Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a public school parent and private school veteran, and I would say the most significant factor for those who strongly prefer private schools is that they have selective admissions -- you can be sure your kid's classmates will be smart and well-behaved.

The lack of bureaucracy is another factor that probably has real impact, but charter schools have leveled the playing field significantly in that respect.

Yes, well-behaved like Owen Labrie and the other boys from St. Paul's school.

That's one kid.

It wasn't one kid, there was hook up culture at that school. Are you paying attention to the news?

Former DCPS aide here. DCPS central office gave us a curriculum to teach. Some times it was fine other times it was difficult for teachers. The other issue we had was that we had kids with a wide range of abilities in the classroom so adjusting the curriculum could prove challenging at times.

At my current school, we have units and still teach kids content. We are able to adjust if they are not understanding. We can do fun activities that the students enjoy. We have benchmarks. I am happy that I can create my own lesson plans!

Also there are not as many divisions that there were at my former school. There are fewer kids so they probably can't be mean to each other like the other school. As a minority, I do admit I as a teacher feel more comfortable because there are other minority teachers and parents. There were not as many teachers of color at the DCPS school. There was a divide between black and white which could be difficult to navigate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools also don't need to spend time teaching to, and taking, standardized tests.

There's greater freedom for teachers on curriculum, more attention as well as more feedback per kid and in general the ability to meet the kids where they are in any classroom.

--Public school parent who attended private schools and who thinks that while Privates are 5-10% better, the costs outweight the benefits.

What does "greater freedom for teachers on curriculum" really mean or look like? I ask because it seems that there are certain things you have to learn in certain grades no matter what. My kids have learned those things. But, they have not had any of the same teachers during ES, so I know that not all teachers use the same curriculum to teach the same information. They haven't even had the same math books or read the same literature even though they are in the same school. Parent of twins have commented that it feels like their kids go to two different schools sometimes. Each have had several teachers who have introduced new models and methods that they had studied over the summer in professional development courses that no other teacher in the school is using yet. So that seems like a lot of freedom to choose a curriculum.

Also, with baseline testing, pre-unit benchmarks, etc. No child is being given text that is below their own personal reading level and at least one of mine has tested out of math units and been given advanced enrichment work instead until the next pre-unit test; there are reading and math and enrichment specialist who work with kids who are advanced or struggling, plus on-line programs that allow a student to go farther and deeper based on ability, and Individual Education Plans with teams of special ed instructors and supports to enable every child to access the curriculum. So clearly the public school students are being met "where they are" in the classroom.

So when you make those two particular comparisons, are you talking about something different than this?

The teacher aide above can probably answer this better than I can, but: DCPS teachers are given a curriculum from DCPS central office. It pretty much tells them what they want to teach and how to do it.

At my private school, for instance, we did things very differently. The teachers developed the curriculum (not the central office). Instead of studying "world history" every year we had "central subjects." In forth grade we spend the entire year on Ancient Greece. We learned the language (top a degree), studied archaeology and architecture, sewed our own chitons with a sewing machine, made shields in shop class, investigated mythology at great length, wrote mythology plays and concluded the year with the olympics in which the whole school came to watch. It was awesome.

"fourth grade" and "to a degree" sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools also don't need to spend time teaching to, and taking, standardized tests.

There's greater freedom for teachers on curriculum, more attention as well as more feedback per kid and in general the ability to meet the kids where they are in any classroom.

--Public school parent who attended private schools and who thinks that while Privates are 5-10% better, the costs outweight the benefits.

What does "greater freedom for teachers on curriculum" really mean or look like? I ask because it seems that there are certain things you have to learn in certain grades no matter what. My kids have learned those things. But, they have not had any of the same teachers during ES, so I know that not all teachers use the same curriculum to teach the same information. They haven't even had the same math books or read the same literature even though they are in the same school. Parent of twins have commented that it feels like their kids go to two different schools sometimes. Each have had several teachers who have introduced new models and methods that they had studied over the summer in professional development courses that no other teacher in the school is using yet. So that seems like a lot of freedom to choose a curriculum.

Also, with baseline testing, pre-unit benchmarks, etc. No child is being given text that is below their own personal reading level and at least one of mine has tested out of math units and been given advanced enrichment work instead until the next pre-unit test; there are reading and math and enrichment specialist who work with kids who are advanced or struggling, plus on-line programs that allow a student to go farther and deeper based on ability, and Individual Education Plans with teams of special ed instructors and supports to enable every child to access the curriculum. So clearly the public school students are being met "where they are" in the classroom.

So when you make those two particular comparisons, are you talking about something different than this?

The teacher aide above can probably answer this better than I can, but: DCPS teachers are given a curriculum from DCPS central office. It pretty much tells them what they want to teach and how to do it.

