If you send your kid to private school you are a bad person.

[Anonymous]

This is the title of an opinion piece from Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

The gist of the article is that parents should be willing to sacrifice the education of their own children to support the public schools, so that in future generations education will be more equitable for everyone.

[Anonymous]

I don't have time this morning to read the article, but I am already supporting the public schools via tax dollars and have been for 20 years. Tens of thousands of dollars . . . If I choose to layer on another private expensive (Private school) on top of everything I am already being taxed for, how does that harm future generations? - private and public parent.

[Anonymous]

If I thought the sacrifice would actually help future generations, I'd do it. Unfortunately, PG schools seem to be led my incompetent morons, and no amount of sacrifice could overcome the damage they are doing to our future. Also, the parents in PG support these morons, and would not be receptive my contributions from me anyway.

[Anonymous]

Do you have any idea how much it cost to educate all those additional students if there were no private schools?

[Anonymous]

Oh, Slate. So very wrong, so very often.

[Anonymous]

Read the Red State.com article where she admits that she and her husbsnd had to stop funding their retirement accounts and "couldn't wait" until their child was out of private preschool -- so they could get back to normal levels of discretionary income. Also note that her husbsnd is a writer and barfed this screed LAST year that private schools "should be banned.".

1. She is her husband's puppet posing as a thought provacateur.

2. They're moderate income writers who couldn't afford to send kids to private ***even if they wanted to.****

3. This is sour grapes.

3.5 They remind me of a lot of parents on the Hill who pretend to eschew private school as elitist but are actually hiding the fact that it's not even a decision they could make for themselves -- it's been made for them since they make $130,000k a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the Red State.com article where she admits that she and her husbsnd had to stop funding their retirement accounts and "couldn't wait" until their child was out of private preschool -- so they could get back to normal levels of discretionary income. Also note that her husbsnd is a writer and barfed this screed LAST year that private schools "should be banned.".

1. She is her husband's puppet posing as a thought provacateur.

2. They're moderate income writers who couldn't afford to send kids to private ***even if they wanted to.****

3. This is sour grapes.

3.5 They remind me of a lot of parents on the Hill who pretend to eschew private school as elitist but are actually hiding the fact that it's not even a decision they could make for themselves -- it's been made for them since they make $130,000k a year.

Defensive much? It sure looks like you're saying:

1. Private schools are for rich people, not writers.
1a. The writers and their ilk can suck it.
1b. This is about the writers' sour grapes, not societal values.
2. Because it's all about the $$$$, there is no validity to any of her points re societal values.

[Anonymous]

The flaws in this article are many:

1) By NOT sending kids to public schools, you free up funds for those who do.

2) No parent, anywhere, will "sacrifice" (if they see it as such) their kid if they can avoid it. It's human nature.

3) Schools are local - higher SES kids generally live in better school districts. Increasing the population of those schools does nothing to help the kids in the poorer areas.

[Anonymous]

My read on the article that there was an intersting mix of tongue-in-cheek and honest appraisal. I think too many of you have taken a literalist approach to the piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The flaws in this article are many:

1) By NOT sending kids to public schools, you free up funds for those who do.

2) No parent, anywhere, will "sacrifice" (if they see it as such) their kid if they can avoid it. It's human nature.

3) Schools are local - higher SES kids generally live in better school districts. Increasing the population of those schools does nothing to help the kids in the poorer areas.

#2 is where I think the author is completely delusional. It's in our DNA to want to do well by our offspring. It's foolhardy to think that people should/would sacrifice the well being of their children for the presumably better good of society 2 or 3 generations out.

[Anonymous]

I read the article this AM and just assumed that she had no children.

[Anonymous]

The teachers unions are the problem. Dumping more kids into the schools won't help, but it would probably increase the disparity among schools in wealthy neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

i may be a bad person, but it has nothing to do with sending my kid to private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The teachers unions are the problem. Dumping more kids into the schools won't help, but it would probably increase the disparity among schools in wealthy neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.

Unions aren't a problem at all. Spineless politicians and school boards that pander to unreasonable unions may be.

Even if that's the case in a particular jurisdiction, that's only a fraction of the issue. Poverty and its myriad impacts on every aspect of life is a much bigger concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The teachers unions are the problem. Dumping more kids into the schools won't help, but it would probably increase the disparity among schools in wealthy neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.

If teachers' unions are the problem, then the weaker the teachers' unions, the better the schools, right?

Just look at how great the schools are in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas!

No, wait...

http://www.edexcellence.net/assets/images/other_images/how-strong-are-us-teacher-unions-map.png