Does anyone send their child to private school instead WW/WJ/Churchill/Wooton?

[Anonymous]

Rich ;people with more money than you would disagree!


quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a night and day comparison between top privates and these overcrowded public’s. MoCo public schools have been resting on their laurels for 15 years. If you have the means, and can get into one of the better privates in the area, do that.

We have been at one of the “better privates” and it hasn’t been better. Paying tuition for polish rather than academics that they successfully market to parents like myself who assume private has to be superior to public. Not so. Will return to public after foolishly wasting trusting that private has to be better.

Where do the wealthy send their kids? To private schools.

What percentage of families with over 10 million net worth go to private school vs public schools in the area? Do what the wealthy do if you can afford it.

So send child to private that is not better academically than public?

Academically better for whom? I went to a private that doesn't have a great reputation here and can conclusively say that, for me, that private school was better academically. For others, that might not be the case but in most cases either the private will be superior in light of the student's needs or it will be a toss-up, with some contra around the edges. That being the case, the prior posters are right, if you can afford it, do it. Plus, your analysis omits all of the other facets of school life that you might discount but in which others see value.

Good for you, I’m certainly not going to send my child to a private school that is academically inferior to the public. The only facet that would be asset is smaller class size and nicer building. That’s not enough to justify. Clubs are minimal so fewer opportunities there, teachers are not better, had to hire tutor to fill in gap of class that is lacking, tuition cost, and so on. You are wrong, just because you can afford it does not mean you should. That is ridiculous. Because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Keep child at private for the sake of keeping child at private. No advantage. No thank you.

[Anonymous]

If you have money, doesn't it make sense to do what other rich people do as opposed to a member of the hating proletariat class like you? Just asking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some did for sure, many are self made. Yes, bragging rights are being bought, but so are connections. What is. wrong with doing what successful people do if you can afford it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to the Edgemoor neighborhood in Bethesda. Knock on the doors of people living in all the 3 million dollar + homes. I would bet 90% or more of their kids do private school( I know many of them). These are not dumb people--most are highly educated and wealthy. They did not get there by spending their money foolishly. They want the best environment for their kids that money can buy--that is private school not public.

barf

A lot of those people inherited their wealth.

Rich people buy prestige, nothing more.

really? define "many"?

Sure, you are buying connections and bragging rights, and why not, if you can afford it. But, "They did not get there by spending their money foolishly. " is not really true.

As I stated earlier, you are buying prestige, and small class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are new to the area. We are looking at homes in these school districts for access to these schools. Hoping to hear perspectives of anyone that lives in these school districts and was planning to use the public schools but felt they had to pull their children out and pay for private. Could you tell us why you realized it was not the right school or school system for you?

Have your kids been in private or public up til now? Are they thriving currently? We have a kid in private and a kid in one of those schools. They are excellent public schools, and send plenty of kids to excellent universities. We use a private for one kid simply because that kid benefits from the private environment and we can afford it. But our kid in public is also thriving, being challenged in a real-world way, and will go to a fine university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich ;people with more money than you would disagree!


quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a night and day comparison between top privates and these overcrowded public’s. MoCo public schools have been resting on their laurels for 15 years. If you have the means, and can get into one of the better privates in the area, do that.

We have been at one of the “better privates” and it hasn’t been better. Paying tuition for polish rather than academics that they successfully market to parents like myself who assume private has to be superior to public. Not so. Will return to public after foolishly wasting trusting that private has to be better.

Where do the wealthy send their kids? To private schools.

What percentage of families with over 10 million net worth go to private school vs public schools in the area? Do what the wealthy do if you can afford it.

So send child to private that is not better academically than public?

Academically better for whom? I went to a private that doesn't have a great reputation here and can conclusively say that, for me, that private school was better academically. For others, that might not be the case but in most cases either the private will be superior in light of the student's needs or it will be a toss-up, with some contra around the edges. That being the case, the prior posters are right, if you can afford it, do it. Plus, your analysis omits all of the other facets of school life that you might discount but in which others see value.

