Judgmental parents — why can’t people just mind their own business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

If they produced a better product, public schools wouldn’t have to worry as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without knowing OP, I can tell she doesn’t work.

Why would you say that?

I have a terrific job that I adore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

I actually think massive income inequality is a huge threat to public education.

[Anonymous]

OP people are provincial and jealous. They hate anyone who thinks for themselves or has better. For some reason they feel comfortable addressing your school choice, but rest assured if you have the best new SUV in the neighborhood and the other moms are driving 3 4 5 year old versions, they're seething about that, too -- they just don't have the stones to confront you over it. If you tear down your house and build new, rest assured they won't see the benefit to the modernizing and improving the neighborhood's housing stock, they'll be jealous and make up petty grievances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because she felt judged that she wasn't as a good a parent as you.

We chose MCPS over privates for our child with special needs, so her argument is not valid anyway.

This is it a lot of the time - it's not so much that people are judging, it's that they feel judged/attacked for their choices so they get defensive and nasty.

I couldn't care less what people think of my decision to send my children to the school we chose nor do I care what they think about me working or not. But insecure people lash out because they feel judged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a vent.

I was chatting with a friend of 8 years the other day. She has a 5 year old; I have a 3.5 year old. Her kid is starting kindergarten in their local MCPS school this fall. We were talking about how big the kids are getting, etc.

My friend asked what we’re doing for kindergarten. I told her we’re going to be looking at private schools. She said, “why would you do that?!” I just said that it’s the right decision for us. She kept going. “MCPS is so good! I can’t imagine why *anyone* would do that, unless they had some special situation or something.”

We ended up moving on to other things, but it just really irked me. I don’t understand why people can’t just let everyone do what’s right for them.

Rant over.

A lot of people feel this way. It’s a valid feeling because you are not contributing to the public good.

Wow, I spit out my water with this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the parents on here, acting like private school is such a selfish choice, when they probably spent too much money for a house districted to Whitman.

+1,000

Show me the parent who purposefully bought a house in the worst school district in the area in order to send their kids their for the public good. All the rest of you are just as selfish as parents who send their kids to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

I actually think massive income inequality is a huge threat to public education.

I actually think it is the opposite. Buffett, Bezos, Larry Ellison and Jobs all went to public. Zuckerberg went to public for half of high school.

All are or were clearly hell bent on maximizing wealth concentration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

I actually think massive income inequality is a huge threat to public education.

I actually think it is the opposite. Buffett, Bezos, Larry Ellison and Jobs all went to public. Zuckerberg went to public for half of high school.

All are or were clearly hell bent on maximizing wealth concentration.

Well, given that only 10% of students go to private school, probability would dictate that any given person probably went to public school. Zuckerberg graduated from Exeter, though — one of the most elite high schools in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

I actually think massive income inequality is a huge threat to public education.

I actually think it is the opposite. Buffett, Bezos, Larry Ellison and Jobs all went to public. Zuckerberg went to public for half of high school.

All are or were clearly hell bent on maximizing wealth concentration.

I think we need to focus on ending adoption. When 60% of some of the richest, self made people were adopted, something is going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people who send their kids to private get out of paying the full freight on local taxes public folks can claim THEY are doing what’s needed for the common good. Until then, the Public parents have no moral superiority to assert. Everyone is footing the same bill.

Very fair.

But the local school loses per pupil allowance no matter if you still pay taxes.

That allowance is dedicated for the kid in the public school seat. As such, it should be entirely consumed via the education of the kid. If the kid isn’t there, the educational expense isnt there either so there is no “loss.”

The tax dollars that are provided for a student who is not in attendance, however, are there and are able to be spent on all the other kids who attend public.

There is a major difference.

I think the issue is more about who is bought into supporting public education. Public services and programs that are used by and available to everyone (e.g. Social Security) have more public support than programs that only serve low-income families. If high-income families flee public schools they are less likely to support taxes for public schools. As evidenced by the first post quoted above.

The post does not state or imply a lack of support for taxes for public schools. It notes the difference between taxes and dedicated per student expenditures.

My mistake. Was looking at the wrong quote. That said, I think the likelihood of getting out of paying local property taxes is nonexistent.

Of course but my point is lots of people who don't think they should be paying property taxes. Not good for public education.

My point was that that thought is a stretch. Probably an even bigger one in connection with those with the wherewithal to pay 50k per kid per year for private. In fact, I think the public’s probably benefit from NOT having those kinds of people beating down on them from the inside.

I actually think massive income inequality is a huge threat to public education.

I actually think it is the opposite. Buffett, Bezos, Larry Ellison and Jobs all went to public. Zuckerberg went to public for half of high school.

All are or were clearly hell bent on maximizing wealth concentration.

I think we need to focus on ending adoption. When 60% of some of the richest, self made people were adopted, something is going on.

Wut