Anonymous wrote:why are DCUM people so crazy? I send my daughter to an EOTP Title I school (and planning to stay). My husband and I are both elite-college educated, well employed and I'm an Exeter grad. Is raising a child these days all about shaving for percentages? There are a lot of merits to private schools and public schools. Weigh what's most important to you -- diversity, test scores, extras, college placement, etc. -- and what you can manage/afford and send your kid there. Most important, don't neglect the work you must do as parents to ensure your kids are well rounded, conscientious global citizens. No school can replace what you're giving them (or not) at home.

17:16 here: Agree completely, and our kids are also ethnically and economically diverse EOTP school now, and going to stay there until they graduate. I made that clear in my post. We were more conservative in terms of ES, and if a younger child has learning differences we would consider private for that child for that reason. There are plenty of kids in the school our kids are at now who have faced and are facing serious challenges, and our kids are friends with them, learning from them as well as with them, and some of our kids were "onlies" from our ES, so they have had to integrate themselves into a community of children whom I think are quite amazing, especially the ones who are struggling in a variety of ways. Have one in high school already, NOT worried about eating disorders, maybe we raised her immune but I think the environment has actually made the difference. Most telling observation from one of my girls was that the kids at this school are "nicer" than those from her WOTP ES, who were mostly headed for private schools in the end. And from what I have seen of her friends, I agree with her.

No obsessions, just wanted to explain my background as well as I could, and I wholeheartedly agree with another poster that the rise in tuition means that the schools we all went to are now mostly populated by one percenters. And we will not join the Chevy Chase Club because I do not have an open mind about the crowd there or the utility of it. And we will not live in the heart of Spring Valley in one of those very large houses. And my children will not be going to the modern version of Ms. Shippen's, and my daughters will not be debutantes. And there is a lot to be said for physical labor. In addition to cleaning houses for a summer, I did physical work all through college within and for a community I cared deeply about. I don't expect my kids to do the same, but I do expect them to find paid employment over the summers as they get older. So I guess I do have some lines I have drawn in the sand.

I have heard horror stories from acquaintances whose kids are at these private schools now, and while I thought we had our fair share of miscreants back in the day who were never held responsible for actions that would have gotten others expelled, and those in a different social strata arrested, it seems to have gotten worse in some ways. For example, I assumed that at least with respect to the STA/NCS rape issues it would have gotten a whole lot better. And STA/NCS knocked the religion out of many of my sibs/cousins permanently, and I think it has the same effect now.

Finally, due to my bubble upbringing I had never thought about handbags at all until I read that thread, and while initially it was interesting from a sort of sociological perspective, I did end up honestly shocked by where it went, and these private school mothers were not joking. They were not all SAHMs, but the lawyers who worked hard for their handbags were no better in terms of judging and evaluating their fellow mothers based on what they carried on their arms. Sometimes the most superficial threads are the most enlightening. I did not know (or had forgotten) that purses can cost $3,000 or much, much, more, and that these otherwise intelligent articulate women would go into what I have come to call "Perfect Madness" mode. Good book. Loved the Nanny Diaries as well. Eyes WIDE OPEN people.

Anonymous wrote:Good guess, LOL! Very close.

I, too, worry about happiness and, actually, about education -- in the sense of turning our kids onto the delights of reading, thinking, problem-solving, empathizing, figuring things out...

Not so much an issue (for the kids, at least) at the elementary school level -- though the instrumentalist of many parents is already apparent at that stage. But by HS, even (maybe especially) the kids who love to read and think are under tremendous pressure to just power through crushing workloads with no time to really reflect on what they're learning, much less to pursue interesting tangents. My own childhood and adolescence was filled with such opportunities and when I arrived at college I was like a kid in a candy store.

But had my HS education looked like the Big 3 experience today, I'd have been burnt out and/or needed a gap year

Please PP, tell me how I can give this to my kid. Go off the grid entirely?

Good guess, LOL! Very close.

I, too, worry about happiness and, actually, about education -- in the sense of turning our kids onto the delights of reading, thinking, problem-solving, empathizing, figuring things out...

Not so much an issue (for the kids, at least) at the elementary school level -- though the instrumentalist of many parents is already apparent at that stage. But by HS, even (maybe especially) the kids who love to read and think are under tremendous pressure to just power through crushing workloads with no time to really reflect on what they're learning, much less to pursue interesting tangents. My own childhood and adolescence was filled with such opportunities and when I arrived at college I was like a kid in a candy store.

