Choosing public even if private is within your budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We chose public although we could afford private. In the K year we applied to a very well-regarded private and DC got in; however, after much thought and consideration we went with public. Years later I am glad we made that choice (and so are our DC). DC got an excellent education at the public schools. Now we're evaluating public vs. private again for one of our DC. The reason is that DC is a good athlete and the local privates have a better athletic program than the local public schools.

From what we've gathered thus far for our particular choices (and keep in mind that this is really a choice between specific private schools and specific public schools, and can't be generalized easily), these are the weighing factors:

1) Facilities and athletics program - private is better.
2) STEM - public is better. DC is in an advanced math class already and based on what we've seen of the private curriculums we've evaluated, we're worried about the quality of the math education in particular. The STEM curriculums seem more shallow than those of the public school from what we've seen so far. (Incidentally, this was less noticeable at the elementary level when we first made this decision but it is much more obvious at the high school level.)
3) Literature, social science, etc. - Private is better. Smaller classes mean more time spent on essays, teaching writing, etc. With respect to curriculums, it's the opposite of STEM (public school curriculum seems more shallow).
4) Social/Character - it's a wash, and probably depends on the kid. Private has fewer kids with overt behavioral problems but more kids who are delicate, demanding, and entitled. Public is more racially and socioeconomically diverse. Private spends more time actively cultivating leadership, service, and expectations of character.
5) Teachers - Private teachers are generally better for literature, social science, etc. Public STEM teachers are better.

I'm not sure what we're going to do. Right now I feel like private would be exchanging a better STEM education for better athletics which doesn't feel like the best choice for a kid who likes STEM. On the other hand, I wonder whether DC would do well in STEM regardless and going to a school that cultivates writing skills would be good since DC is weaker in that area, plus for a kid who loves athletics, a good program can do wonders.

I don't know how helpful that is because your schools are different than my schools but FWIW this is how it breaks down for us.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

I'm curious about this too. I see if often here, but not really any details.

I'm the original quoted PP and I wrote up above about how we determined the difference. Of course that's just for the one public high school we're looking at and the private high schools we're evaluating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I come at this question with a different perspective and struggle with it having 2 kids - ages 6 and 8. My older kid boy would really benefit we think from small class room size and a strong academic structure - he loves school, learning and he works well with structure. My younger kid could find her way out of the desert and I think would be fine anywhere on her own! She is bright and not as much into structure - she can learn so would benefit from a strong academic environment but short of that she is so smart she is going to be fine no matter what.

So here's the different perspective: when I think of education for my kids I take into consideration the question of why is it important for me to have them be in a strong academic environment? Is it because I want them to have the opportunity to do well in school to get into a competitive college, find a career that is mainstream conservative and stable ie CPA, lawyer, doctor, whatever professional white collar career track or am I looking at it from a principle of I want my kids to be "educated?" For me, it's the latter.

I work as a professional recruiter having been a corporate recruiter for top companies like Accenture, Citibank, etc. and I've been a "headhunter" in retained executive search placing senior level talent - CFO, CMO, CIOs at global top tier companies. I've done college recruiting at top MBA and grad schools - I've recruited for lower level customer service/admin positions as well however. What I have discovered is that on the whole, in general, what leads to happy successful people are families that strive to offer a culture of learning for their kids. Different motivations/personalities contribute to how successful/happy anyone is but when I see backgrounds of the top grads - and let me tell you everyone of them has an impressive background - it's all over the place. They come out of public, Catholic, private schools. And not every Harvard MBA is really "smart" in a way that really matters - you would be surprised by how many cannot put a resume or a sentence together! Your ability to get a job is based on so much more than where you went to school. Whether they come out of a private or public education system somewhat matters but what all my successful candidates have in common is the family background they have - they tend to be from very strong families which is not to say a mom, dad, multiple kids - it's close families whether it's a single mom or whatever. The parents spent a lot of time with the kids. Before I had kids I never really thought about it but as a parent now, when I see impressive candidates, I ask them questions about their backgrounds - education, etc. just out of curiosity. I have C level execs who have worked themselves up from community college. I have them out of prep schools too. The professional success of an individual is based on the individual themselves. A top school makes it easier to start higher up the food chain but you have to naturally be a good student to be able to really get through that program and not everyone is a natural student. You can succeed in anything only if you really love it. In the 20 years I've been a recruiter, this is what I've learned.

