Can we afford private?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We did public for elementary, private for middle and are on the fence about high school. Private for middle has been great-- kids have such particular needs at that age and a good middle school program for us has been priceless. Our child actually loves school-- it's so weird. Who loves 7th grade? I certainly didn't. That said we are agonizing over the expense for high school. We too "can afford it" but we'd be giving up so much buying power in terms of college savings, extra retirement padding, etc. It kind of makes it impossible for us to have wiggle room concerning our jobs. But now that private middle was such a good experience we've gotten a bit hooked on finding something that good for high school.

Mind saying what private you chose for middle? We are considering a similar plan. Totally agree middle school seems like the highest value time to go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:41 again, let me add to the above.
Private: bad teachers (who smile), bad curriculum (never age appropriate, often pulled out of the air), too many holidays, too little class time (because of all the specials).
Public: little challenge, little attention, too much academic time, too little down time, too strict, boring (but if they have noting to compare it too that is OK).

I continue to be amazed that people take their experience at a single private school or a single public school and extrapolate across all privates or all publics. Every school is different and every child is different. Go look at all of your options -- public and private -- and see which school among them seems to best fit your child/family. While the PP thinks her child gets too little class time because of the specials, for some people, the specials are exactly what make the tuition worthwhile. If you find a school where the specials are well-integrated with the rest of the curriculum, it's just increasing the depth of your child's knowledge about any particular thing.

People have to extrapolate, because there's no study or collection of data. So imperfect imformation is all we have. Visiting and touring doesn't give perfect info either. A large part of it is guessing, but i do appreciate others' experiences.

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo16956223.html

These guys have done extensive studies and they came to the conclusion that there is no outcome difference.
They go further to imply that bad public schools are much much better than bad private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:41 again, let me add to the above.
Private: bad teachers (who smile), bad curriculum (never age appropriate, often pulled out of the air), too many holidays, too little class time (because of all the specials).
Public: little challenge, little attention, too much academic time, too little down time, too strict, boring (but if they have noting to compare it too that is OK).

I continue to be amazed that people take their experience at a single private school or a single public school and extrapolate across all privates or all publics. Every school is different and every child is different. Go look at all of your options -- public and private -- and see which school among them seems to best fit your child/family. While the PP thinks her child gets too little class time because of the specials, for some people, the specials are exactly what make the tuition worthwhile. If you find a school where the specials are well-integrated with the rest of the curriculum, it's just increasing the depth of your child's knowledge about any particular thing.

To clarify, two public schools. Two private schools. Yes, sweeping, but Op understands that this is a forum of regular folks.

[Anonymous]

Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

I read that one, but didn't it say at they did not include independent schools? So, it's not really applicable to the crazy expensive supposedly awesome privates we are considering. (Though i would love to believe the same conclusions applies, since we probably can't afford it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

I read that one, but didn't it say at they did not include independent schools? So, it's not really applicable to the crazy expensive supposedly awesome privates we are considering. (Though i would love to believe the same conclusions applies, since we probably can't afford it.)

They did include independent schools. They went right up to the top. They compared the Whitmans with the St. Albans and unfortunately, there was no difference. When there were differences, the public schools won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

I read that one, but didn't it say at they did not include independent schools? So, it's not really applicable to the crazy expensive supposedly awesome privates we are considering. (Though i would love to believe the same conclusions applies, since we probably can't afford it.)

They did include independent schools. They went right up to the top. They compared the Whitmans with the St. Albans and unfortunately, there was no difference. When there were differences, the public schools won.

I love it! Should read it. Did they say no diff in college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

I read that one, but didn't it say at they did not include independent schools? So, it's not really applicable to the crazy expensive supposedly awesome privates we are considering. (Though i would love to believe the same conclusions applies, since we probably can't afford it.)

They did include independent schools. They went right up to the top. They compared the Whitmans with the St. Albans and unfortunately, there was no difference. When there were differences, the public schools won.

I attended both a top public school and a top private school. There is no way anyone can convince me that there is not a difference. I experienced the difference first-hand. Perhaps I'm not any smarter or didn't score any higher on standardized tests, but I am definitely more confident, happier, well-rounded and a better writer thanks to the experience I had at my independent school. It's a stretch for us financially, but I'll gladly make the sacrifices for our kids to attend private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

I read that one, but didn't it say at they did not include independent schools? So, it's not really applicable to the crazy expensive supposedly awesome privates we are considering. (Though i would love to believe the same conclusions applies, since we probably can't afford it.)