But had my HS education looked like the Big 3 experience today, I'd have been burnt out and/or needed a gap year

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I get that you want to sound earnest, but you come across as smug and self-righteous. These are attitudes I'd hope to avoid.

Referring to PP at 17:16.

I disagree. PP at 17:16, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed discussion. I have many of the same thoughts/concerns. My background is not nearly as illustrious; I've got a lot of Stanford baggage, but since I was raised in California, less of the East Coast knowledge of/concern with names/prestige. Notwithstanding my parents Exeter/Stanford pedigree, I went to excellent public schools all the way through. And I absolutely appreciate the exposure to different types, different backgrounds, ethnicities. I had jobs (retail, restaurant), beginning as soon as I could - even now, 30 years later, I marvel at the people I met, the different realities I saw. It still stuns me that kids these days for the most part don't work. (Other than unpaid internships). That (early, menial) work experience is invaluable, in my opinion. So, turn to now - we have our child at Brent - public on Capitol Hill - it has been phenomenal (currently in K). But the writing is on the wall -our public middle school S.U.C.K.S. So, not going to happen. But I have great concerns (similar to yours) about private school. We absolutely can easily afford it. But, generally (I hold out hope for CHDS, which I hear is "different') don't want to, for many of the same reasons you have articulated. Our child is young - we shall see! But, ideally NOT private, if we can find a good public option.

God, I hope this is a parody.

Sadly I'm afraid not.

It's got to be a joke. Good luck to her in terms of getting her kid in anywhere once the schools meet her.

What is your problem? What is wrong with what PP said? It's her view and her experience. I don't get your hostility.

Ok, I'll bite, since I was the poster who (sincerely, actually) hoped it was a parody -- in which case it would have been a work of genius rather than a case- study in the lack of self-awareness.

What was jarring in both this post and 17:16's was the ambivalent obsession with wealth and status. So on the one hand, there's a "don't send your innocent children to the land of viciously nasty rich people who will judge you by where you went to school and what handbag you carry" and at the same time, there's the almost genealogical presentation of the poster's own wealth and status, coupled with the assurance like "we absolutely can easily afford" private school. There's an endorsement of diversity, but also what seems like a real like of empathy or respect for people whose lives really are challenging (see, for example, repeated references to "Yale or Jail" and the embrace of "menial" jobs as eye-opening).

And all this takes place in a context where the choice isn't public vs. private in some abstract sense, but specific upper NW privates known for their high-performing students and relative diversity vs. specific upper NW neighborhood elementary schools known for their high-performing students and relative affluence/lack of diversity. And where the people who face this particular type of choice are often if not literally neighbors, then people who have chosen to live in demographically quite similar upper middle class neighborhoods in NW. That matters, in part, because the "choose public if you want diversity" argument becomes less than compelling if the public in question is one of the JKLM schools (and the private is Sidwell or GDS). And that's especially true when the plan is to exit at middle school, when the student body actually does get much more diverse.

FWIW, I read the calls for adherence to the thread's topic in this light. Basically, let's not have a generic public vs. private debate, but a what's the trade-off here discussion. Which is also what makes things like characterizing mothers who chose private schools as vipers obsessed with their status at the country club seem kind of over the top. Seriously, do you know people like this (I don't) -- or do they only exist on DCUM? Again, they'd pretty much have to be your neighbors.

Wowza, I've avoided clicking on this thread until just now - and first, I have to say that this ^ is amazing - you must be a sociology professor home on a snow day.

Secondly, where the hell is anyone talking abut their kid's sense of happiness in this thread? This is such a problem in this society, and in this city in general. It's this same awful pyramid that we have all been shoved into: Good school leads to good connections leads to good job = happiness ? Oh, guess not. Just because PP waited tables and "slummed" when he was in college it doesn't mean he ever actually connected to any of the humans he encountered during that "phase" of his life.

Are we raising another generation of miserable "big law partners" or do we actually give a shit if our kids are happy? Do you OP? What are your hopes and dreams for your kids? Is this the question you should be asking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here's why: if you, and any subsequent posters (!!) actually knew the neighborhoods surrounding Janney, Key, Mann, Lafayette and to a lesser extent, Murch, you would understand that 95% of the children attending these public schools are not from "all walks of life." They are all from "a privileged background." They are NOT socio-economicallly diverse. They all, with very very few exceptions, are the products of parents in the highest SES bands in the entire United States.