The other thing I know is that there are in this day and age SO MANY various career choices. So a formal education for me is not where it's at. It's about finding a school environment for my kids that will help them find themselves and maybe that's a bit of public and private at different ages. My kids are today in public and I love the aftercare they receive, I love the diversity and the teachers they have and I love the friendships they've been both able to make. I don't know we'll keep them in public forever but for now, it works.

For me, I want my kids to find something they love to do and do it well. It may or may not require higher education - my oldest is very talented in art and loves it. My daughter is into music. It's impossible at their ages today to predict where they want to be in life but I do hope they are people who are well rounded and have a strong foundation in knowledge - history, foundations of math, science, literature. Beyond that, I'm wanting to teach them how to get along with others in the world and to function within the parameters of society. I personally experienced a blend of private and public schools and enjoyed both. I'm more sensitive by nature and felt more comfortable in private. I will never know but for me, I probably would have gone further in life learning about the intangibles of life had I experienced more private than public but we'll never know and I turned out pretty well What's really important for us is looking at the personalities of our kids and trying to figure out whether the environment of the school we could send them to would contribute to developing their sense of self. The academics is in a way secondary because as parents, we can always hire a tutor or on our own which we do today, do more math, science, reading/writing with them. We can take them on vacations/trips and show them the world and introduce them to new experiences. It's less about academics for us and more about the connections they will make in school - a good teacher is worth their weight in gold.

I personally feel that on the whole the US public education system hands down sucks. The academic bar is set soooo low. BUT I don't feel that it means it's a terrible idea to send your kid to public. Again, it depends on the personality of your kid and what education means to you. Why and how is it important for a formal education to impact your kid and how much time do you spend with your kid? How well do you know your kid and connect with them? The private v. public question is a valid one but I think families have to consider more than just the system and drill down to actual realistic choices of schools and whether they make sense for the kid.

Just want to say thank you so much for this thoughtful analysis and perspective that you shared!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We chose public although we could afford private. In the K year we applied to a very well-regarded private and DC got in; however, after much thought and consideration we went with public. Years later I am glad we made that choice (and so are our DC). DC got an excellent education at the public schools. Now we're evaluating public vs. private again for one of our DC. The reason is that DC is a good athlete and the local privates have a better athletic program than the local public schools.

From what we've gathered thus far for our particular choices (and keep in mind that this is really a choice between specific private schools and specific public schools, and can't be generalized easily), these are the weighing factors:

1) Facilities and athletics program - private is better.
2) STEM - public is better. DC is in an advanced math class already and based on what we've seen of the private curriculums we've evaluated, we're worried about the quality of the math education in particular. The STEM curriculums seem more shallow than those of the public school from what we've seen so far. (Incidentally, this was less noticeable at the elementary level when we first made this decision but it is much more obvious at the high school level.)
3) Literature, social science, etc. - Private is better. Smaller classes mean more time spent on essays, teaching writing, etc. With respect to curriculums, it's the opposite of STEM (public school curriculum seems more shallow).
4) Social/Character - it's a wash, and probably depends on the kid. Private has fewer kids with overt behavioral problems but more kids who are delicate, demanding, and entitled. Public is more racially and socioeconomically diverse. Private spends more time actively cultivating leadership, service, and expectations of character.
5) Teachers - Private teachers are generally better for literature, social science, etc. Public STEM teachers are better.

I'm not sure what we're going to do. Right now I feel like private would be exchanging a better STEM education for better athletics which doesn't feel like the best choice for a kid who likes STEM. On the other hand, I wonder whether DC would do well in STEM regardless and going to a school that cultivates writing skills would be good since DC is weaker in that area, plus for a kid who loves athletics, a good program can do wonders.

