Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extracurricular enrichment completely underestimates the opportunity cost of time.

Dumb NP here. Do you mean that you are less likely to need outside enrichment in private?

I think generally yes. And specifically yes if you choose a more traditional school that actually teaches kids, instead of assuming they'll discover everything on their own.

I was spending a LOT of time implementing full math, reading, and writing programs for my kids who were in public. Switching to a trad religious private meant that abruptly it was much more optional; I could be confident that they were going to learn their times tables, read older literature, be scaffolded into writing, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciate all of the people saying how awful private school is, the parents are terrible people and the children are a mess with no hope for successful futures.

My kids are applying to a few very selective private schools for next year and the competition to get in is fierce. If you could help convince the rest of the applicant pool that we’re all idiots for wasting $50k per year I’d be grateful.

Lol

Anonymous wrote:Extracurricular enrichment completely underestimates the opportunity cost of time.

Dumb NP here. Do you mean that you are less likely to need outside enrichment in private?

Lol, thanks for your oh-so-relevant anecdote

Anonymous wrote:Extracurricular enrichment completely underestimates the opportunity cost of time.

I don’t disagree at all! But vast majority of parents at privates that I know have to do enrichment anyway because their privates aren’t up to scratch. Check out the eye opening Lucy Calkins posts on this forum. When confronted with the fact that private schools are using a failed system for teaching reading, one of the parents chides the other posters claiming that they should have known (obviously) to teach their kids how to read before they even started kindergarten.

I can’t wrap my mind around that sort of craziness!