Good for you, I’m certainly not going to send my child to a private school that is academically inferior to the public. The only facet that would be asset is smaller class size and nicer building. That’s not enough to justify. Clubs are minimal so fewer opportunities there, teachers are not better, had to hire tutor to fill in gap of class that is lacking, tuition cost, and so on. You are wrong, just because you can afford it does not mean you should. That is ridiculous. Because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Keep child at private for the sake of keeping child at private. No advantage. No thank you.

Perhaps if you send your kid to private she will develop the reading comprehension that your public school failed to teach you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich ;people with more money than you would disagree!


quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a night and day comparison between top privates and these overcrowded public’s. MoCo public schools have been resting on their laurels for 15 years. If you have the means, and can get into one of the better privates in the area, do that.

We have been at one of the “better privates” and it hasn’t been better. Paying tuition for polish rather than academics that they successfully market to parents like myself who assume private has to be superior to public. Not so. Will return to public after foolishly wasting trusting that private has to be better.

Where do the wealthy send their kids? To private schools.

What percentage of families with over 10 million net worth go to private school vs public schools in the area? Do what the wealthy do if you can afford it.

So send child to private that is not better academically than public?

Academically better for whom? I went to a private that doesn't have a great reputation here and can conclusively say that, for me, that private school was better academically. For others, that might not be the case but in most cases either the private will be superior in light of the student's needs or it will be a toss-up, with some contra around the edges. That being the case, the prior posters are right, if you can afford it, do it. Plus, your analysis omits all of the other facets of school life that you might discount but in which others see value.

Good for you, I’m certainly not going to send my child to a private school that is academically inferior to the public. The only facet that would be asset is smaller class size and nicer building. That’s not enough to justify. Clubs are minimal so fewer opportunities there, teachers are not better, had to hire tutor to fill in gap of class that is lacking, tuition cost, and so on. You are wrong, just because you can afford it does not mean you should. That is ridiculous. Because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Keep child at private for the sake of keeping child at private. No advantage. No thank you.

Perhaps if you send your kid to private she will develop the reading comprehension that your public school failed to teach you.

Try some other snarky comment to try to be clever, this one has run its course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two kids - zoned for Churchill. Both in private for different reasons. The smaller classes require them to be attentive and present, which makes such a difference in their ability to actually retain information. MCPS high schools have gotten too big and way too easy to disappear into the noise. I don't have a reference point to compare Churchill academics to my kids education, but their elementary & middle school learning has far exceeded MCPS.

No being sarcastic, I’m just wondering how that could be? I send my child to a top school in DC and it’s not much better academically and actually in some ways worse than what was being taught at mcps. I cannot understand what these schools are because as I already stated my child attends a top one but people on here say they are getting better education than mcps. I am so skeptical of that. In reality, I’m paying for the smaller class size and nicer facility. Nothing more.

This

The way I view it is that each child is so different and understanding the environment that enables them to grow and learn is a personal decision. My middle schooler switched during the pandemic and was placed in a level of classes with the resources that suited her, so yes, the investment into the smaller classes, resources and facility do equate to a better education for her. She's also the type of student who struggled to advocate for herself and the larger class environment in MCPS was taxing on her. Just because whatever your view of the private school curriculum doesn't adhere to whatever you define as 'better' academically doesn't mean it isn't providing a better education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two kids - zoned for Churchill. Both in private for different reasons. The smaller classes require them to be attentive and present, which makes such a difference in their ability to actually retain information. MCPS high schools have gotten too big and way too easy to disappear into the noise. I don't have a reference point to compare Churchill academics to my kids education, but their elementary & middle school learning has far exceeded MCPS.

No being sarcastic, I’m just wondering how that could be? I send my child to a top school in DC and it’s not much better academically and actually in some ways worse than what was being taught at mcps. I cannot understand what these schools are because as I already stated my child attends a top one but people on here say they are getting better education than mcps. I am so skeptical of that. In reality, I’m paying for the smaller class size and nicer facility. Nothing more.