I don't know how helpful that is because your schools are different than my schools but FWIW this is how it breaks down for us.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

NP. I am an engineering PhD and do quite a bit of STEM volunteering in high schools. From observing the kids, I have honestly been blown away by the depth of knowledge of high achieving public school kids in math - far above where I was at that age. You try t explain fluid dynamics or something and a sizeable percentage of the (AP) class can understand the basics of the equations you are showing them. I have also been to some well regarded (I think) area privates and while the kids are no doubt smart, their math is just not at the same level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come at this question with a different perspective and struggle with it having 2 kids - ages 6 and 8. My older kid boy would really benefit we think from small class room size and a strong academic structure - he loves school, learning and he works well with structure. My younger kid could find her way out of the desert and I think would be fine anywhere on her own! She is bright and not as much into structure - she can learn so would benefit from a strong academic environment but short of that she is so smart she is going to be fine no matter what.

So here's the different perspective: when I think of education for my kids I take into consideration the question of why is it important for me to have them be in a strong academic environment? Is it because I want them to have the opportunity to do well in school to get into a competitive college, find a career that is mainstream conservative and stable ie CPA, lawyer, doctor, whatever professional white collar career track or am I looking at it from a principle of I want my kids to be "educated?" For me, it's the latter.

I work as a professional recruiter having been a corporate recruiter for top companies like Accenture, Citibank, etc. and I've been a "headhunter" in retained executive search placing senior level talent - CFO, CMO, CIOs at global top tier companies. I've done college recruiting at top MBA and grad schools - I've recruited for lower level customer service/admin positions as well however. What I have discovered is that on the whole, in general, what leads to happy successful people are families that strive to offer a culture of learning for their kids. Different motivations/personalities contribute to how successful/happy anyone is but when I see backgrounds of the top grads - and let me tell you everyone of them has an impressive background - it's all over the place. They come out of public, Catholic, private schools. And not every Harvard MBA is really "smart" in a way that really matters - you would be surprised by how many cannot put a resume or a sentence together! Your ability to get a job is based on so much more than where you went to school. Whether they come out of a private or public education system somewhat matters but what all my successful candidates have in common is the family background they have - they tend to be from very strong families which is not to say a mom, dad, multiple kids - it's close families whether it's a single mom or whatever. The parents spent a lot of time with the kids. Before I had kids I never really thought about it but as a parent now, when I see impressive candidates, I ask them questions about their backgrounds - education, etc. just out of curiosity. I have C level execs who have worked themselves up from community college. I have them out of prep schools too. The professional success of an individual is based on the individual themselves. A top school makes it easier to start higher up the food chain but you have to naturally be a good student to be able to really get through that program and not everyone is a natural student. You can succeed in anything only if you really love it. In the 20 years I've been a recruiter, this is what I've learned.

The other thing I know is that there are in this day and age SO MANY various career choices. So a formal education for me is not where it's at. It's about finding a school environment for my kids that will help them find themselves and maybe that's a bit of public and private at different ages. My kids are today in public and I love the aftercare they receive, I love the diversity and the teachers they have and I love the friendships they've been both able to make. I don't know we'll keep them in public forever but for now, it works.

For me, I want my kids to find something they love to do and do it well. It may or may not require higher education - my oldest is very talented in art and loves it. My daughter is into music. It's impossible at their ages today to predict where they want to be in life but I do hope they are people who are well rounded and have a strong foundation in knowledge - history, foundations of math, science, literature. Beyond that, I'm wanting to teach them how to get along with others in the world and to function within the parameters of society. I personally experienced a blend of private and public schools and enjoyed both. I'm more sensitive by nature and felt more comfortable in private. I will never know but for me, I probably would have gone further in life learning about the intangibles of life had I experienced more private than public but we'll never know and I turned out pretty well What's really important for us is looking at the personalities of our kids and trying to figure out whether the environment of the school we could send them to would contribute to developing their sense of self. The academics is in a way secondary because as parents, we can always hire a tutor or on our own which we do today, do more math, science, reading/writing with them. We can take them on vacations/trips and show them the world and introduce them to new experiences. It's less about academics for us and more about the connections they will make in school - a good teacher is worth their weight in gold.

