Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a great analogy. My kid was lucky enough to get a Mercedes for the price of a Yugo, but it still grieves me that it I couldn’t feel good about letting him take the bus.

For what it’s worth, after spending many years rubbing elbows with Mercedes owners, I honestly have yet to meet one who doesn’t support improving buses. I have literally never heard one express anything but good will and support towards the bus system.

Nah, I hear a lot of people who don't want to pay more in taxes, or who want vouchers and "school choice" because they don't want to pay for the public schools. I also get a lot of side eye because I'm still involved with the (small, starved) PTA at our old public school.
Good will and support needs to be backed by money and action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a great analogy. My kid was lucky enough to get a Mercedes for the price of a Yugo, but it still grieves me that it I couldn’t feel good about letting him take the bus.

For what it’s worth, after spending many years rubbing elbows with Mercedes owners, I honestly have yet to meet one who doesn’t support improving buses. I have literally never heard one express anything but good will and support towards the bus system.

Nah, I hear a lot of people who don't want to pay more in taxes, or who want vouchers and "school choice" because they don't want to pay for the public schools. I also get a lot of side eye because I'm still involved with the (small, starved) PTA at our old public school.
Good will and support needs to be backed by money and action.

I vote Democratic but love school choice initiatives and wish more candidates supported it but teacher union lobby won't let it happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t read this thread yet, but that article was all over the place. At no point did the content of the article tie in with the title, for instance. Also unclear is the author’s definition of winning (attending Princeton was what I cane away with) and it was also unclear as to how the existence of private schools hurts the attendees of public schools (I’m not arguing that point either way, I am just pointing out that the author certainly didn’t make her case - if that was even her case...).

As the product of a mediocre public school system and the parent of children in a mediocre public school system, the article read as little more than an envious tirade against rich people...

LOL you went to Princeton and your children are in a mediocre public school. This is somewhat to what the article is conveying: how the world has gotten so much more competitive and what worked before does not work as well. Going to Princeton is not giving the guaranteed ROI in 2021 that it gave 25 years ago.

Both you and Mackenzie Scott and attended Princeton but she got the FAR better ROI than you. Lol Crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a great analogy. My kid was lucky enough to get a Mercedes for the price of a Yugo, but it still grieves me that it I couldn’t feel good about letting him take the bus.

For what it’s worth, after spending many years rubbing elbows with Mercedes owners, I honestly have yet to meet one who doesn’t support improving buses. I have literally never heard one express anything but good will and support towards the bus system.

Nah, I hear a lot of people who don't want to pay more in taxes, or who want vouchers and "school choice" because they don't want to pay for the public schools. I also get a lot of side eye because I'm still involved with the (small, starved) PTA at our old public school.
Good will and support needs to be backed by money and action.

Anonymous wrote:I moved my severely dyslexic DS to a private school after his public elementary school teacher mocked his writing in front of the class and would not post something he laboriously hand-wrote up on the wall with the work of the other students because it was too messy. He's a resilient kid -- he had to be -- but after years of hearing "you are lesser" from the public schools, that was the last straw.

The private school saw a brilliant child with a reading disability and acted accordingly. In contrast, the public school saw, and treated him as, a failure. Watching my previously beaten-down child soar has been emotionally wrenching, because I can see just how badly he was treated at the public school, and how many kids suffer just like him. He has turned into a confident reader and writer, and genuinely loves school. The private school has changed the course of his life. The entire experience has made me a supporter of income-limited vouchers, because other children should have the ability to escape, especially kids with SNs. It is heartbreaking and flat-out wrong how many kids suffer like my DS did, but who can't escape.

Caitlin Flanagan has a long history of being a shoddy and untrustworthy writer, but this article goes beyond her usual trolling drivel. I wonder if the Atlantic did any fact checking at all, maybe not because they seem to be more into truthiness rather than truth these days.

If most public schools in the US offered children a good education appropriate to their abilities, then maybe there wouldn't need to be private schools. But that's very far from the case, While affluent suburban districts are able to do this, the situation is very different in urban and rural areas. I would think the residents of the DC area would already know this. The truth is that the educational opportunities available to US schoolkids are very localized and unfairly deprive a great many of them of the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t read this thread yet, but that article was all over the place. At no point did the content of the article tie in with the title, for instance. Also unclear is the author’s definition of winning (attending Princeton was what I cane away with) and it was also unclear as to how the existence of private schools hurts the attendees of public schools (I’m not arguing that point either way, I am just pointing out that the author certainly didn’t make her case - if that was even her case...).

As the product of a mediocre public school system and the parent of children in a mediocre public school system, the article read as little more than an envious tirade against rich people...

LOL you went to Princeton and your children are in a mediocre public school. This is somewhat to what the article is conveying: how the world has gotten so much more competitive and what worked before does not work as well. Going to Princeton is not giving the guaranteed ROI in 2021 that it gave 25 years ago.

Both you and Mackenzie Scott and attended Princeton but she got the FAR better ROI than you. Lol Crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If most public schools in the US offered children a good education appropriate to their abilities, then maybe there wouldn't need to be private schools. But that's very far from the case, While affluent suburban districts are able to do this, the situation is very different in urban and rural areas. I would think the residents of the DC area would already know this. The truth is that the educational opportunities available to US schoolkids are very localized and unfairly deprive a great many of them of the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.

That is what is indefensible.

Agreed, and that is her conclusion.

Finally two people who get the message that was conveyed.

I agree with that message but the article failed to convey it.

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t read this thread yet, but that article was all over the place. At no point did the content of the article tie in with the title, for instance. Also unclear is the author’s definition of winning (attending Princeton was what I cane away with) and it was also unclear as to how the existence of private schools hurts the attendees of public schools (I’m not arguing that point either way, I am just pointing out that the author certainly didn’t make her case - if that was even her case...).

As the product of a mediocre public school system and the parent of children in a mediocre public school system, the article read as little more than an envious tirade against rich people...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a really great analogy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.

This is a great analogy. My kid was lucky enough to get a Mercedes for the price of a Yugo, but it still grieves me that it I couldn’t feel good about letting him take the bus.

For what it’s worth, after spending many years rubbing elbows with Mercedes owners, I honestly have yet to meet one who doesn’t support improving buses. I have literally never heard one express anything but good will and support towards the bus system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.