Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I suggest OP go tour a couple of private schools during this falls admission process. The tours are quite eye opening and I promise you won’t be asking this question.
OP here, shrug. Having come from the bay area, I had always assumed how well a school did was just purely a function of how many hard working asian kids good at self learning were in any particular school. The whole game is just a filtering tournament anyhow and teachers don't really add huge value. You either have self motivated smart kids or you don't. So as a venture capitalist by training, the ROI for private seems pretty poor and silly intangibles I see being justified by parents on this board are borderline ridiculous. The real KPI is Asian enrollment pre-K numbers. Montgomery county has a bunch of older Asian parents due to Rockville and Bethesda being the good school districts in the 90s haydays. Today, most younger Asian parents are in NoVA. I'd take Haycock over Sidwell or St Albans in 5-10 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People pay for private school for the privilege of excluding certain groups of people like those with a lower socioeconomic status or less of a focus on education. Most of the private schools in the DMV were founded as a way for white people to get around anti-segregation laws.
Read the post right above yours. Your assumptions about why people switch to private are wrong.
a lot of people pick private for the smaller class sizes, too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.
It's beyond academics. There's a certain culture and socialization that exists at private schools that you can't find in public. Most private school parents aren't sending their kids to private school because their kids are super smart - it's because they want to limit their exposure to certain types of people and they want them to continue to perpetuate the culture that happens at these schools. Your public school could graduate full class loads of kids with perfect G.P.A.s and all ivy admissions and private school parents still wouldn't send their kids. You don't understand because you aren't in that crowd so of course it makes no sense to you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.
OP, I re-wrote your statement to fill in the pieces you missed:
I went to a public school in the 90s, because my parents couldn't afford it. I continually tell myself (and therapist) it was one of the top public high schools in California because it makes me less jealous of my private school friends. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. And I asked all of them to confirm my theory, again it really helped me with the fact they my parents couldn't afford it. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house, because I can't afford to send them to private school today. And I feel really guilty about it when I see all my friends send their kids there. And by posting on DCUM and saying this out loud I can justify to myself why going to public is so much better for them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People pay for private school for the privilege of excluding certain groups of people like those with a lower socioeconomic status or less of a focus on education. Most of the private schools in the DMV were founded as a way for white people to get around anti-segregation laws.
Read the post right above yours. Your assumptions about why people switch to private are wrong.
Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.
Anonymous wrote:People pay for private school for the privilege of excluding certain groups of people like those with a lower socioeconomic status or less of a focus on education. Most of the private schools in the DMV were founded as a way for white people to get around anti-segregation laws.
Anonymous wrote:I went to a public school in the 90s, it was one of the top public high schools in California. When I went to university, I noticed very little difference between those who went to public vs private schools. The SAT scores in DC private schools are basically comparable to the top publics. I don't get it, i mean if you got millions to burn, so be it. I rather give my kids a house.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Other than price, why aren’t we all using the English governor/governess model, supplemented with private tutoring for specific math and science subjects? Reducing the student to teacher ratio to 1:1 (or 2:1, maybe a bit higher if you have 3 or more children) is clearly going to overcome nearly any advantage a school might otherwise offer, at least in terms of educational tailoring and outcomes for specific students. Homeschooling can (emphasis on can) use the same reduction in student to teacher ratios to achieve desirable outcomes. Worries about “socialization” are kind of silly—parents of means are going to make sure their kids are appropriately socialized. So really, by focusing on public v private, folks are missing the true difference making opportunity.
because if haven't figure it out, the modern education system is not about learning anything. It is an endless competitive tournament for your kids to compete for ever smaller slices of professional jobs eroded by by ever more sophisticated automation/software/AI, pushed by parents ever so desperate to hold on to the wealth created by past generations. Get with the program.
There’s no program to get with. Which kids start businesses? Who does it more often - public school kids, private school kids, or very affluent kids taught to be entrepreneurs? What skills do you want your children to have. You may be thinking too small.
Zuckerberg and Bezos are products of public schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Based upon what I know of my local public school schedule for K, compared to the private K where my kid is, I am more than happy to keep paying for school (no skin off my back after five years of $$ child care).
For example, my kid's K has a regular daily rhythm. The public K has a different routine every day.
My kid gets 3 hours of outdoor time daily. The public K kids get 20 minutes of recess 4 days a week. NO RECESS on Wednesdays but an extra special so the teachers can have "super planning" time. Unbelievable! (And I used to be a K teacher. I'm enraged for those kids and families.)
My kid's teachers help them prepare snack together and they get to eat outside in a gorgeous courtyard. The public K gets 20 minutes for lunch in a crowded cafeteria at 10 a.m.
Everything my kid's teachers do is focused on social-emotional development. The public K has a 15-minute block at drop-off time devoted to "SEL." What a joke.
Every K teacher and administrator already knows my kid by name and me at least by face. The public school has 700+ children.
My kid's school views every moment as a learning opportunity. The public school principal started her most recent newsletter with: "The kids will NOT be learning if they are NOT in school; learning will ONLY happen when they are here." Patently ridiculous given the past 18 months, but whatever. A clear bid to keep her per-pupil state funding that I can see right through.
Need I go on? It's just a better choice for my kid. I am angry for the families who have no other choice.
Wow. Let’s just end this discussion right here. OP’s question has been answered.
Yes. And OPs post misses the point—education is a service that is either purchased directly (via private school / tutoring) or indirectly (based on home purchase price / rents, which are adjusted based on public school district location). If you max out housing budget to live in a “preferred” district, then the neighbor that also splashes out for private school seems an outrageous spendthrift. But the same person could buy in a less highly rated school district (saving money in housing expense, and sacrificing neighborhood prestige) and send their kids to private school, but then their neighbor may think their spending on private school is outrageous. Different strokes for different folks. Buy (directly or indirectly) the amount of education and housing that is a good value to you, based on what you can afford.
You’re assuming that people are rational maximizers and that choices actually exist for everyone. They’re not and they don’t.
I’m the PP comparing my kid’s private to our local public.
1) we paid no consideration to schools when we bought because we never thought we’d have a kid; and
2) we actually bought in the “good” school zone for our division without knowing, because we didn’t care at the time.
We were able to have some choice in our housing location, and after having a kid, in prioritizing budget. The family 2 miles down the street in public housing literally can’t choose a better option. And that makes me angry. Every kid deserves recess.