I personally feel that on the whole the US public education system hands down sucks. The academic bar is set soooo low. BUT I don't feel that it means it's a terrible idea to send your kid to public. Again, it depends on the personality of your kid and what education means to you. Why and how is it important for a formal education to impact your kid and how much time do you spend with your kid? How well do you know your kid and connect with them? The private v. public question is a valid one but I think families have to consider more than just the system and drill down to actual realistic choices of schools and whether they make sense for the kid.

Just want to say thank you so much for this thoughtful analysis and perspective that you shared!

Ditto. +1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We chose public although we could afford private. In the K year we applied to a very well-regarded private and DC got in; however, after much thought and consideration we went with public. Years later I am glad we made that choice (and so are our DC). DC got an excellent education at the public schools. Now we're evaluating public vs. private again for one of our DC. The reason is that DC is a good athlete and the local privates have a better athletic program than the local public schools.

From what we've gathered thus far for our particular choices (and keep in mind that this is really a choice between specific private schools and specific public schools, and can't be generalized easily), these are the weighing factors:

1) Facilities and athletics program - private is better.
2) STEM - public is better. DC is in an advanced math class already and based on what we've seen of the private curriculums we've evaluated, we're worried about the quality of the math education in particular. The STEM curriculums seem more shallow than those of the public school from what we've seen so far. (Incidentally, this was less noticeable at the elementary level when we first made this decision but it is much more obvious at the high school level.)
3) Literature, social science, etc. - Private is better. Smaller classes mean more time spent on essays, teaching writing, etc. With respect to curriculums, it's the opposite of STEM (public school curriculum seems more shallow).
4) Social/Character - it's a wash, and probably depends on the kid. Private has fewer kids with overt behavioral problems but more kids who are delicate, demanding, and entitled. Public is more racially and socioeconomically diverse. Private spends more time actively cultivating leadership, service, and expectations of character.
5) Teachers - Private teachers are generally better for literature, social science, etc. Public STEM teachers are better.

I'm not sure what we're going to do. Right now I feel like private would be exchanging a better STEM education for better athletics which doesn't feel like the best choice for a kid who likes STEM. On the other hand, I wonder whether DC would do well in STEM regardless and going to a school that cultivates writing skills would be good since DC is weaker in that area, plus for a kid who loves athletics, a good program can do wonders.

I don't know how helpful that is because your schools are different than my schools but FWIW this is how it breaks down for us.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

NP. I am an engineering PhD and do quite a bit of STEM volunteering in high schools. From observing the kids, I have honestly been blown away by the depth of knowledge of high achieving public school kids in math - far above where I was at that age. You try t explain fluid dynamics or something and a sizeable percentage of the (AP) class can understand the basics of the equations you are showing them. I have also been to some well regarded (I think) area privates and while the kids are no doubt smart, their math is just not at the same level.

NP: I judge several science fairs as part of the memberships I am in as a scientists and an engineer. I have to agree with this-- the public school kids know a lot more math but are also more surprising in how they approach problem solving and innovation.

Private schools don't try as hard. No offense-- it's almost as if they phone it in compared to the public school kids.

[Anonymous]

We are in the same boat (but most likely poorer) but went with public because regardless of private vs. public you will always be supplementing your kid's education. And though we can afford tuition for our kids, it would be a stretch to also afford all of the sports they do, the extra after school clubs/camps, and summer camps (CTY is $2700 per kid this year.) Moreover, we want to take the kids on vacation with us-- see the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall, travel through Europe: and that money for us is not just education, but a wonderful bonding experience for us as a family.

That, and all of the neighborhood kids are public schoolers too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I come at this question with a different perspective and struggle with it having 2 kids - ages 6 and 8. My older kid boy would really benefit we think from small class room size and a strong academic structure - he loves school, learning and he works well with structure. My younger kid could find her way out of the desert and I think would be fine anywhere on her own! She is bright and not as much into structure - she can learn so would benefit from a strong academic environment but short of that she is so smart she is going to be fine no matter what.

