Anonymous wrote:There’s something I’ve noticed more clearly as my kids get older — especially in progressive or urban public school spaces — and I wonder if others feel it too.
There’s this quiet but powerful expectation that middle- and upper-middle-class families (especially with “easy” kids) have a social obligation to stay in the public system. That we should “share space” with higher-needs peers — not just in theory, but in the actual experience of the classroom: absorbing disruptions, lowered expectations, limited differentiation, and the constant shifting of instructional time toward emotional or behavioral management.
The message isn’t always explicit, but it’s there: If you leave, you’re abandoning equity. If you stay, your child’s stability is the price you pay.
Meanwhile, families who are truly wealthy — who can afford $45K+/year private schools without blinking — face no such guilt. They opt out completely, and no one expects them to justify it. But the “responsibility” of sticking it out seems to land squarely on the shoulders of those who are just well off enough to have options, but not wealthy enough to float above the system entirely.
Of course high-needs students deserve support. But what often gets lost is that your average, well-behaved, academically prepared child also deserves to learn in peace, at a steady pace, with teachers who are able to teach — not just manage. And when that kind of classroom becomes rare, families like mine are left with a false choice: stay and sacrifice growth, or leave and be labeled selfish.
At some point, I stopped feeling guilty for choosing clarity, structure, and consistency — even if that means looking outside the traditional public system.
Anonymous wrote:The problem is an increasing number of kids have serious special needs. That, combined with the theory that integrating special needs kids is better for all of them, creates a perfect storm where no ones needs are actually being met. My kids went to a top elementary school in a high income area and many of the kids either 1) didn't speak English as a first language well 2) were autistic (enough that they needed headphones and/or an adult assistant) 3) the kids of neurosurgeons and constitutional lawyers
Who can manage that?
Anonymous wrote:I think you are missing a piece.
Often the pressure for UMC families to stay in public education comes from middle class families or even UMC families who for whatever reason cannot afford or don't want to go private.
And the reason is not because they want the UMC kids to "share space" with poor kids. It's because middle class families who can't afford private want to have well-resourced peers with educated parents. They don't want to be left alone to struggle through a public education system where they are the minority and where the entire system pretty much has to focus on the neediest students at the expense of middle class kids who, in that environment, are considered privileged.
Thus educated middle class families where the parents are teachers, government workers, nurses, administrators, etc., don't want the kids of doctors and lawyers to abandon public school for private. They know their kids will greatly benefit from a system where they are still "in the middle" in terms of SES.
I also think that among low income families and the people who are focused on helping low income kids, there's little pressure on UMC families to stay in the system. Instead, I think there is resentment towards these families and a sense of relief when they leave, because if you are focused on the needs of low income families in public education, the interests and demands of UMC families can be seen as a distraction and detraction.
I have seen this dynamic first hand at a Title 1 school that was openly hostile to UMC parents who wanted things common in UMC suburban schools.
By grouping middle and UMC families together (where UMC families *can* afford private, sometimes with some sacrifice, and middle class families cannot) you are missing the truth of the dynamic.
Anonymous wrote:Nobody should feel guilty for leaving the public school system if it's not working for your kid. Housing policy means that the "best" public schools often exclude most of the population due to housing prices. If anything, people moving to those areas and sending their kids to publicly funded schools are the worst. At least private school families are paying for their kids' education.
Anonymous wrote:There’s something I’ve noticed more clearly as my kids get older — especially in progressive or urban public school spaces — and I wonder if others feel it too.
There’s this quiet but powerful expectation that middle- and upper-middle-class families (especially with “easy” kids) have a social obligation to stay in the public system. That we should “share space” with higher-needs peers — not just in theory, but in the actual experience of the classroom: absorbing disruptions, lowered expectations, limited differentiation, and the constant shifting of instructional time toward emotional or behavioral management.
The message isn’t always explicit, but it’s there: If you leave, you’re abandoning equity. If you stay, your child’s stability is the price you pay.
Meanwhile, families who are truly wealthy — who can afford $45K+/year private schools without blinking — face no such guilt. They opt out completely, and no one expects them to justify it. But the “responsibility” of sticking it out seems to land squarely on the shoulders of those who are just well off enough to have options, but not wealthy enough to float above the system entirely.
Of course high-needs students deserve support. But what often gets lost is that your average, well-behaved, academically prepared child also deserves to learn in peace, at a steady pace, with teachers who are able to teach — not just manage. And when that kind of classroom becomes rare, families like mine are left with a false choice: stay and sacrifice growth, or leave and be labeled selfish.
At some point, I stopped feeling guilty for choosing clarity, structure, and consistency — even if that means looking outside the traditional public system.