Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I too got a solid public education but I am very sad to say that things have changed and not for the better. I could go on and on but if you can afford private, go ahead and do it. We are in a 10 out of 10 school according to great schools and the education is very weak. We are going private next year. We don't know where yet because applications are in but we haven't heard.

I got a solid public education, and my children are too. My children are not at a GS 10 school -- maybe that's the problem with your child's school?

I wrote what you quoted and I wonder the same. I do think the school scores well on standardized tests but the work they do in school and the homework is terrible. Although it is anecdotal, parents with older kids in the same school who also have younger kids have noticed a significant change in the school in the last 5 years or so. Roughly coincides with the arrival of the current principal. And the classes are 30 plus for most grades above kindergarten. So, for OP, I just offer the "great schools" comment because the fact that kids can pass the SOLs doesn't really mean a lot. The SOLs are really the most basic things. For me, I want more for my kids and at my current public, for whatever reason, they are happy to do the bare minimum. And now, after two years at the school, we are done and moving to private next year.

OP, if you are on the fence, spend a day at public and then tour privates. One thing that I am struck by over and over is the difference that the class size makes in the entire experience. We have visited many privates and none have classes bigger than 18 and most are closer to 15. That is half the size of what my kids are in. Curriculums work better, transitions are better, classes seem much more spacious, etc. when there are only 15. And kids are kids so from time to time, they have disruptive or bad days. In large classes with several chronically disruptive kids, the chaos is non-stop. So when I toured and interviewed, I found the language arts curriculums were described the same at private as at public. But as I watched, it is just completely different. The My Daily Five works well with 15 kids. It falls apart with 30. As for math, there is simply no contest. In our public, first graders are only doing single digit addition with a sum less than 10. In private they are way beyond that. Doesn't even compare.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, who could easily afford private go to PUBLIC.

Anonymous wrote:We chose public although we could afford private. In the K year we applied to a very well-regarded private and DC got in; however, after much thought and consideration we went with public. Years later I am glad we made that choice (and so are our DC). DC got an excellent education at the public schools. Now we're evaluating public vs. private again for one of our DC. The reason is that DC is a good athlete and the local privates have a better athletic program than the local public schools.

From what we've gathered thus far for our particular choices (and keep in mind that this is really a choice between specific private schools and specific public schools, and can't be generalized easily), these are the weighing factors:

1) Facilities and athletics program - private is better.
2) STEM - public is better. DC is in an advanced math class already and based on what we've seen of the private curriculums we've evaluated, we're worried about the quality of the math education in particular. The STEM curriculums seem more shallow than those of the public school from what we've seen so far. (Incidentally, this was less noticeable at the elementary level when we first made this decision but it is much more obvious at the high school level.)
3) Literature, social science, etc. - Private is better. Smaller classes mean more time spent on essays, teaching writing, etc. With respect to curriculums, it's the opposite of STEM (public school curriculum seems more shallow).
4) Social/Character - it's a wash, and probably depends on the kid. Private has fewer kids with overt behavioral problems but more kids who are delicate, demanding, and entitled. Public is more racially and socioeconomically diverse. Private spends more time actively cultivating leadership, service, and expectations of character.
5) Teachers - Private teachers are generally better for literature, social science, etc. Public STEM teachers are better.

I'm not sure what we're going to do. Right now I feel like private would be exchanging a better STEM education for better athletics which doesn't feel like the best choice for a kid who likes STEM. On the other hand, I wonder whether DC would do well in STEM regardless and going to a school that cultivates writing skills would be good since DC is weaker in that area, plus for a kid who loves athletics, a good program can do wonders.

I don't know how helpful that is because your schools are different than my schools but FWIW this is how it breaks down for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing the right school for your family is certainly a challenging and very personal decision. While there is no hard-and-fast rule about which type of school is better, below I've shared some of my observations from teaching.