So here's the different perspective: when I think of education for my kids I take into consideration the question of why is it important for me to have them be in a strong academic environment? Is it because I want them to have the opportunity to do well in school to get into a competitive college, find a career that is mainstream conservative and stable ie CPA, lawyer, doctor, whatever professional white collar career track or am I looking at it from a principle of I want my kids to be "educated?" For me, it's the latter.

I work as a professional recruiter having been a corporate recruiter for top companies like Accenture, Citibank, etc. and I've been a "headhunter" in retained executive search placing senior level talent - CFO, CMO, CIOs at global top tier companies. I've done college recruiting at top MBA and grad schools - I've recruited for lower level customer service/admin positions as well however. What I have discovered is that on the whole, in general, what leads to happy successful people are families that strive to offer a culture of learning for their kids. Different motivations/personalities contribute to how successful/happy anyone is but when I see backgrounds of the top grads - and let me tell you everyone of them has an impressive background - it's all over the place. They come out of public, Catholic, private schools. And not every Harvard MBA is really "smart" in a way that really matters - you would be surprised by how many cannot put a resume or a sentence together! Your ability to get a job is based on so much more than where you went to school. Whether they come out of a private or public education system somewhat matters but what all my successful candidates have in common is the family background they have - they tend to be from very strong families which is not to say a mom, dad, multiple kids - it's close families whether it's a single mom or whatever. The parents spent a lot of time with the kids. Before I had kids I never really thought about it but as a parent now, when I see impressive candidates, I ask them questions about their backgrounds - education, etc. just out of curiosity. I have C level execs who have worked themselves up from community college. I have them out of prep schools too. The professional success of an individual is based on the individual themselves. A top school makes it easier to start higher up the food chain but you have to naturally be a good student to be able to really get through that program and not everyone is a natural student. You can succeed in anything only if you really love it. In the 20 years I've been a recruiter, this is what I've learned.

The other thing I know is that there are in this day and age SO MANY various career choices. So a formal education for me is not where it's at. It's about finding a school environment for my kids that will help them find themselves and maybe that's a bit of public and private at different ages. My kids are today in public and I love the aftercare they receive, I love the diversity and the teachers they have and I love the friendships they've been both able to make. I don't know we'll keep them in public forever but for now, it works.

For me, I want my kids to find something they love to do and do it well. It may or may not require higher education - my oldest is very talented in art and loves it. My daughter is into music. It's impossible at their ages today to predict where they want to be in life but I do hope they are people who are well rounded and have a strong foundation in knowledge - history, foundations of math, science, literature. Beyond that, I'm wanting to teach them how to get along with others in the world and to function within the parameters of society. I personally experienced a blend of private and public schools and enjoyed both. I'm more sensitive by nature and felt more comfortable in private. I will never know but for me, I probably would have gone further in life learning about the intangibles of life had I experienced more private than public but we'll never know and I turned out pretty well What's really important for us is looking at the personalities of our kids and trying to figure out whether the environment of the school we could send them to would contribute to developing their sense of self. The academics is in a way secondary because as parents, we can always hire a tutor or on our own which we do today, do more math, science, reading/writing with them. We can take them on vacations/trips and show them the world and introduce them to new experiences. It's less about academics for us and more about the connections they will make in school - a good teacher is worth their weight in gold.

I personally feel that on the whole the US public education system hands down sucks. The academic bar is set soooo low. BUT I don't feel that it means it's a terrible idea to send your kid to public. Again, it depends on the personality of your kid and what education means to you. Why and how is it important for a formal education to impact your kid and how much time do you spend with your kid? How well do you know your kid and connect with them? The private v. public question is a valid one but I think families have to consider more than just the system and drill down to actual realistic choices of schools and whether they make sense for the kid.

Just want to say thank you so much for this thoughtful analysis and perspective that you shared!

