Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Your extreme bitterness is noted. K-12s are almost never like top flight colleges, sitting on massive endowments. Almost always, it's money in and money out. Closing this loophole would raise no revenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

Totally understand that our public schools are silos based on housing, but not as much as private schools. Surely, you can't argue that privates are more diverse than publics! That would be the height of disingenuous creativity!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Which is why they have foundations that they endow, tax free! Yay, corporate welfare!

Seems like YOU don't understand how corporate taxes work. If schools were forced under the tax treatment of corporations they would only be taxed on their "profit" not their revenue. So, almost nothing. Or literally nothing in most cases. Because they spend their revenues on their expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private schools should be abolished. Or at least the tax payer subsidy should be abolished. Not only do public school parents pay for our schools, but we also pay for your privates? No thanks!

It’s the other way around. I pay for public schools that we don’t use. We don’t get a tax payer subsidy for private.

Private school is a choice. You don't have to, but you choose to; that is totally fine. But, private schools benefit from the non-profit tax exemptions. If that is taken away, the true cost of private will apply. The tax payer is subsidizing private schools when they play no role for the public good, unlike other non-profits. And now, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, individuals get a taxpayer subsidy via 529s. So, yeah, that's a publicly funded subsidy.

You’re really stupid.

If I get could no longer claim nonprofit status they still would pay very little tax since only “profits” are taxed and schools spend their income on expenses.

Then you don't know how nonprofits work. To qualify as one, you have to pass a public benefits test. I do know that the income they make is not "profit," according to the revenue code, which is the most egregious part of private, nonprofit secondary schools. Whether or not you understand that is the divide. Likely, you are too happy to live on this subsidy under the code. Enjoy!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Is this satire? Do you understand how current public schools even work? You genuinely believe that in this world of "good school districts" and housing-based education outcomes, you can write the that nonsense with a straight face?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

School has changed. I’ve taught in both FCPS and a private. Those private kids are getting a much better writing curriculum.

And those public kids are getting much better math and Science curriculums.

I’m the pp you’re responding to. I’ve taught using six different math curriculums. My private ended up choosing Math in Focus, which is fabulous, so no.

That is just Singapore Math and can be just be supplemented at home. NBD.

DP. I thought you said that publics had much better math and science curriculums. Why the need to teach a whole other curriculum at home?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Yes, I am not a proponent of private schools. (They should not be taxpayer supported in any way.) But for those who can afford the true cost of it, even I can see that it is not about a tangible ROI but about the experience. I wouldn't call it truly "well-rounded" because it takes kids and puts them in exclusive enclaves, but it certainly is a well-rounded academic experience (most private schools have excellent language arts curricula and some privates have incredibly challenging math and science curricula). So, while some parents' motives are to network with the right type of people as their ROI, there is definitely a more well-rounded academic experience in a majority of top-tier private schools.

That said, parents can certainly provide well-rounded experiences for kids in public schools. It just takes more in-home supplementation and more extra-curricular legwork. But in the end, I believe the public school kids have a more realistic picture of the world than some private school kids. That is an invaluable ROI for future leaders who want to be problem solvers rather than just opportunity hoarders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

School has changed. I’ve taught in both FCPS and a private. Those private kids are getting a much better writing curriculum.

And those public kids are getting much better math and Science curriculums.

I’m the pp you’re responding to. I’ve taught using six different math curriculums. My private ended up choosing Math in Focus, which is fabulous, so no.

That is just Singapore Math and can be just be supplemented at home. NBD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

most people sending their kids to private school aren't looking at it as an ROI. it's more analogous to a high-end car. first, there are plenty that make lots of $$$ so the money isn't that much to them or the grandparents are paying. second, you are assuming it's about doing better in college admissions - for most, it's not that - but about the school experience.

Exactly this. It is not necessarily about the college admission, test scores but the well rounded experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.

If all my children learn is to be a better writer than you, it will have been worth it.

Anonymous wrote: It will never NOT be amusing to me watching people who sent their precious cargo to schools like connelly schoolboy the holy child, tuition: $32,000+ ,or Georgetown day, tuition: $38,000+ , only to have said kids ending up at colleges where 80%+ of the student body is amdd of kids who hail from public schools .

As if that wasn't enough, a good number of them —especially the women—end up with 'Mrs jobs': digital content creator, social media director etc . Jobs that scream " I'm waiting for some trust fund kid or some financially promising bro to come save me so I can be his glorified cheerleader " . Fellow private school flame outs need not apply.

Ultimately, people have the right to spend their money as they see fit . But men!! Few things have as lousy a return on investment as private schools.