They did include independent schools. They went right up to the top. They compared the Whitmans with the St. Albans and unfortunately, there was no difference. When there were differences, the public schools won.

I attended both a top public school and a top private school. There is no way anyone can convince me that there is not a difference. I experienced the difference first-hand. Perhaps I'm not any smarter or didn't score any higher on standardized tests, but I am definitely more confident, happier, well-rounded and a better writer thanks to the experience I had at my independent school. It's a stretch for us financially, but I'll gladly make the sacrifices for our kids to attend private.

But your experience is anecdotal. They worked with real stats.
You are talking about intangibles. Also, there are kids who are miserable at private schools and public schools, and kids who are happy at private and public. I went to public and had a blast. I also went of an Episcopal school and cried every day. They were mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly cannot figure this out. Our gross hh income is $245k. We have a $2000/month house payment (including property taxes). Car paid off (not fancy, getting old so might need to replace in the next year or two). Student loan payment of $700/month.
We don't take vacations except camping. I am the least fashionable person you'll ever meet, so not much in clothing expenses. We both WOH, so we have a cleaning person come a couple times per month ($250 monthly). Cable, phone, regular utilities. I do occasionally get classes or lessons for the kids as "extras", and piano lessons. So, we don't live extravagently, but we do live very comfortably. We sock away a moderate amount into our TSP, but we haven't started saving for college (though the grandparents have).
We have 2 kids, and live in a good MCPS district, so planned to send our older to public. But now DC seems to be both super bright and also quite shy and sensitive, so we think public might not be a good fit. If we send one to private, I think we will want to send the other as well.
Anyone in similar circumstances? I would hate to start at private and then have to pull DC for financial reasons. But I would hate to have her not like school because of a bad experience in public ES.

Curious where you live that has a good school district but your mortgage is only $2000 a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19:41 again, let me add to the above.
Private: bad teachers (who smile), bad curriculum (never age appropriate, often pulled out of the air), too many holidays, too little class time (because of all the specials).
Public: little challenge, little attention, too much academic time, too little down time, too strict, boring (but if they have noting to compare it too that is OK).

We have one in public and one in private HS level.
Public: is magnet and very stimulating. Far from our home, so a lot of time is wasted in transportation. (Only one accepted)
Private: Much more challenging than the local public. Much less crowded. More opportunities for individual growth. The teachers are overall better. In her public it was very much hit or miss -- maybe on good teacher out of 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

Nice. try comparing exmission from top privates vs top publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing on two recent, large-scale, and nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show that any benefit seen in private school performance now is more than explained by demographics. Private schools have higher scores not because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged backgrounds that offer greater educational support. After correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis go on to show that gains in student achievement at public schools are at least as great and often greater than those at private ones. Even more surprising, they show that the very mechanism that market-based reformers champion—autonomy—may be the crucial factor that prevents private schools from performing better. Alternatively, those practices that these reformers castigate, such as teacher certification and professional reforms of curriculum and instruction, turn out to have a significant effect on school improvement.

Nice. try comparing exmission from top privates vs top publics.

They compared high income kids in public with high income kids in private. If you took all the kids at Whitman, the incomes would be relatively high (maybe a little lower than private). If you took all the kids at NCS and Field, and Visitation, and Burke, and Connelly, the incomes would be high. So that is where you compare. House hold income is the key, not the school. I am sure that if you income matched at DC area private schools with public schools, the outcome would be the same. My point is that there are rich kids who aren't smart enough to get into NCS. If NCS did a cherry picking at Whitman and got a similar group of kids, the outcome would be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo16956223.html

These guys have done extensive studies and they came to the conclusion that there is no outcome difference.
They go further to imply that bad public schools are much much better than bad private schools.

Here's an interview with the authors:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/are-private-schools-worth-it/280693/

[Anonymous]

Why not just apply and see how the finance work out? I think where there is a will there is a way. On your income, I'm sure you can afford even a fairly pricey private school.