Agreed. This is a really thoughtful post. Our daughter isn't school-aged yet, but we are planning on putting her public and seeing how it works out. We can afford private (not super easily, but we could), but we would like to give the public schools a try before switching. I also find myself asking similar questions to yours. What are our goals for our kids? If it's to raise a happy, compassionate, well-adjusted, contributing member of society, then that can happen from a public or private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in the same boat (but most likely poorer) but went with public because regardless of private vs. public you will always be supplementing your kid's education. And though we can afford tuition for our kids, it would be a stretch to also afford all of the sports they do, the extra after school clubs/camps, and summer camps (CTY is $2700 per kid this year.) Moreover, we want to take the kids on vacation with us-- see the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall, travel through Europe: and that money for us is not just education, but a wonderful bonding experience for us as a family.

That, and all of the neighborhood kids are public schoolers too.

This was exactly our decision too.
We could afford private but it would be a big stretch - and would definitely limit serious extracurricular and large vacation options. We decided that public + the money to travel and do expensive extras as needed was far more beneficial to our kids than private and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in the same boat (but most likely poorer) but went with public because regardless of private vs. public you will always be supplementing your kid's education. And though we can afford tuition for our kids, it would be a stretch to also afford all of the sports they do, the extra after school clubs/camps, and summer camps (CTY is $2700 per kid this year.) Moreover, we want to take the kids on vacation with us-- see the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall, travel through Europe: and that money for us is not just education, but a wonderful bonding experience for us as a family.

That, and all of the neighborhood kids are public schoolers too.

This was exactly our decision too.
We could afford private but it would be a big stretch - and would definitely limit serious extracurricular and large vacation options. We decided that public + the money to travel and do expensive extras as needed was far more beneficial to our kids than private and nothing else.

That was basically our thinking. No school is going to offer everything, and going private would limit the extracurriculars and enrichment opportunities we could pay for, along with our activities as a family.

[Anonymous]

I went to private, can afford private, and send my kids (one now, one still too young) to public. DH went to public and many in his family are public school teachers. I also work in education (at a nonprofit).

For me it is about a few things:

1) ROI. My kids are still young (one in 1st grade, one in PreK) but barring special needs, or even in the case of them sometimes, the difference between private and public isn't that large. A lot depends on your specific teachers and your specific kid. People seem to think - and I probably would too, had I drunk the KoolAid - that private is universally better. It depends why you think so. I, for one, don't think a tiny Kindergarten class is ideal. I want my lower elementary kids to be part of a team, to learn collaboration, to learn self-reliance, etc. It would take a LOT - and we are rich, compared to a lot of people - for our public to be bad enough / private to be good enough to spend 80k year for the next 14 years (2 kids).

2) College. I guess if your goal is to get a non-spectacular kid (ie, not the kid who will get into Harvard regardless of where he goes) into a somewhat better college, private may help. But to what end? I agree wholeheartedly with the recruiter above - success is largely defined, and will get even more so in the future - by grit, personality, effort, EQ, etc. Of course intelligence is relevant, but a smart kid from a close family is going to be ok regardless, in most circumstances. My husband certainly is.

3) Neighbors/ parents. I missed being part of the neighborhood school crew SO MUCH as a kid. Having a close group of neighbors whose kids all go to school together is a blast. Bouncing ideas off each other, running over to double-check assignments, etc - it's really a great way to be part of a community. In addition, as a longtime part of the DC private school "scene," there is definitely a culture of celebrity and "new money" that pervades it these days. It's really unpleasant and competitive and not what my family strives for. Full disclosure, we live in a fancy public district (and are surrounded by highly educated - and some less educated but still successful - parents who choose public) and people may say the same competitiveness exists there, but frankly a) we didn't pay for it and b) with a larger school community, it's easier to avoid.

[Anonymous]

We are in a public many people criticize on here as mediocre, and we make enough to send both kids to private. We travel, they do all kinds of activities and enrichment, and they are surrounded by close friends they've known since they were toddlers. Just as important, they understand every day that we are very fortunate and they have much more than they need. If they were at one of the better known local privates, they would grow up thinking they were poor and unfortunate because we don't have a beach house, a maid, or a Range Rover. That would skew their attitudes for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in a public many people criticize on here as mediocre, and we make enough to send both kids to private. We travel, they do all kinds of activities and enrichment, and they are surrounded by close friends they've known since they were toddlers. Just as important, they understand every day that we are very fortunate and they have much more than they need. If they were at one of the better known local privates, they would grow up thinking they were poor and unfortunate because we don't have a beach house, a maid, or a Range Rover. That would skew their attitudes for life.

