Private schools are indefensible

[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?

Sure, liberalism has historically had an egalitarian streak, rooted in the Enlightenment. This is the liberalism of Thomas Paine, Andrew Jackson, Henry George - the liberalism that gave us social security. But there's a competing liberal tendency toward technocracy and meritocracy, not leveling hierarchies, but making sure the competition for the top spots is fair and rigorous. This is the liberalism of Walter Lippmann and Pete Buttigieg - the liberalism that brought us Obamacare and the Vietnam War. The statement that you're okay with elites ruling you as long as they're versed in science and math is peak the second kind of liberalism, though since that's about all that's remaining today it would have been redundant to specify that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And their point is to assert, with great vigor and little evidence, that their children’s schooling is superior to your children’s schooling. Because grit and resilience or something.

It’s just another form of parental competition, except with a veneer of moral superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t know about evidence. But I have first hand experience. We moved from Alexandria to McLean. In our Alexandria local school the kids learn to read in kindergarten and in McLean 60% of kids came into my DD’s class reading fluently and the rest were emergent readers. She was only one of 2 that did not know how to read from the start. Her preschool teacher said she was right on track, since she knew her letters and sounds. Her current preschool teacher said that her McLean school has different expectations than other schools she has taught.

Some of the kids in her class had already completed kindergarten at a private school. I am not sure how many parents in Alexandria could afford to send their kids to private kindergarten. Things are very different, even though we only moved 15 miles away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was disappointed in this article, actually. We are new to private school this year (covid) and have done a lot of hand-wringing over whether moving to, or staying in, private school aligns with our values. So I came to this with an open mind and read the whole thing.

Unfortunately this is just a string of anecdotes about the excesses of very wealthy parents. It does not make arguments against private schools, other than that there's a huge equity problem in education. The author waits until the final paragraphs to acknowledge that public schools are broken, and that in a just society private schools wouldn't need to exist. Another way of saying that is that the school situation is a symptom not the problem.

A better article would have looked like this:
1. The state of public schools is indefensible.
2. The existence of private schools is a response to the state of public schools and, even more, to the inequalities we have created while pretending that merit drives success.
3. Both 1 and 2 are the result of profound disagreements in this country about what school is for, and what we are all obligated to do in support of the public good.

There will always be very wealthy, very demanding parents who provide something different for their kids -- in the old days, these people's children were educated at home with governors and tutors. Their existence doesn't need to affect education policy one way or the other, which is why this article's focus on them is disappointing.

number 2 is demonstrably false. Privates have existed for as long as there have been schools in this country- the oldest literally predate the county.

But also--how do you support the claim that private schools exist as a response to inequality? There are, of course, lots of private schools that were opened for lots of different reasons, religious education being among them. And quite a few were opened for the purpose of educating poor children, or black children, or Native American children (that category, of course, however well intentioned, had devastating effects on Native American families for a very long time). But as a categorical argument? Hardly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there is a strain of that not just regarding education, but a lot of things--housing, healthcare, living wage, and so on. Couched as the idea that people will not strive if things are easier for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there is a strain of that not just regarding education, but a lot of things--housing, healthcare, living wage, and so on. Couched as the idea that people will not strive if things are easier for them.

Honestly, I think whole concept with regard to schooling is a product of public-school-parent paranoia. I don’t know anyone who has kids in private school who wishes for lousy public education in order to make themselves feel fancier. In fact, I’d be far happier if I felt our public school was a sound backup plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there is a strain of that not just regarding education, but a lot of things--housing, healthcare, living wage, and so on. Couched as the idea that people will not strive if things are easier for them.

Honestly, I think whole concept with regard to schooling is a product of public-school-parent paranoia. I don’t know anyone who has kids in private school who wishes for lousy public education in order to make themselves feel fancier. In fact, I’d be far happier if I felt our public school was a sound backup plan.

Absolutely. We all win if all schools are supported and excellent- public, charter, private, magnet, etc. But it is not the responsibility of parents outside of the public school system to do anything besides pay taxes, vote in local referendums that benefit neighborhood school, vote statewide and nationally in a way that prioritizes and funds education and keeps guns out, and keep up the neighborhood of your neighborhood school. And of course buy from any kiddies fundraising. What more is expected? At some point, you do have to point fingers at the DOE, national, state, or local school boards for just sucking at their jobs, basically. I would personally like to see them look to shining examples of non-public success and try to emulate things that have proven effective, rather than feeling like it's the competition and trying to tear them down. It just doesn't make sense.

In any other industry, leaders would strive to do that.

[Anonymous]

So my son will matriculate this Fall in the same “elite” private high school that I graduated from. I live in an incredible school district, but fail to see why, if I have the ability, I should not offer my son every advantage that I had growing up—even if it’s to the exclusion of others. I realize it’s not very egalitarian, but it’s the truth.

[Anonymous]

Indian schools were wrong, in exactly the same way public schools are wrong today.

Inasmuch as there's a 'public good' to a literate society, let literacy schools be funded by tuition and voluntary contributions.

Inasmuch as there's an individual benefit to being educated, let individuals pay for education, or let them promise to pay out of future income.

If there is to be public money spent on educating private individuals, we should fund students, rather than systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So my son will matriculate this Fall in the same “elite” private high school that I graduated from. I live in an incredible school district, but fail to see why, if I have the ability, I should not offer my son every advantage that I had growing up—even if it’s to the exclusion of others. I realize it’s not very egalitarian, but it’s the truth.

Great, well now that we know where you stand on this, we can finally put this thread to rest.

Also, fyi, everyone, Caitlin Flanagan has a new article out about Meghan and Harry. Maybe we can all fight about that now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So my son will matriculate this Fall in the same “elite” private high school that I graduated from. I live in an incredible school district, but fail to see why, if I have the ability, I should not offer my son every advantage that I had growing up—even if it’s to the exclusion of others. I realize it’s not very egalitarian, but it’s the truth.

Just know that sending your kid to an elite school does not guarantee you anything in this new day and age. The world is going to be radically different post covid-19.

[Anonymous]

Why anyone believes anything Caitlin Flanagan writes is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So my son will matriculate this Fall in the same “elite” private high school that I graduated from. I live in an incredible school district, but fail to see why, if I have the ability, I should not offer my son every advantage that I had growing up—even if it’s to the exclusion of others. I realize it’s not very egalitarian, but it’s the truth.

Just know that sending your kid to an elite school does not guarantee you anything in this new day and age. The world is going to be radically different post covid-19.

Well, so far it’s meant that my kid was in person all year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why anyone believes anything Caitlin Flanagan writes is beyond me.

She is Irish