This

The way I view it is that each child is so different and understanding the environment that enables them to grow and learn is a personal decision. My middle schooler switched during the pandemic and was placed in a level of classes with the resources that suited her, so yes, the investment into the smaller classes, resources and facility do equate to a better education for her. She's also the type of student who struggled to advocate for herself and the larger class environment in MCPS was taxing on her. Just because whatever your view of the private school curriculum doesn't adhere to whatever you define as 'better' academically doesn't mean it isn't providing a better education.

Point taken but don’t agree, you and all of us think that a private should be better academically. Not just better at providing smaller class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two kids - zoned for Churchill. Both in private for different reasons. The smaller classes require them to be attentive and present, which makes such a difference in their ability to actually retain information. MCPS high schools have gotten too big and way too easy to disappear into the noise. I don't have a reference point to compare Churchill academics to my kids education, but their elementary & middle school learning has far exceeded MCPS.

No being sarcastic, I’m just wondering how that could be? I send my child to a top school in DC and it’s not much better academically and actually in some ways worse than what was being taught at mcps. I cannot understand what these schools are because as I already stated my child attends a top one but people on here say they are getting better education than mcps. I am so skeptical of that. In reality, I’m paying for the smaller class size and nicer facility. Nothing more.

This

The way I view it is that each child is so different and understanding the environment that enables them to grow and learn is a personal decision. My middle schooler switched during the pandemic and was placed in a level of classes with the resources that suited her, so yes, the investment into the smaller classes, resources and facility do equate to a better education for her. She's also the type of student who struggled to advocate for herself and the larger class environment in MCPS was taxing on her. Just because whatever your view of the private school curriculum doesn't adhere to whatever you define as 'better' academically doesn't mean it isn't providing a better education.

Point taken but don’t agree, you and all of us think that a private should be better academically. Not just better at providing smaller class size.

Yes, I’m basically paying nearly 40 grand annually for fewer number of students. If that’s all you want, fine. I also want with that tuition instruction/discipline that is superior to what is given in public. That should be a given.

[Anonymous]

Insecure public school parent clearly.


quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a night and day comparison between top privates and these overcrowded public’s. MoCo public schools have been resting on their laurels for 15 years. If you have the means, and can get into one of the better privates in the area, do that.

We have been at one of the “better privates” and it hasn’t been better. Paying tuition for polish rather than academics that they successfully market to parents like myself who assume private has to be superior to public. Not so. Will return to public after foolishly wasting trusting that private has to be better.

Where do the wealthy send their kids? To private schools.

What percentage of families with over 10 million net worth go to private school vs public schools in the area? Do what the wealthy do if you can afford it.

So send child to private that is not better academically than public?

Academically better for whom? I went to a private that doesn't have a great reputation here and can conclusively say that, for me, that private school was better academically. For others, that might not be the case but in most cases either the private will be superior in light of the student's needs or it will be a toss-up, with some contra around the edges. That being the case, the prior posters are right, if you can afford it, do it. Plus, your analysis omits all of the other facets of school life that you might discount but in which others see value.

Good for you, I’m certainly not going to send my child to a private school that is academically inferior to the public. The only facet that would be asset is smaller class size and nicer building. That’s not enough to justify. Clubs are minimal so fewer opportunities there, teachers are not better, had to hire tutor to fill in gap of class that is lacking, tuition cost, and so on. You are wrong, just because you can afford it does not mean you should. That is ridiculous. Because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Keep child at private for the sake of keeping child at private. No advantage. No thank you.

[Anonymous]

yes, friend sending daughter to Holton instead of Churchill for ninth grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes, friend sending daughter to Holton instead of Churchill for ninth grade

If their academics are worth the cost as it should, then great. Not all the privates, including my child’s elite one is DC is putting out what it touts.

[Anonymous]

So...the academics at some private schools are better than at others. What's so controversial about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So...the academics at some private schools are better than at others. What's so controversial about that?

That some elite privates are not academically better than MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Which elite privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which elite privates?

A Catholic in DC that boasts “rigor.”