This is a fact. True, there are handfuls of somewhat lower income renters at a handful of these schools but the numbers do not lie.



+1 Well said, totally agree with your analysis.


I am one of the "subsequent posters" (not sure what the !! means). We could go probably go private but we choose to go to Hearst. It is possible to live in Ward 3 and attend a school that has kid from all walks of life. The other parents at the school have a very wide range of professions-- everything from lawyers and academics to restaurant workers and manual laborers. Hearst absolutely is socio-economically diverse and that is why we chose it, and actively did NOT choose Janney, Mann, etc.

One more time, with feeling: this is a thread that asks about Janney, Key, Lafayette, Mann and probably Murch.

It is not asking about Stoddert, Eaton, Hearst. It is not asking about private schools in Dallas. It is not asking about Catholic schools in south Chicago as an alternative to public schools in south Chicago.

Hi, thanks PP. OP here. Yes, please, the question is about GDS/Sidwell versus JKLM (in fact, we are considering Mann specifically) differences (i.e. curricular, academically speaking, teacher quality, languages exposure, arts, music, etc....)

OP, with respect, you may have started the thread but you do not get to dictate what other relevant discussion then entails. It is absolutely relevant to your question that some posters (myself included) not only think that privates are not as good as those specific public schools in upper NW, but they are also not any better than other public schools in other wards of the city.

Hi PP, OP here. As well with all due respect please be aware that I didn't want to dictate anything at all. That was definitely not my intention. As I said previously on this same forum when some other mom/dad pointed out that the thread was "degenerating", I value all the responses, and I am very grateful to everyone who has taken the time and effort to respond[u]. Every thought has an intrinsic value and, even if some what related, or not related at all, if that thought derives or reflects a sentiment that my question has generated I should maybe take it into account.

That said, I think there is no harm in kindly asking if please someone can give me their perspectives about the specifics I asked. On top, I have tried to specify my question even more, just to clarify the type of info that would be more helpful for me, in case someone could/want to help me and my family in making what is for us a very important decision (we would have to move from the current house, which by the way we love, in case we opt for the public option).

Finally, please note that you are "dictating" me to not dictate, that, I think, is somewhat ironic

Best, OP

Anonymous wrote:Alum of a local public school & an Ivy, with kids now at a KLM. The facts clearly support & our experience is that a vast majority of the kids at the JKLMs are from privileged or very privileged families -- with parents who are very well educated and most of whom *could* send their children to privates with varying levels of financial comfort/discomfort. Just to note that so many kids from both public and private schools from their area go on to great-to-fantastic colleges and have incredible contacts and opportunities (yes, as a public school grad, many classmates are HYP and top other college alums, have stellar jobs -- and likewise experienced hyper intense academic environments in HS, date rapes and eating disorders and drugs and stuff). I don't think the *differences* are as different as most private schoolers think they are. The steep tuition increases in the past decade or so have changed the dynamics at the top local privates mean that the families are nearly all one percenters (or even higher), when there used to be more of a range of one-to-five percenters - so few that are big law or VERY successful entrepreneurs or consultants now attend in the elementary years.

I should add to the original question - I think the teachers and academics are very good at our KLM, although do agree things like the arts & other specials are weaker, but the core subjects are good/fine. I've found the teachers are extremely engaged, caring, reach out to go the extra mile to support kids, etc at our schools so far. The facilities are the big 3 are amazing but the facilities at the some of the locals are nice. For our kids, the little bit bigger class size gives them the opportunity to experience and befriend a wider range of kids (and I don't think a class size of 20 is particularly big - back in my day it was 30!) we also love the neighborhood culture and experience of the school, which has added a lot of value to us and our kids - kind of the idyllic childhood experience - which I think is very different than the privates experience in this area.

