Public Vs. private

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main draw of privates is that the student body is usually carefully cultivated so that really really dumb kids are not around to drag down the class. At a public, even in a so-called good district, your kids still have to be in class with Da'Quantavion interrupting the teacher every two minutes to "ax" a question that was answered two minutes ago. Such an "inquisitive and spirited" child would have been counseled out of a private in a hot minute.

Wow. You sound like a wonderful person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the previous poster who was an equity partner making very good money who sent the kids to public. I said I was virtually the only one. I now remember another. He was much more successful and credentialed than me - double Harvard who eventually left the firm to be General Counsel at a major Fortune 500 where he made a shit ton of money - but they never sent any of the kids to private even for a day. And they didn’t go to a “W” school or a Langley/McLean or TJ either.

Their kids all ended up in top schools, including one at Harvard Law (where legacy doesn’t count). Mine did not, although they did fine (UVA and top ten LAC admissions). It’s really all about the genes, the effort, and the parenting.

Ummm what weed are you smoking?

[Anonymous]

Most parents are squandering their money on private school education, at least in MOCO, HOCO, or Northern Virginia. I have numerous family members and friends who attended "average" public schools K-12 and ended up nuking it at places like Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell, U of Michigan, UVA etc. And I have plenty of friends and colleagues whose kids attended St. Johns, GP, NCS, GDS, Sidwell Friends etc and failed to gain acceptance to first rate universities. And there were plenty stories of private school bullying, or getting drinks roofied at Landon parties. I watched a Metro Swim Meet and the Gonzaga swimmers lost and wouldn't even shake the hands of the public school swim team that beat them. A lot of kids just don't need small class size and they don't need to be coddled. And a lot of parents don't need to be told how wonderful their kids are by school counselors and teachers.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could send my kids to private, but cannot afford it. I am sure they would do better than in classes of 30-35 at their good public. There are always disruptive kids; and my own kids disrupt the classes too; teachers told me so. At the private they would not be doing this, for sure. I also wish they would do more sports, arts and music, which I guess they would do at a private.
Single Mom of two MS boys

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

Good schools and wealthy schools are not the same thing. Look at how a system does with special ed and ELL kids to define "good"

You can look at Massachusetts schools and see special ed and ELL taken seriously. If a child needs to go to a separate school due to special needs they still get their diploma from their home high school. Statistics on SAT scores and college will include all special needs students.

Massachusetts was the first state to pass a law in 1972 that guaranteed students with disabilities the right to an education in the least restrictive environment. The federal law followed a few years later and Massachusetts still does a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question, what are the benefits of Private school for those in Whitman/Churchill/Wooton/BCC school districts? The public schools are so good, just trying to understand why so many people in these school clusters are choosing private.

MoCo has taken DEIA to such extremes, they not only eliminated special resource officers entirely, they also virtually eliminated suspensions and expulsions of even the most danger criminal offenders and gang members.

Criminal students must be “Included” too, and provided “Access.”

It’s not unusual for your child to be sitting at lunch next to the convicted drug dealer, the gang-banger who brings a weapon/gun to school sometimes, the rapist. Those kids are skipping g class regularly, but when they do bother to show up, they will disrupt your child’s education.

And MoCo won’t agree to change anything. Private schools are rapidly becoming your best option in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the previous poster who was an equity partner making very good money who sent the kids to public. I said I was virtually the only one. I now remember another. He was much more successful and credentialed than me - double Harvard who eventually left the firm to be General Counsel at a major Fortune 500 where he made a shit ton of money - but they never sent any of the kids to private even for a day. And they didn’t go to a “W” school or a Langley/McLean or TJ either.

Their kids all ended up in top schools, including one at Harvard Law (where legacy doesn’t count). Mine did not, although they did fine (UVA and top ten LAC admissions). It’s really all about the genes, the effort, and the parenting.

If you’re the equity partner, how much effort and time are you putting into parenting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

No, it’s both. Money matters and schools that are not properly funded can’t do the job to the best of their ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

No, it’s both. Money matters and schools that are not properly funded can’t do the job to the best of their ability.

So in that case you should be advocating for more to be spent in education by the county, state, and federal government. It would be great if they started with fully funding IDEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

No, it’s both. Money matters and schools that are not properly funded can’t do the job to the best of their ability.

So in that case you should be advocating for more to be spent in education by the county, state, and federal government. It would be great if they started with fully funding IDEA.

What is disappointing right now is Trump is talking about no more federal money for education. Let the states do what’s best for their states. I can just imagine what Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi will do. 50 to a class, church in every class with crosses on the walls and although they already have the worst schools in the country the gap between the top half and bottom half will double.