Private schools do tend to send more frequent communications home. Particularly in the Washington, DC area, you can expect report card comments and end-of-term conferences. Administrators also tend to have high expectations for how quickly their teachers will respond to parents' calls and emails. For first-time parents in particular, this volume of communications can be a reassuring way to find out how your child is progressing in school. That said, there are still teachers who have mastered the art of the non-communication communication. They can write a one-paragraph comment or attend a 20-minute conference where very little information is conveyed. There are also public school teachers who voluntarily keep up detailed websites or send home newsletters and emails that are detailed and meaningful. It is less likely that such communication is required or expected at public schools, however.

Neither type of school is guaranteed to have better teachers. Private schools are free to hire whomever they like, regardless of state licensure, training, or education. As one example, I know of a patent attorney who taught high school science. In some cases these private school teachers can bring their interesting real-world experiences into the classroom and liven things up for students. In other cases, despite very good intentions, these private school teachers lack important knowledge of pedagogy and ability to work well with children. Public school teachers, by virtue of having had to pass licensure requirements, will have some knowledge of educational psychology and theory and will have taken at least one special education course. Public school systems also have more bureaucratic requirements about continuing professional development for teachers. On the whole I think this usually results in public school teachers taking more rigorous trainings at greater frequency, but that varies by school and district. Public schools also tend to have more formalized systems for supporting novice teachers. And if those teachers stumble along the way, there are a mentoring programs, shared lesson plans, and feedback programs that may be offered. The private schools I have personal knowledge of tend not to be as supportive of new teachers who are experiencing job hiccups. Some combination of training, experience, and working conditions has created dramatic differences in teacher retention, however. Private school teachers leave the profession at twice the rate that public school teachers do.

Private schools may have particularly attractive facilities or specialized programs that can be appealing. However, well-funded public school districts are increasingly competing with their own science, arts, technology and sports programs. At the end of the day, these facilities can add to a child's enjoyment and a family's positive perception of a school, but we don't have hard evidence that they increase the quality of an education or create better long-term outcomes.

Private schools usually have smaller class sizes than publics. Again, this is not something that has been tied to better educational outcomes. In our guts a lot of us want to believe that it is better and we prefer it for ourselves. Yet, a lot of private school teachers do not use teaching methods that take advantage of smaller class sizes; they stick to a lecture format for their lessons. Also, if the standardized test scores from private schools were available for public viewing, you would see that many of them have students who are scoring well below the fiftieth percentile.

My last point of comparison is social, which is admittedly more subjective. I think that children who are naturally positive leaders and confident in themselves do well in any environment. Children who are less secure seem to me to do better in larger schools that have a little bit of turnover in the student population each year. They're less likely to get stuck with the same uncomfortable relationships in their classrooms year after year, and more likely to have opportunities to mix and mingle with new children each school year. The smallness of private schools is great when everything is going well, but terrible when bullying and toxic relationships spring up.

This is a spot-on analysis, in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:I went to public school all the way through - my parents could've afforded private - and got a great education and 2 Ivy degrees. In the same boat with my kids, have the money, staying public in NWDC (Hardy feeder through to Wilson). I don't feel like my kids need such a sheltered, country club like environment for school or such as sense of heightened privilege that I feel so many families feel they are either 'buying' or cultivating (or shielding their kids from difference). I get that the privates offer smaller class sizes and stunning campuses and resources - but many of the area publics offer really strong academics, resources, extra currics etc etc - and there are a large number of families where they COULD afford privates but don't. For all the grumbling on DCUM - Deal and Hardy and Wilson are really nice schools, the kids have access to tons of advantages, and do just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vast majority of people I know in N. Arlington who could easily afford private go to private. However, there’s so much wealth and parental support in some of those schools that they may as well be privates.

Interesting that Arlington is so private school focused. We are in Bethesda and there are a lot of people here who can easily afford private but choose public.

I live in N Arlington and don't find this to be true at all - that wealthy people are mostly using private. Just another perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're at DCPS for kindergarten and I am very impressed, so far. I honestly believe the curriculum is as good, if not better, than private schools. The parents are active, the principal is very organized, the specials are fun, and it's a diverse group of kids too. Class size is 21, and the school has aides in the classroom all the way up to 5th grade (thanks to PTA fundraising). It's TOTALLY different from what I expected -- I dreaded the whole "kindergarten is the new 1st grade thing" -- but it turns out my kid is thriving and loves the instructional methods.