Alum of a local public school & an Ivy, with kids now at a KLM. The facts clearly support & our experience is that a vast majority of the kids at the JKLMs are from privileged or very privileged families -- with parents who are very well educated and most of whom *could* send their children to privates with varying levels of financial comfort/discomfort. Just to note that so many kids from both public and private schools from their area go on to great-to-fantastic colleges and have incredible contacts and opportunities (yes, as a public school grad, many classmates are HYP and top other college alums, have stellar jobs -- and likewise experienced hyper intense academic environments in HS, date rapes and eating disorders and drugs and stuff). I don't think the *differences* are as different as most private schoolers think they are. The steep tuition increases in the past decade or so have changed the dynamics at the top local privates mean that the families are nearly all one percenters (or even higher), when there used to be more of a range of one-to-five percenters - so few that are big law or VERY successful entrepreneurs or consultants now attend in the elementary years.

why are DCUM people so crazy? I send my daughter to an EOTP Title I school (and planning to stay). My husband and I are both elite-college educated, well employed and I'm an Exeter grad. Is raising a child these days all about shaving for percentages? There are a lot of merits to private schools and public schools. Weigh what's most important to you -- diversity, test scores, extras, college placement, etc. -- and what you can manage/afford and send your kid there. Most important, don't neglect the work you must do as parents to ensure your kids are well rounded, conscientious global citizens. No school can replace what you're giving them (or not) at home.

In K. And certainly exiting neighborhood schools by middle school, probably for private.

Same attitudes as 17:16 (hence the endorsement) -- just a different neighborhood (Capitol Hill).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I get that you want to sound earnest, but you come across as smug and self-righteous. These are attitudes I'd hope to avoid.

Referring to PP at 17:16.

I disagree. PP at 17:16, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed discussion. I have many of the same thoughts/concerns. My background is not nearly as illustrious; I've got a lot of Stanford baggage, but since I was raised in California, less of the East Coast knowledge of/concern with names/prestige. Notwithstanding my parents Exeter/Stanford pedigree, I went to excellent public schools all the way through. And I absolutely appreciate the exposure to different types, different backgrounds, ethnicities. I had jobs (retail, restaurant), beginning as soon as I could - even now, 30 years later, I marvel at the people I met, the different realities I saw. It still stuns me that kids these days for the most part don't work. (Other than unpaid internships). That (early, menial) work experience is invaluable, in my opinion. So, turn to now - we have our child at Brent - public on Capitol Hill - it has been phenomenal (currently in K). But the writing is on the wall -our public middle school S.U.C.K.S. So, not going to happen. But I have great concerns (similar to yours) about private school. We absolutely can easily afford it. But, generally (I hold out hope for CHDS, which I hear is "different') don't want to, for many of the same reasons you have articulated. Our child is young - we shall see! But, ideally NOT private, if we can find a good public option.

God, I hope this is a parody.

Sadly I'm afraid not.

It's got to be a joke. Good luck to her in terms of getting her kid in anywhere once the schools meet her.

What is your problem? What is wrong with what PP said? It's her view and her experience. I don't get your hostility.

Ok, I'll bite, since I was the poster who (sincerely, actually) hoped it was a parody -- in which case it would have been a work of genius rather than a case- study in the lack of self-awareness.

What was jarring in both this post and 17:16's was the ambivalent obsession with wealth and status. So on the one hand, there's a "don't send your innocent children to the land of viciously nasty rich people who will judge you by where you went to school and what handbag you carry" and at the same time, there's the almost genealogical presentation of the poster's own wealth and status, coupled with the assurance like "we absolutely can easily afford" private school. There's an endorsement of diversity, but also what seems like a real like of empathy or respect for people whose lives really are challenging (see, for example, repeated references to "Yale or Jail" and the embrace of "menial" jobs as eye-opening).

And all this takes place in a context where the choice isn't public vs. private in some abstract sense, but specific upper NW privates known for their high-performing students and relative diversity vs. specific upper NW neighborhood elementary schools known for their high-performing students and relative affluence/lack of diversity. And where the people who face this particular type of choice are often if not literally neighbors, then people who have chosen to live in demographically quite similar upper middle class neighborhoods in NW. That matters, in part, because the "choose public if you want diversity" argument becomes less than compelling if the public in question is one of the JKLM schools (and the private is Sidwell or GDS). And that's especially true when the plan is to exit at middle school, when the student body actually does get much more diverse.

FWIW, I read the calls for adherence to the thread's topic in this light. Basically, let's not have a generic public vs. private debate, but a what's the trade-off here discussion. Which is also what makes things like characterizing mothers who chose private schools as vipers obsessed with their status at the country club seem kind of over the top. Seriously, do you know people like this (I don't) -- or do they only exist on DCUM? Again, they'd pretty much have to be your neighbors.

Thanks, for pointing out the irony there. But PP said that her kid is at Brent.

