Why racial segregation is unacceptable but socioeconomic segregation is ok in private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am new to dc and I noticed the stark difference between the two types of segregation. Private schools are happy if they are racially diverse, but not so happy to be diverse in terms of socioeconomic groups. If find this attitude a bit schizophrenic. Do you think this is ok?

I don’t try to dictate how other people spend their money. So yeah, I think it is fine. They are private schools.

Now let’s talk about public schools, where as a taxpayer, I should have a say. Why aren’t you complaining about the rich vs the poor public schools? Look at any of the DC or close in suburbs. Let’s take Arlington. There is a stark difference between the wealthiest and poorest schools.

Arlington literally has a dividing line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the private schools have too much socioeconomic diversity. Their annual financial aid budgets are enormous and there is very little return on these funds.

It would be smart for them to decrease the financial aid budgets and spend that money elsewhere such as academic programming or new facilities that benefits the students.

I 100% disagree.

Of course, you probably depend on financial aid handouts. The grift of financial aid is real. People argue about inequality when they really just want other people’s money.

You already have access to public education but you want to turn that down so wealthy donors can pay for you to attend a country club type of school instead. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Aren’t the whole point of private schools so people can avoid a certain kind of kid? Of course racial diversity can be “acceptable” if that kid can fit into a certain mold… but many private school parents send their kids to avoid a specific type of kid (most always from a very poor background and likely abusive home). People openly admit this on DCUM because it’s anonymous. People threaten to move all the time to escape specific schools that have a lot of at risk kids. The annoying part of all of it are the people who claim to care about equity and equality and virtue signal about it but then don’t walk the walk. I know too many of them.

[Anonymous]

This question was ridiculous and not worth all the analysis. I’m going to go be productive with my day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question was ridiculous and not worth all the analysis. I’m going to go be productive with my day.

Yeah, we will totally miss you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question was ridiculous and not worth all the analysis. I’m going to go be productive with my day.

This. OP is trying to make some grad point, but it's obtuse.

She should go back to civics and econ class and get a better grip on the problem that's actually needling her (ie, widened income distribution due to inflated asset values).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question was ridiculous and not worth all the analysis. I’m going to go be productive with my day.

This. OP is trying to make some grad point, but it's obtuse.

She should go back to civics and econ class and get a better grip on the problem that's actually needling her (ie, widened income distribution due to inflated asset values).

* grand, not grad

[Anonymous]

Religious schools are also an acceptable form of segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools are dependent upon tuition and philanthropy, not taxpayer dollars. How would OP propose funding a private school in a manner substantially differently than the current method? Around 25% of students receive financial aid, largely through the philanthropy of other parents and legacy endowments. The only way to be economically more inclusive would be to grow the financial aid pool, reduce tuition (though tuition only covers 80-90% of the cost at most schools) or sprinkle fairy dust.

I think what OP is pointing out is the hypocrisy.

Tell me, who amongst humans is not hypocritical in some manner. I have yet to meet anyone. And if you say you or someone you know is - you are naive or a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's not okay, and the people defending it are disgusting. However and unfortunately, it's still socially acceptable to discriminate based on income and education.

Of course it is okay for people buying premium products to have to afford them. I don’t complain about the lack of diversity at my vacation resort that costs over $1k per night.

Whatever issues you have with public education, focus on that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it hypocritical to have a racially diverse student body that is disproportionately wealthy?

No. It’s to be expected. Does it state anywhere that people pretend to want SES mixing? Isn’t that why people move to “good” public schools too - with neighborhoods that are relatively homogenous? We all want better education for our children and pay in one way or another to get it.

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues, or feelings that one does not actually possess, often characterized by behavior that contradicts stated principles. It involves insincerity, such as condemning a behavior in others while practicing it oneself. Examples include people moving to public school for higher SES diversity but that school only drawing from a wealthy catchment area.

Who is the real hypocrite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Housing is still largely segregated in this city and so even many of the public schools -- even the one our child attended -- may be segregated socioeconomically or otherwise. If you are looking for recommendations for charter or DCPS schools with diversity along both economic and racial lines, there are some and I am certain people can help you identify them. Garrison Elementary and Washington Latin immediately come to mind. Some Catholic schools may also fit the bill. Given the cost to attend private school it simply will be unattainable for many and therefore exclusionary. Good luck in your search!

Yes but then segregation is along different lines - like high IQ or people who feel a classical Latin based education is better.

At work they talk about diversity - and I always thought it was hypocritical that we only hired people with MS+. Real diversity would include dropouts in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the private schools have too much socioeconomic diversity. Their annual financial aid budgets are enormous and there is very little return on these funds.

It would be smart for them to decrease the financial aid budgets and spend that money elsewhere such as academic programming or new facilities that benefits the students.

I 100% disagree.

Of course, you probably depend on financial aid handouts. The grift of financial aid is real. People argue about inequality when they really just want other people’s money.

You already have access to public education but you want to turn that down so wealthy donors can pay for you to attend a country club type of school instead. Got it.

Wow you are angry, aren't you. I could afford my kids' private school and your kids' and not even have it affect me in any meaningful way. You are kidding yourself if you don't see that the people winning at private schools are the admin getting high 6 figure salaries. Why don't they use that money to benefit the students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP brings up a valid point that DCUM liberals like to ignore so that they can appear virtuous while perpetuating economic inequality.

Have you read the posts here. No many are pretending it’s diverse. Plus we all know most scholarship kids are connected to the school (eg teacher’s kids) or an extremely good athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its very simple. Why it is ok to advertise racial diversity metrics (most private schools report that) and no information whatsoever on socioeconomic diversity. For instance how many students from families with a salary under 100k receive aid. It would be interesting to know more about that data. But of course, many people would not like to know about that.

I haven’t seen this for publics unless they are fighting to be title 1. They absolutely do publish racial diversity at both. What’s your point?