I might feel differently if the class had 30 kids and no aide, like I've heard about at some MCPS schools. I also have an open mind for jr high and high school, although at this point, I'm anticipating that we'll stay in DCPS the whole way through.

The added benefit of the convenience and community of a neighborhood school is wonderful. Makes our morning routine a dream, and playdates easy to organize.

When we were choosing, I visited lots of privates and lots of DCPS publics. It was eye-opening, and I ended up being much more impressed with DCPS than I expected to be. I do think it matters that DCPS generally does not seem to have the overcrowded classrooms that I hear about in some other local districts--nowhere I looked had classes over 25 kids in elementary (and most classes did not hit the cap). We'll re-evaluate come MS and HS, but for now, we are happy with our public.

DCPS is very good in Deal feeders, and private high schools love Deal's top 150 kids; though many of those kids will choose Wilson, Walls, or Banneker, about 70 will go to private high schools.

I'm a PP who is liking DCPS, and we are not a Deal feeder.

Anonymous wrote:Choosing the right school for your family is certainly a challenging and very personal decision. While there is no hard-and-fast rule about which type of school is better, below I've shared some of my observations from teaching.

Private schools do tend to send more frequent communications home. Particularly in the Washington, DC area, you can expect report card comments and end-of-term conferences. Administrators also tend to have high expectations for how quickly their teachers will respond to parents' calls and emails. For first-time parents in particular, this volume of communications can be a reassuring way to find out how your child is progressing in school. That said, there are still teachers who have mastered the art of the non-communication communication. They can write a one-paragraph comment or attend a 20-minute conference where very little information is conveyed. There are also public school teachers who voluntarily keep up detailed websites or send home newsletters and emails that are detailed and meaningful. It is less likely that such communication is required or expected at public schools, however.

Neither type of school is guaranteed to have better teachers. Private schools are free to hire whomever they like, regardless of state licensure, training, or education. As one example, I know of a patent attorney who taught high school science. In some cases these private school teachers can bring their interesting real-world experiences into the classroom and liven things up for students. In other cases, despite very good intentions, these private school teachers lack important knowledge of pedagogy and ability to work well with children. Public school teachers, by virtue of having had to pass licensure requirements, will have some knowledge of educational psychology and theory and will have taken at least one special education course. Public school systems also have more bureaucratic requirements about continuing professional development for teachers. On the whole I think this usually results in public school teachers taking more rigorous trainings at greater frequency, but that varies by school and district. Public schools also tend to have more formalized systems for supporting novice teachers. And if those teachers stumble along the way, there are a mentoring programs, shared lesson plans, and feedback programs that may be offered. The private schools I have personal knowledge of tend not to be as supportive of new teachers who are experiencing job hiccups. Some combination of training, experience, and working conditions has created dramatic differences in teacher retention, however. Private school teachers leave the profession at twice the rate that public school teachers do.

Private schools may have particularly attractive facilities or specialized programs that can be appealing. However, well-funded public school districts are increasingly competing with their own science, arts, technology and sports programs. At the end of the day, these facilities can add to a child's enjoyment and a family's positive perception of a school, but we don't have hard evidence that they increase the quality of an education or create better long-term outcomes.

Private schools usually have smaller class sizes than publics. Again, this is not something that has been tied to better educational outcomes. In our guts a lot of us want to believe that it is better and we prefer it for ourselves. Yet, a lot of private school teachers do not use teaching methods that take advantage of smaller class sizes; they stick to a lecture format for their lessons. Also, if the standardized test scores from private schools were available for public viewing, you would see that many of them have students who are scoring well below the fiftieth percentile.

My last point of comparison is social, which is admittedly more subjective. I think that children who are naturally positive leaders and confident in themselves do well in any environment. Children who are less secure seem to me to do better in larger schools that have a little bit of turnover in the student population each year. They're less likely to get stuck with the same uncomfortable relationships in their classrooms year after year, and more likely to have opportunities to mix and mingle with new children each school year. The smallness of private schools is great when everything is going well, but terrible when bullying and toxic relationships spring up.