Some of you people claiming you would never go private couldn't get in anyway. Because you're nuts.

Thanks 9:18. I'm the one who initially described 17:16 as smug and self-righteous, but I had not checked back with other comments because I was so turned off. Your explanation of what you found offensive about 17:16 almost exactly how I feel too. Thanks for putting it in words.

A lot of kids at the privates don't live in NW. They commute from Potomac, Bethesda, McLean, Chevy Chase, etc. So no, not everyone is your neighbor. Choosing a neighborhood school over a non-neighborhood school has certain advantages and disadvantages. Kids at private schools are particularly far-flung vs a DC charter or DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I get that you want to sound earnest, but you come across as smug and self-righteous. These are attitudes I'd hope to avoid.

Referring to PP at 17:16.

I disagree. PP at 17:16, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed discussion. I have many of the same thoughts/concerns. My background is not nearly as illustrious; I've got a lot of Stanford baggage, but since I was raised in California, less of the East Coast knowledge of/concern with names/prestige. Notwithstanding my parents Exeter/Stanford pedigree, I went to excellent public schools all the way through. And I absolutely appreciate the exposure to different types, different backgrounds, ethnicities. I had jobs (retail, restaurant), beginning as soon as I could - even now, 30 years later, I marvel at the people I met, the different realities I saw. It still stuns me that kids these days for the most part don't work. (Other than unpaid internships). That (early, menial) work experience is invaluable, in my opinion. So, turn to now - we have our child at Brent - public on Capitol Hill - it has been phenomenal (currently in K). But the writing is on the wall -our public middle school S.U.C.K.S. So, not going to happen. But I have great concerns (similar to yours) about private school. We absolutely can easily afford it. But, generally (I hold out hope for CHDS, which I hear is "different') don't want to, for many of the same reasons you have articulated. Our child is young - we shall see! But, ideally NOT private, if we can find a good public option.

God, I hope this is a parody.

Sadly I'm afraid not.

It's got to be a joke. Good luck to her in terms of getting her kid in anywhere once the schools meet her.

What is your problem? What is wrong with what PP said? It's her view and her experience. I don't get your hostility.

Ok, I'll bite, since I was the poster who (sincerely, actually) hoped it was a parody -- in which case it would have been a work of genius rather than a case- study in the lack of self-awareness.

What was jarring in both this post and 17:16's was the ambivalent obsession with wealth and status. So on the one hand, there's a "don't send your innocent children to the land of viciously nasty rich people who will judge you by where you went to school and what handbag you carry" and at the same time, there's the almost genealogical presentation of the poster's own wealth and status, coupled with the assurance like "we absolutely can easily afford" private school. There's an endorsement of diversity, but also what seems like a real like of empathy or respect for people whose lives really are challenging (see, for example, repeated references to "Yale or Jail" and the embrace of "menial" jobs as eye-opening).

And all this takes place in a context where the choice isn't public vs. private in some abstract sense, but specific upper NW privates known for their high-performing students and relative diversity vs. specific upper NW neighborhood elementary schools known for their high-performing students and relative affluence/lack of diversity. And where the people who face this particular type of choice are often if not literally neighbors, then people who have chosen to live in demographically quite similar upper middle class neighborhoods in NW. That matters, in part, because the "choose public if you want diversity" argument becomes less than compelling if the public in question is one of the JKLM schools (and the private is Sidwell or GDS). And that's especially true when the plan is to exit at middle school, when the student body actually does get much more diverse.

FWIW, I read the calls for adherence to the thread's topic in this light. Basically, let's not have a generic public vs. private debate, but a what's the trade-off here discussion. Which is also what makes things like characterizing mothers who chose private schools as vipers obsessed with their status at the country club seem kind of over the top. Seriously, do you know people like this (I don't) -- or do they only exist on DCUM? Again, they'd pretty much have to be your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If money is not an impediment, you go with the top private school every time. But whether money is an impediment depends on each family's finances.

I think of it as analogous to picking a car to drive. My trusty Hyundai can get me to the same places an $80,000 Audi might get me. The Audi will be more comfortable on my tush, will have more safety features, will have a better sound system for my music, will probably get me where I'm going faster, will make me generally happier. If I can afford the extra cost, I'll take the Audi every time. But since I don't have that kind of money lying around, I stick with my Hyundai and stare jealously at Audi drivers.