Would it be more correct to say that you would feel poor and less fortunate and not your kids? I understand the sentiment though and chose to move into a good school district instead of being one of the poor parents in private and not being able to send kids on school trips that cost more than our family vacations. My kids would have been fine, they socialize with variety of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to private, can afford private, and send my kids (one now, one still too young) to public. DH went to public and many in his family are public school teachers. I also work in education (at a nonprofit).

For me it is about a few things:

1) ROI. My kids are still young (one in 1st grade, one in PreK) but barring special needs, or even in the case of them sometimes, the difference between private and public isn't that large. A lot depends on your specific teachers and your specific kid. People seem to think - and I probably would too, had I drunk the KoolAid - that private is universally better. It depends why you think so. I, for one, don't think a tiny Kindergarten class is ideal. I want my lower elementary kids to be part of a team, to learn collaboration, to learn self-reliance, etc. It would take a LOT - and we are rich, compared to a lot of people - for our public to be bad enough / private to be good enough to spend 80k year for the next 14 years (2 kids).

2) College. I guess if your goal is to get a non-spectacular kid (ie, not the kid who will get into Harvard regardless of where he goes) into a somewhat better college, private may help. But to what end? I agree wholeheartedly with the recruiter above - success is largely defined, and will get even more so in the future - by grit, personality, effort, EQ, etc. Of course intelligence is relevant, but a smart kid from a close family is going to be ok regardless, in most circumstances. My husband certainly is.

3) Neighbors/ parents. I missed being part of the neighborhood school crew SO MUCH as a kid. Having a close group of neighbors whose kids all go to school together is a blast. Bouncing ideas off each other, running over to double-check assignments, etc - it's really a great way to be part of a community. In addition, as a longtime part of the DC private school "scene," there is definitely a culture of celebrity and "new money" that pervades it these days. It's really unpleasant and competitive and not what my family strives for. Full disclosure, we live in a fancy public district (and are surrounded by highly educated - and some less educated but still successful - parents who choose public) and people may say the same competitiveness exists there, but frankly a) we didn't pay for it and b) with a larger school community, it's easier to avoid.

#3) Meant a lot to us too.

We live in a neighborhood where the kids all go out and play with each other after school. We have one family that is private schooled and they're just completely shut out because of bus schedules and familiarity. This wasn't always the case, we all used to play together. I recently asked one of the kids if they liked their new school and they said something to the extent of how they miss their friends.

Having friends outside of school is so valuable to a social security in school-- it is something money cannot buy but reaps huge rewards in confidence and maturity later on in life.

[Anonymous]

We're getting divorced so will not be choosing private despite 4 apps in from December.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in a public many people criticize on here as mediocre, and we make enough to send both kids to private. We travel, they do all kinds of activities and enrichment, and they are surrounded by close friends they've known since they were toddlers. Just as important, they understand every day that we are very fortunate and they have much more than they need. If they were at one of the better known local privates, they would grow up thinking they were poor and unfortunate because we don't have a beach house, a maid, or a Range Rover. That would skew their attitudes for life.

Would it be more correct to say that you would feel poor and less fortunate and not your kids? I understand the sentiment though and chose to move into a good school district instead of being one of the poor parents in private and not being able to send kids on school trips that cost more than our family vacations. My kids would have been fine, they socialize with variety of kids.

Not the PP, but I went to a private school and was one of the relatively "poor" kids, and yes, kids feel it, too. Your reference point for what's normal is what you see around you. I grew up feeling like we had less than others when we were solidly middle class. But my classmates were wealthier, and they took nicer vacations, had household help, had nicer clothes, got new cars, etc. I felt deprived instead of appreciating what I had, because my baseline was UMC/UC people.