messed up, entitled parents. I bet there are some stories that the Churchill teachers’ lounge walls could tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Average students aren’t the problem. Disruptive students are. And disruptive students, in my experience, are swiftly ejected from private school classrooms.

And chuckle right back atcha if you think that teachers in public schools don’t see some messed up, entitled parents. I bet there are some stories that the Churchill teachers’ lounge walls could tell.

Average students actually benefit the most from even lower tier private schools. The superstars will succeed no matter what. In public school, all of the focus is on the top and the very bottom. Average students don't count and get no attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Wow, you clearly have never been in a public school classroom. I taught in one for 10 years. Literally ALL our attention and effort is on two things - students struggling academically who are a year or more behind, and students with major behavior problems that are so disruptive they prevent learning for the other 30 people in the room (30!). That does not happen in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Wow, you clearly have never been in a public school classroom. I taught in one for 10 years. Literally ALL our attention and effort is on two things - students struggling academically who are a year or more behind, and students with major behavior problems that are so disruptive they prevent learning for the other 30 people in the room (30!). That does not happen in private.

I actually have been in a public school classroom and cole from a family of educators. I also have a cousin that has been a principle and is now a superintendent. What you wrote couldn’t be furthest from the truth. But I understand, people will have to find ways to rationalize spending $35,000 - $50,000+ a year on private school for their 8 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Average students aren’t the problem. Disruptive students are. And disruptive students, in my experience, are swiftly ejected from private school classrooms.

And chuckle right back atcha if you think that teachers in public schools don’t see some messed up, entitled parents. I bet there are some stories that the Churchill teachers’ lounge walls could tell.

Average students actually benefit the most from even lower tier private schools. The superstars will succeed no matter what. In public school, all of the focus is on the top and the very bottom. Average students don't count and get no attention.

Now this is something I agree with!

The person saying that public schools only focus on kids at the bottom is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Wow, you clearly have never been in a public school classroom. I taught in one for 10 years. Literally ALL our attention and effort is on two things - students struggling academically who are a year or more behind, and students with major behavior problems that are so disruptive they prevent learning for the other 30 people in the room (30!). That does not happen in private.

I actually have been in a public school classroom and cole from a family of educators. I also have a cousin that has been a principle and is now a superintendent. What you wrote couldn’t be furthest from the truth. But I understand, people will have to find ways to rationalize spending $35,000 - $50,000+ a year on private school for their 8 year olds.

Well okay, since you say so.

Look, the people paying for private schools — only some of which cost as much as you are frothing about — either have plenty of money and can afford it, or they barely have enough money but it’s a priority to them and they make tradeoffs, or (like my family) they can’t afford and get financial aid.

You clearly don’t think it’s worth it. That’s fine. Why are you hanging out here to harangue people who do think it’s worth it? I’m sure you spend your money in ways that seem foolish to other people. In fact, I’m certain that you consume something that someone else would consider a luxury good.

That article was so stupid. How long did it take her to come up with the earth-shattering premise that private schools are luxury good? And that not everybody can afford them? And that plenty of people who consume luxury goods care about equity? MacKenzie Scott gave away almost $6b last year, and yet I promise you she doesn’t live in a shack.

If the premise is that no luxury goods should exist, then be honest and admit it’s what you’re saying. Are you just as upset about the existence of a Mercedes dealership as you are about Sidwell? Are you just as eager to convince everyone that Mercedes actually aren’t that great and that anyone who buys one is a fool? If Mercedes says “we will not tolerate racism among our staff, and will fire anyone who acts in a racist manner” are they just being hypocritical, because equity or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in the lesser privates, the gap is significant. As a student, teacher, and now parent that has gone back and forth between public and private (but not elite privates), I still see a big difference. Chiefly it's that the publics spend most of their time dealing with govt bureaucracy and difficult students, while privates do neither of those things. Without having to cowtow to govt mandates and without classrooms full of seriously disturbed students who won't let anyone else learn, privates can actually.....teach.

The elite privates just have to kowtow to seriously disturbed parents, according to the article.

Exactly. I’m literally chuckling at the “public schools can’t teach because of bad students” lmao

Most students are average whether they’re in public or private.

Wow, you clearly have never been in a public school classroom. I taught in one for 10 years. Literally ALL our attention and effort is on two things - students struggling academically who are a year or more behind, and students with major behavior problems that are so disruptive they prevent learning for the other 30 people in the room (30!). That does not happen in private.

I actually have been in a public school classroom and cole from a family of educators. I also have a cousin that has been a principle and is now a superintendent. What you wrote couldn’t be furthest from the truth. But I understand, people will have to find ways to rationalize spending $35,000 - $50,000+ a year on private school for their 8 year olds.