At my private school, for instance, we did things very differently. The teachers developed the curriculum (not the central office). Instead of studying "world history" every year we had "central subjects." In forth grade we spend the entire year on Ancient Greece. We learned the language (top a degree), studied archaeology and architecture, sewed our own chitons with a sewing machine, made shields in shop class, investigated mythology at great length, wrote mythology plays and concluded the year with the olympics in which the whole school came to watch. It was awesome.

We are currently charter school parents but will be switching to private in middle school because:

1. selective admissions

2. small class sizes, the schools we are considering all have ratios of 6-7:1 for middle school.

3. more attention. kids are assigned an adviser with whom they meet with every morning.

4. DH and I both attended private schools from K-12 and feel more comfortable with what we know.

Anonymous wrote:Private schools also don't need to spend time teaching to, and taking, standardized tests.

There's greater freedom for teachers on curriculum, more attention as well as more feedback per kid and in general the ability to meet the kids where they are in any classroom.

--Public school parent who attended private schools and who thinks that while Privates are 5-10% better, the costs outweight the benefits.

What does "greater freedom for teachers on curriculum" really mean or look like? I ask because it seems that there are certain things you have to learn in certain grades no matter what. My kids have learned those things. But, they have not had any of the same teachers during ES, so I know that not all teachers use the same curriculum to teach the same information. They haven't even had the same math books or read the same literature even though they are in the same school. Parent of twins have commented that it feels like their kids go to two different schools sometimes. Each have had several teachers who have introduced new models and methods that they had studied over the summer in professional development courses that no other teacher in the school is using yet. So that seems like a lot of freedom to choose a curriculum.

Also, with baseline testing, pre-unit benchmarks, etc. No child is being given text that is below their own personal reading level and at least one of mine has tested out of math units and been given advanced enrichment work instead until the next pre-unit test; there are reading and math and enrichment specialist who work with kids who are advanced or struggling, plus on-line programs that allow a student to go farther and deeper based on ability, and Individual Education Plans with teams of special ed instructors and supports to enable every child to access the curriculum. So clearly the public school students are being met "where they are" in the classroom.

So when you make those two particular comparisons, are you talking about something different than this?

I was an aide at a well-regarded DCPS elementary and now teach at a private school in a different city. I do not think there are huge differences in the younger years. I do like teaching at a private better because of the latitude I have with the curriculum. I do not worry about testing. Also, for me a huge plus is lack of behavior issues.

While most kids were well-behaved at the DCPS where I was an aide, we had some poorly behaved kids who took up class time. I was nearly impossible to discipline these kids due to rules put in place by the administration.

OP this is how I see things.

I went to top private schools from PK-12, including a NE boarding school for high school. It was fabulous. I got a terrific education and have incredible friends. I also attended a prestigious college. But...

My private school (Similar to GDS or Sidwell) cost $4000 in 1985. That's equivalent to about $9000 today. I'd pay $9000 for my kid to repeat my experience, sure. I would NOT pay $40,000. Unless you are very very rich that amount of money simply isn't worth the relatively small differences I see so far between our good public and my private experience. This is money that we as a family use to enhance our life in all sorts of ways from which my kids benefit. I am very happy with my kids school and I don't doubt that my children will also wind up with a great education and attend great colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should probably post this in the private forum.

But:

1) Glorious facilities and supplies - fields, locker rooms, theaters, kilns, huge libraries, filmmaking equipment
2) The ability to not only pick the best and brightest, but to kick out any kids that you want

There are lots of private school parents on here that are making assertions on other threads, I wanted to tease this issue out of a specific comparison of a specific DCPS. So far, I am not particularly impressed with your list.

Why don't you say what school?

It came up on the Janney Rules thread (which is kind of an obnoxious title I will totally concede), but the discussions expanded to about Janney, Mann, Ross, implied Brent, etc. There were statements that X school is as good as private and responses that equalled "you are kidding yourself if you think that."


I want to know what the difference really is. I personally think it is a hard thing to compare, but people do not seem afraid to make bald assertions so I am asking what is behind those. I suspect many private school parents have no idea what the good DC publics are like other than what is on the surface. Those that do (including some PPs in this thread) are enlightening.

FWIW, I am a Janney parent and the teachers do not teach to the test, nor is there any kind of significant pressure surrounding the tests. I also am very impressed with the breadth and depth of the curriculum. It is not canned and in particular both the writing and the math curriculums I would call progressive and thoughtful.

Why do you even care? You just sound insecure when you start threads like this.

So you don't have an answer?

I am not insecure at all in my decisions about my child's education, but I am open to being educated on what I do not know. People are throwing out absolutes and I asked for a little more substance to consider. Feel free not to answer if you have nothing to contribute.

I did answer. I said facilities and selective admissions, and you said you were not impressed. Frankly, if you are going to dismiss class size, selective admissions, facilities, ability to fire teachers, ability to remove difficult children, and the absence of standardized testing, then, yes, I guess private and Janney are EXACTLY the same.

