I don't understand parents who are flashy with their wealth but send their kids to public school

[Anonymous]

North Arlington is the epitome of middle-brow, and not a setting from which one can draw any conclusions of broader applicability.

[Anonymous]

I always assume they can't afford private school. If you've got two kids, it would cost approx $70K/year for private school. By going to public instead, you can buy a high end new car every 3 years, plus tons of designer bags, clothes, etc. and still come out ahead. I know several families like that- they couldn't afford the house they're in, plus their lifestyle if they went to private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found there were many children with behavioral issues in private schools. Yes, their parents can afford to send them to private schools so that they have a nicer environment because they are unable to cope in public school perhaps, but I felt that the presence of such children in normal classrooms was utterly disruptive for my own child's learning environment. We pulled our child out and put them in public school and could not have been happier.

I found the opposite. The private school weeds out the behavior children, the public has to tolerate the bad behavior and the teachers don't care as much. Plus, with bigger class sizes, it there is more room for disruption and unruliness in public.

[Anonymous]

Sure, go ahead and judge me as someone who doesn’t value education because we send our kids to public even though we could afford private, and I’ll judge you as a bigot who pays a lot of money to avoid mixing with the poors. Judgment goes both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I clearly did touch a nerve. Predictably I suppose.

I want to clarify that what I find odd is not that there are SOME wealthy families who send their kids to public school, but that there’s a particular obsession at some public schools with being flashy. YSL handbags are like the least expensive designer handbags you can buy - but people buy them in part because they scream “I’m expensive” even to those who know nothing about handbags. And I guess I don’t understand that mentality - wanting to look expensive to strangers - when MOST of those women are not super wealthy. And most wealthy women I know don’t carry an entry-level YSL logo handbag.

Anyway, i don’t really understand what it is I’m getting at, but this thread is helping me realize it’s less about school choice and more about displays of wealth and their meaning that I find confusing, and interesting, particularly in certain subcultures (where half the moms carry the same handbag).

From your own statements, isn't it obvious that they aren't wealthy enough to easily send their kids to private? They buy things that convey status but are not "that" expensive. They might also buy those things because all their friends and acquaintances do and they want to fit in, not because they think that item will most economically convey wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, go ahead and judge me as someone who doesn’t value education because we send our kids to public even though we could afford private, and I’ll judge you as a bigot who pays a lot of money to avoid mixing with the poors. Judgment goes both ways.

If this could fit on a bumper sticker I would buy one.

[Anonymous]

Some people prefer to support public education OP. Wealth is irrelevant. I was not wealthy growing up but was sent to a very fancy private school. It was important to my mother. I have money now and my own family- and I am choosing public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, go ahead and judge me as someone who doesn’t value education because we send our kids to public even though we could afford private, and I’ll judge you as a bigot who pays a lot of money to avoid mixing with the poors. Judgment goes both ways.

If this could fit on a bumper sticker I would buy one.

Lol, yeah, that N Arlington lifestyle. Truly a beacon of socioeconomic diversity and low income residents. You sure showed her!

(I’m not saying private would be any better. But c’mon. North Arlington is one of the wealthiest places in the metro area with an extremely low concentration of “poors.”)

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm going to blow your mind here. Not only do I send my kids to public when I could afford private because I believe in supporting public education, I use the public library even though I could afford to buy all the books I want because I believe in supporting public libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm going to blow your mind here. Not only do I send my kids to public when I could afford private because I believe in supporting public education, I use the public library even though I could afford to buy all the books I want because I believe in supporting public libraries.

Everybody pays taxes. Using up those resources doesn't mean you "support" public schools and public libraries any more than the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm going to blow your mind here. Not only do I send my kids to public when I could afford private because I believe in supporting public education, I use the public library even though I could afford to buy all the books I want because I believe in supporting public libraries.

Everybody pays taxes. Using up those resources doesn't mean you "support" public schools and public libraries any more than the rest of us.

It actually does. In the case of public libraries, funding is typically dependent upon use statistics. The more people who use a library, the more funding it will get. The more funding it gets, the more money it has for acquisitions, to keep open for longer hours, etc. If not enough people use a library, it will be at risk for funding loss and even for closure. People using public libraries even if they can afford to buy their own books helps keep the library accessible with a better collection for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, go ahead and judge me as someone who doesn’t value education because we send our kids to public even though we could afford private, and I’ll judge you as a bigot who pays a lot of money to avoid mixing with the poors. Judgment goes both ways.

If this could fit on a bumper sticker I would buy one.

Lol, yeah, that N Arlington lifestyle. Truly a beacon of socioeconomic diversity and low income residents. You sure showed her!

(I’m not saying private would be any better. But c’mon. North Arlington is one of the wealthiest places in the metro area with an extremely low concentration of “poors.”)

I’m the bumper sticker pp and I’ve never been to North Arlington. Just a general observation.

[Anonymous]

Faulty premise on another front: anyone who cares about looking like they have money wouldn’t live in Arlington anyway. They would live in NW DC or close in MD and McLean.

[Anonymous]

There are many people who grew up in affluent suburbs and went to public schools because private schools were not common in their areas. I’m thinking of Chicago North Shore, NYC suburbs, California and so on. They don’t see the need for private schools.

OP, I went to private schools and my best friend from those days lives in a fancy NYC suburb and her kids go to public schools. Because there really is no need or point going private if you live in Bronxville or Rye. My kids are in privates but that’s because of where we live. If we ever lived in Bronxville the kids are going public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand parents who send their kids to private school. I mean, the public schools around here are really good, so shouldn't they save their money for college? I'm trying really hard not to be judgmental here, but I think these parents are stupid, and their poor choices with money (meaning, not choices I would make) are hard to understand....

+1