Well okay, since you say so.

Look, the people paying for private schools — only some of which cost as much as you are frothing about — either have plenty of money and can afford it, or they barely have enough money but it’s a priority to them and they make tradeoffs, or (like my family) they can’t afford and get financial aid.

You clearly don’t think it’s worth it. That’s fine. Why are you hanging out here to harangue people who do think it’s worth it? I’m sure you spend your money in ways that seem foolish to other people. In fact, I’m certain that you consume something that someone else would consider a luxury good.

That article was so stupid. How long did it take her to come up with the earth-shattering premise that private schools are luxury good? And that not everybody can afford them? And that plenty of people who consume luxury goods care about equity? MacKenzie Scott gave away almost $6b last year, and yet I promise you she doesn’t live in a shack.

If the premise is that no luxury goods should exist, then be honest and admit it’s what you’re saying. Are you just as upset about the existence of a Mercedes dealership as you are about Sidwell? Are you just as eager to convince everyone that Mercedes actually aren’t that great and that anyone who buys one is a fool? If Mercedes says “we will not tolerate racism among our staff, and will fire anyone who acts in a racist manner” are they just being hypocritical, because equity or something?

I never said private schools aren’t worth it. I support both public AND private schools. It’s presumptuous of you to think I don’t support private schools. All I said was the majority of children in private schools are average. And the majority of children in public schools are average. The majority of human beings sin the world are average.

I’m just sick of the “children in private schools are SOOO much better” when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

[Anonymous]

Lol. Okay, in general, we agree. Kids are kids. However, it is factually true that some schools that have hard cut offs for standardized tests. I had an admissions director tell me that they only consider kids who score in the 85th %ile or above - now, that’s not all private schools. And you can certainly argue as to the meaning of such tests. But it definitely does mean that some schools only have kids within a narrower band of (at minimum) test-taking ability.

Of course it’s absurd to describe such children as “better”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a really great analogy.

Agree, and just to carry it a bit further, don't forget that a luxury car owner may make a donations to the dealership, entitling the owner to a tax deduction and deluxe service.

Wait, are you all implying that the elite deliberately keep (some of) the public schools crappy just so they can feel more special? The elite DO NOT NOTICE OR CARE ABOUT YOU. They don’t have to. This thread is bananas.

NP- yes, someone please explain this. How does this analogy even work? The nicest of metro buses will not ever take the shine away from top privates and what parents are seeking there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Do you think taking away their private schools is going to change that? Do you think people BECOME members of the elite class by attending elite schools, or do you think that a school becomes elite because members of the elite class choose to send their children there?

The thing that surprised me the most was that these schools are offering way more advanced classes-- advanced math, organic chemistry. If kids are taking those courses, then kudos to them. I'd love a country run by people good at math who understand science. I mean, you think of it just being entitled rich lazy kids like the Trumps, but this, this I'll take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Do you think taking away their private schools is going to change that? Do you think people BECOME members of the elite class by attending elite schools, or do you think that a school becomes elite because members of the elite class choose to send their children there?

The thing that surprised me the most was that these schools are offering way more advanced classes-- advanced math, organic chemistry. If kids are taking those courses, then kudos to them. I'd love a country run by people good at math who understand science. I mean, you think of it just being entitled rich lazy kids like the Trumps, but this, this I'll take.

This is peak liberalism. "I'm okay with hierarchy, I just want it science-y!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Do you think taking away their private schools is going to change that? Do you think people BECOME members of the elite class by attending elite schools, or do you think that a school becomes elite because members of the elite class choose to send their children there?

The thing that surprised me the most was that these schools are offering way more advanced classes-- advanced math, organic chemistry. If kids are taking those courses, then kudos to them. I'd love a country run by people good at math who understand science. I mean, you think of it just being entitled rich lazy kids like the Trumps, but this, this I'll take.

This is peak liberalism. "I'm okay with hierarchy, I just want it science-y!"

Your spite has rendered you incoherent.

[Anonymous]

The author of this article worked at an elite private school in LA, sent her kids there and her father worked there - add that to the mix!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You should care about it because these are the folks who in many ways end up running the country on so many levels and make decisions that will directly affect you and your family

Do you think taking away their private schools is going to change that? Do you think people BECOME members of the elite class by attending elite schools, or do you think that a school becomes elite because members of the elite class choose to send their children there?

The thing that surprised me the most was that these schools are offering way more advanced classes-- advanced math, organic chemistry. If kids are taking those courses, then kudos to them. I'd love a country run by people good at math who understand science. I mean, you think of it just being entitled rich lazy kids like the Trumps, but this, this I'll take.

This is peak liberalism. "I'm okay with hierarchy, I just want it science-y!"

could you explain how this is peak liberalism?