I also think that posting this in the DC public school forum rather than private schools indicates that you aren't looking for "enlightenment" from private school parents but rather affirmation from fellow DC public school parents in the echo chamber.

So, yeah, you are coming across as insecure.

- charter parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should probably post this in the private forum.

But:

1) Glorious facilities and supplies - fields, locker rooms, theaters, kilns, huge libraries, filmmaking equipment
2) The ability to not only pick the best and brightest, but to kick out any kids that you want

There are lots of private school parents on here that are making assertions on other threads, I wanted to tease this issue out of a specific comparison of a specific DCPS. So far, I am not particularly impressed with your list.

Why don't you say what school?

It came up on the Janney Rules thread (which is kind of an obnoxious title I will totally concede), but the discussions expanded to about Janney, Mann, Ross, implied Brent, etc. There were statements that X school is as good as private and responses that equalled "you are kidding yourself if you think that."


I want to know what the difference really is. I personally think it is a hard thing to compare, but people do not seem afraid to make bald assertions so I am asking what is behind those. I suspect many private school parents have no idea what the good DC publics are like other than what is on the surface. Those that do (including some PPs in this thread) are enlightening.

FWIW, I am a Janney parent and the teachers do not teach to the test, nor is there any kind of significant pressure surrounding the tests. I also am very impressed with the breadth and depth of the curriculum. It is not canned and in particular both the writing and the math curriculums I would call progressive and thoughtful.

Why do you even care? You just sound insecure when you start threads like this.

So you don't have an answer?

I am not insecure at all in my decisions about my child's education, but I am open to being educated on what I do not know. People are throwing out absolutes and I asked for a little more substance to consider. Feel free not to answer if you have nothing to contribute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a public school parent and private school veteran, and I would say the most significant factor for those who strongly prefer private schools is that they have selective admissions -- you can be sure your kid's classmates will be smart and well-behaved.

The lack of bureaucracy is another factor that probably has real impact, but charter schools have leveled the playing field significantly in that respect.

Yes, well-behaved like Owen Labrie and the other boys from St. Paul's school.

That's one kid.

And a cheap shot. Privates can kick out kids for bad behavior, because they have special needs, because they fail out etc. The can shape the class and cohort however they like.

And it made the national news because it's unusual for a kid at St. Paul's who was going to Harvard to be charged with something like this.

How many public school kids who get charged with "date rape" make the national news?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should probably post this in the private forum.

But:

1) Glorious facilities and supplies - fields, locker rooms, theaters, kilns, huge libraries, filmmaking equipment
2) The ability to not only pick the best and brightest, but to kick out any kids that you want

There are lots of private school parents on here that are making assertions on other threads, I wanted to tease this issue out of a specific comparison of a specific DCPS. So far, I am not particularly impressed with your list.

Why don't you say what school?

It came up on the Janney Rules thread (which is kind of an obnoxious title I will totally concede), but the discussions expanded to about Janney, Mann, Ross, implied Brent, etc. There were statements that X school is as good as private and responses that equalled "you are kidding yourself if you think that."

I want to know what the difference really is. I personally think it is a hard thing to compare, but people do not seem afraid to make bald assertions so I am asking what is behind those. I suspect many private school parents have no idea what the good DC publics are like other than what is on the surface. Those that do (including some PPs in this thread) are enlightening.

FWIW, I am a Janney parent and the teachers do not teach to the test, nor is there any kind of significant pressure surrounding the tests. I also am very impressed with the breadth and depth of the curriculum. It is not canned and in particular both the writing and the math curriculums I would call progressive and thoughtful.

Why do you even care? You just sound insecure when you start threads like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a public school parent and private school veteran, and I would say the most significant factor for those who strongly prefer private schools is that they have selective admissions -- you can be sure your kid's classmates will be smart and well-behaved.

The lack of bureaucracy is another factor that probably has real impact, but charter schools have leveled the playing field significantly in that respect.

Yes, well-behaved like Owen Labrie and the other boys from St. Paul's school.

That's one kid.

And a cheap shot. Privates can kick out kids for bad behavior, because they have special needs, because they fail out etc. The can shape the class and cohort however they like.

Anonymous wrote:Is it weird that I feel a little sguidgy about "glorious facilities"? Sure I want my kid to have clean surroundings and a lot of space to run, but it somehow seems sad and empty to think that the quality of their childhood depends on having a kiln on campus ...

Who said anything about the quality of their childhood???? OP just asked what is "better" about private schools, and there is no doubt that the facilities and supplies are better at most private schools. Just look at the art projects, or the music rooms.

PS. I am a DCPS graduate and a DCPCS parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a public school parent and private school veteran, and I would say the most significant factor for those who strongly prefer private schools is that they have selective admissions -- you can be sure your kid's classmates will be smart and well-behaved.

The lack of bureaucracy is another factor that probably has real impact, but charter schools have leveled the playing field significantly in that respect.

Yes, well-behaved like Owen Labrie and the other boys from St. Paul's school.

That's one kid.