Poorly educated citizens can be a dangerous thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

No, it’s both. Money matters and schools that are not properly funded can’t do the job to the best of their ability.

So in that case you should be advocating for more to be spent in education by the county, state, and federal government. It would be great if they started with fully funding IDEA.

What is disappointing right now is Trump is talking about no more federal money for education. Let the states do what’s best for their states. I can just imagine what Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi will do. 50 to a class, church in every class with crosses on the walls and although they already have the worst schools in the country the gap between the top half and bottom half will double.

Poorly educated citizens can be a dangerous thing.

Yep. Oklahoma already tried to spend $3M on bibles for classrooms.

https://apnews.com/article/bible-oklahoma-sch...c3ac7fa40ab4c9646a70

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suburban public high schools around here may be good compared to, say, DCPS, but when I think “good public school,” I think of town-based school districts. I get the arguments for county-based ones, but in those, families like mine are not the main constituents.

I think of places like the Philly mainline towns; many in the NJ/NY/CT tristate area (such as Westport, Darien, Scarsdale, Jericho, Basking Ridge, Syosset, Greenwich and Bronxville); ones in MA such as Lexington and Newton and West Windsor Plainsboro in NJ.

Lots of rezoning around here, which I’m not a fan of.

I agree. The public schools in smaller wealthy towns do an excellent job because they have more money than county budgets and parents have more money in case children have extra needs or have expensive interests outside of the schools. Lexington is a feeder school for Harvard along with a couple of other suburban high schools near Cambridge.

I would choose a low key private school if I had to rely on a county district.

Public schools in wealthy towns don’t do a better job, the parents of the children that attend do a better job parenting and supplementing outside of school.

No, it’s both. Money matters and schools that are not properly funded can’t do the job to the best of their ability.

So in that case you should be advocating for more to be spent in education by the county, state, and federal government. It would be great if they started with fully funding IDEA.

What is disappointing right now is Trump is talking about no more federal money for education. Let the states do what’s best for their states. I can just imagine what Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi will do. 50 to a class, church in every class with crosses on the walls and although they already have the worst schools in the country the gap between the top half and bottom half will double.

Poorly educated citizens can be a dangerous thing.

Yep. Oklahoma already tried to spend $3M on bibles for classrooms.

https://apnews.com/article/bible-oklahoma-sch...c3ac7fa40ab4c9646a70

Quote from that article …

“ The Bible is indispensable in understanding the development of Western civilization and American exceptionalism, history, and all similar subjects,” Walters said in a statement. “The ongoing attempts to remove it from our classrooms is an attack on the foundation of our country.””

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 13:20 had a good list but I also think some people have lots of cash to spare and figure going to a school you apply to and pay for must be better than a school that’s free and takes everyone.

Basically a designer label for your kid’s education

I actually think the same thing but have a somewhat different take on it.

There’s a certain set of striver parents who work extremely hard and make a whole lot of money. They’re wholly focused on their careers and don’t have a lot of extra time for their kids. They often wait to have kids until they’re in their mid to late 30s or older, and by the time the kids hit high school they’re in or close to their 50s and are so far removed from being young and so consumed with career and achievement that it never even occurs to them to consider public school no matter how good the school is. It’s another way to justify working so hard and soften the guilt they feel for neglecting their kids for all those years. “We do this for the kids,” they lie to themselves.

It’s an insane way of thinking.

This is actually NOT a thing. Most parents at our local public has their kids in their mid to late thirties and will be in their 50s when their kids are in high school. We left public for private and the age range is the same - oddly it skews a slightly younger. And a good number are stay at home moms so there is no career “distracting them from their children” and making them “so busy” that they can’t consider public school. This is a really far left theory that makes no sense.

Whew! It is funny the things people tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

It has nothing to do with my “sleeping at night.” It’s my real live personal experience. I spent my entire working career surrounded by these kinds of people.

Ah, so you are a secretary for a law firm and you had your kids early. Sheds light on your perspective. Be happy you’re a young mom- yay you!

I was an equity partner. Wrong again.

Sure. I don't know a SINGLE equity partner who sends their kid to public school. And you do not write like an "equity partner" or even a random regular run of the mill nobody lawyer. Delusional.

DP here. I do think most lawyers send their kids to private. DH is not a lawyer but in a different field where all his professional colleagues send their kids to private. DH is the most successful in his group and I know the others wonder why we send our kids to public. Some of us went to public school and want our kids to have a similar experience. DH earns $3m per year. I still make my kids do their laundry and do dishes. I think it is good for their character. I don’t want them to feel entitled.

would love to hear your kids’ thoughts on public school