Private schools are indefensible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

[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!"

Love this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, they can't, because this poster just explodes into a confetti storm of LIBERAL!!! HYPOCRISY!!1!! FURY!!! whenever they touch a keyboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So you've come to this private school discussion board to... save our children? Thanks, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So you've come to this private school discussion board to... save our children? Thanks, I guess.

I'm interested in the welfare of ALL kids. I came to this thread through the "recent topics" list, having clicked on it because I read the Flanagan piece. Even some of us plebeians read The Atlantic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So you've come to this private school discussion board to... save our children? Thanks, I guess.

I'm interested in the welfare of ALL kids. I came to this thread through the "recent topics" list, having clicked on it because I read the Flanagan piece. Even some of us plebeians read The Atlantic.

Wow. That's quite a chip you've got on your shoulder.

And, uh, thanks for being concerned about the welfare of private school students and their ruined prospects from a lack of resilience etc. It's kind of you to lay out for us the path of our children's future destruction. Please consider your job thoroughly accomplished. Good day, sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So my son will graduate from a private all-boys middle school this spring and matriculate at an elite Catholic all-boys school in the fall. He is accustomed to doing 3-4 hours of homework a night in middle school, and he plays sports for his school (required) and plays for his club lacrosse team. In eighth grade, he is taking Latin and high school level algebra. We cannot, as parents help him with any of those subjects, so he is on his own. He has flourished and is a straight A student. We gave him a choice to attend his current school and his choice of high school. He chooses to play club lacrosse. He just happens to love his school and love lacrosse. We do not make him go to his current school, his future high school and play sports. Those were all his choices. We do not do anything other than pay the bills and provide encouragement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So my son will graduate from a private all-boys middle school this spring and matriculate at an elite Catholic all-boys school in the fall. He is accustomed to doing 3-4 hours of homework a night in middle school, and he plays sports for his school (required) and plays for his club lacrosse team. In eighth grade, he is taking Latin and high school level algebra. We cannot, as parents help him with any of those subjects, so he is on his own. He has flourished and is a straight A student. We gave him a choice to attend his current school and his choice of high school. He chooses to play club lacrosse. He just happens to love his school and love lacrosse. We do not make him go to his current school, his future high school and play sports. Those were all his choices. We do not do anything other than pay the bills and provide encouragement.

Look, quite a few people have a lot emotionally invested in believing that there must be a terrible flaw in private schools they can’t afford. Feels like poetic justice, right? So you’re never going to convince PP that your son is not, in fact, being damaged by private school.

We’re a FA family at one of those elite schools, so I can see it from both sides. And I’ll say this: whether it’s “worth it” depends on the school itself, what your other options are, and what tradeoffs (if any) you’re making to afford it. Some schools are worth it and some aren’t. Some public schools provide a great education and some don’t. It’s stupid and meaningless to make sweeping statements about what private schools do and don’t teach, or problems that public schools do or don’t have.

The title article was designed to inflame and outrage, and it accomplished that. It said absolutely nothing new, surprising, or (imo) insightful. But it got some people super riled up, which I guess was the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So my son will graduate from a private all-boys middle school this spring and matriculate at an elite Catholic all-boys school in the fall. He is accustomed to doing 3-4 hours of homework a night in middle school, and he plays sports for his school (required) and plays for his club lacrosse team. In eighth grade, he is taking Latin and high school level algebra. We cannot, as parents help him with any of those subjects, so he is on his own. He has flourished and is a straight A student. We gave him a choice to attend his current school and his choice of high school. He chooses to play club lacrosse. He just happens to love his school and love lacrosse. We do not make him go to his current school, his future high school and play sports. Those were all his choices. We do not do anything other than pay the bills and provide encouragement.

I’m sorry, what does this have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So you've come to this private school discussion board to... save our children? Thanks, I guess.

I'm interested in the welfare of ALL kids. I came to this thread through the "recent topics" list, having clicked on it because I read the Flanagan piece. Even some of us plebeians read The Atlantic.