Interesting analogy. I drive a $20k Hyundai and wouldn't be caught dead in an $80,000 car because I would find it a total violation of my values. You could say the same for private school.

I don't understand this vaguely smug sounding comment by the violated values PP. How did you arrive at the $20,000 figure? A 2015 Nissan Sentra retails for $16,480 MSRP. If I pulled up in your home in my 2015 Nissan Sentra, would you high-five me for sharing your "values"? What if I won that car at a raffle? Would you think I am even more virtuous than you are because my Sentra costs less than your Hyundai?

What if I pulled up in the $34,000 Hyundai Azera model? It's still a Hyundai, but I spent more to get increased comfort. Do you not value comfort? What in the hell are you saying?

pp here. I am truly sorry if i offended you. I am honestly trying to be smug; to the contrary, this and other threads have me feeling down, not superior. I was picking up on the fact that the earlier poster said she drove a hyundai and that she would naturally rather drive an 80k audi than a hyundai. In response, I was saying, not if it cost four times more (as would be the cost differential in the case of my particular hyundai) there are other things I would do with the extra 60k, either for my family or someone else's.

I am bummed that the attitude throughout this thread and so many others here seems to be that public eduction doesn't have any intrinsic merits of its own. everyone talks like private school is something that anyone in their right mind would do if only everyone had the money. And that simply isn't true for some of us. I am not trying to get into some sort of "gotcha" debate where the fact that public schools vary in quality is used to undermine my commitment to public education and to suggest that i'm a hypocrite because I haven't chosen the worst possible public school to send my kid to.

So my point, to reiterate, is this: Before you assume that everyone would do private if they had the funds, keep in mind that some of us can afford to and don't-- because we think that public provides some important advantages, for our kids, for our communities, and for our democracy.

that's all. I think there may be good reasons for some families and some kids to go private, for the record. But please don't forget that there are values that argue in the other direction, even if people on here prefer to look the other way.

*honestly NOT trying to be smug

So what are those values? (serious question). And, on the same token, would you like that your children attend in the future a public university?

Not the PP but I agree with her sentiment. Even if we had the money for private I don't think we would do it. My husband and I both grew up in modest, blue collar neighborhoods and attended public school. We both excelled academically but we also learned important life lessons that I just don't think you get when surrounded by privilege. If I truly felt that my kids were not getting a proper education I would consider other options, but for now they are getting a great education at their DCPS so we will stick with it, even if we won the lottery.

Absolutely!

I want my kids to meet children from all walks of life and to learn how to be open to everyone. I want them to understand that not everyone comes from a privileged background. I want them to have friends in their neighborhood. I want them to see diversity -- racially, ethnically, religiously and most importantly socio economically. I want them to understand that education is a right, not a privilege. And I want to support public schools by sending my kids to them, not have the higher SES kids with the most involved, educated parents creamed off to some stuck up private school that they drive half way across the city to attend. Public schools are for everyone not just those who can't afford private school and we should ALL be supporting them for them to improve and meet our needs.

.

I enjoyed your rousing soapbox speech. I also really, really strongly suspect that you do not live anywhere near Ward 3, District of Columbia. That is the area that is the subject of this thread, by the way. Not "private schools in general everywhere."

Here's why: if you, and any subsequent posters (!!) actually knew the neighborhoods surrounding Janney, Key, Mann, Lafayette and to a lesser extent, Murch, you would understand that 95% of the children attending [b]these public schools are not from "all walks of life." They are all from "a privileged background." They are NOT socio-economicallly diverse. They all, with very very few exceptions, are the products of parents in the highest SES bands in the entire United States.[/b]

This is a fact. True, there are handfuls of somewhat lower income renters at a handful of these schools but the numbers do not lie.

This is why DH & I chose to move to Cleveland Park & send our kids to Eaton as opposed to moving IB for a JKLM or sending the kids to private school. They're getting an excellent educational foundation in a diverse environment*. It's the best of both worlds, IMO.

And, yes, unless something should change fairly drastically between now & then, we are planning on sending the kids to Hardy & then Wilson. And, yes, we could very easily afford private.

*by "diverse environment, I'm obviously referring to our school, not our neighborhood. The lack of diversity in the CP was really the only thing that made us hesitate a bit before deciding to move there. Fortunately, the diversity of the school community helps compensate for that somewhat, IMO (well, insomuch as such things can really be "compensated" for ).