Wow. That's quite a chip you've got on your shoulder.

And, uh, thanks for being concerned about the welfare of private school students and their ruined prospects from a lack of resilience etc. It's kind of you to lay out for us the path of our children's future destruction. Please consider your job thoroughly accomplished. Good day, sir.

It was a joke. I thought it was fitting that you were annoyed by your forum having interlopers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One of the great ironies of our current mess is that the richer kids are generally doing worse, psychologically, than the more middle class ones. (For more on this read Madeline Levine, Suniya Luthar, Self-Driven Kid by Stixrud & Johnson, studies like this: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012963 )

The mentality that is at the heart of the decision to send most kids to elite private schools is at the heart of this dynamic. The irony is intense: Kids actually do better when they have an opportunity to develop resilience (and even, as I tell my own public school kids, to tolerate boredom and adversity). The more we do for our kids, the less they learn to do--and the cushier we make it, the less able they are to tolerate life, and the more likely they are to struggle with anxiety and other mental health problems in adulthood.

So my son will graduate from a private all-boys middle school this spring and matriculate at an elite Catholic all-boys school in the fall. He is accustomed to doing 3-4 hours of homework a night in middle school, and he plays sports for his school (required) and plays for his club lacrosse team. In eighth grade, he is taking Latin and high school level algebra. We cannot, as parents help him with any of those subjects, so he is on his own. He has flourished and is a straight A student. We gave him a choice to attend his current school and his choice of high school. He chooses to play club lacrosse. He just happens to love his school and love lacrosse. We do not make him go to his current school, his future high school and play sports. Those were all his choices. We do not do anything other than pay the bills and provide encouragement.

Look, quite a few people have a lot emotionally invested in believing that there must be a terrible flaw in private schools they can’t afford. Feels like poetic justice, right? So you’re never going to convince PP that your son is not, in fact, being damaged by private school.

We’re a FA family at one of those elite schools, so I can see it from both sides. And I’ll say this: whether it’s “worth it” depends on the school itself, what your other options are, and what tradeoffs (if any) you’re making to afford it. Some schools are worth it and some aren’t. Some public schools provide a great education and some don’t. It’s stupid and meaningless to make sweeping statements about what private schools do and don’t teach, or problems that public schools do or don’t have.

The title article was designed to inflame and outrage, and it accomplished that. It said absolutely nothing new, surprising, or (imo) insightful. But it got some people super riled up, which I guess was the point.

DP. Hhi is 500k. Although this would qualify us as poors at many elite schools we could in fact afford them. But ick.

[Anonymous]

This is hysterical.
I don’t really need the sympathy, condemnation, or fake concern of any of you all.

Haven’t you noticed that people will do literally ANYTHING to improve their children’s lives? If we can afford a better educational environment for our kids, or convince someone else to foot the bill, we are going to do it. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is hysterical.
I don’t really need the sympathy, condemnation, or fake concern of any of you all.

Haven’t you noticed that people will do literally ANYTHING to improve their children’s lives? If we can afford a better educational environment for our kids, or convince someone else to foot the bill, we are going to do it. Period.

Kk. But way to totally miss the point of past few posters - namely that this nonsense not good for kids and also that many people who can afford therefore don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hysterical.
I don’t really need the sympathy, condemnation, or fake concern of any of you all.

Haven’t you noticed that people will do literally ANYTHING to improve their children’s lives? If we can afford a better educational environment for our kids, or convince someone else to foot the bill, we are going to do it. Period.

Kk. But way to totally miss the point of past few posters - namely that this nonsense not good for kids and also that many people who can afford therefore don’t.

No, I got the point and MY point is that my kids are doing great. Way better than they were in public k-5. It is a much better environment for them. I’m sure there are happy and unhappy kids at every school.

[Anonymous]

Apologies if I missed this somewhere but one question that has bugged me in thinking about these issues (have young children who will enter school in a couple years): is there any evidence that rich parents sending their kids to their local public makes the local public better? Would love to see evidence that isn’t just anecdotal.