I liked the headhunters post. Agree with it wholeheartedly.

We also had one kid who needed private school and the second kid who could fine her way out the bag everytime. Super street smart and book smart. We will never have to worry about her.

Based on my experience with friends, spouse, co-workers, I'd say you are your life experiences. Try to get as many as possible no matter what track or situation you are in. Get out there and get life experiences - move for college, travel, try new things (sports, food, friends, arts, jobs).

People like to say, "Oh look, we're at the same company and same role, We're just the same, just as good, didn't matter what side of the tracks we came from." That's all fine for doing your job day in and day out. But it's not true. You are not the same. You are your life experiences, you are the path your too. The path, my friends, is more important than the destination. Also, the path continues, beyond your current destination. Keep the growth mindset, accumulate friends and goodwill, always be kind. Someone with an interesting, rich, robust path at the same destination, is usually both happier and better positioned for the next step.

As for this topic - Public schools in the DMV require a lot of supplementing (foreign lang, arts, sports, history) in order to create a well-rounded young person. Private schools still do this, publics in other parts of the country still do this. I'd only choose MCPS, APS, DCPS if I was ready to stay on top of my public school kids' curriculum and enrich it and fill in the holes with camps, tutors, travel. The end result (college admittance) might be the same regardless of public or private, but you gotta make the path enriching and the kids' character inspiring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I don’t want sheltered kids. The world will not cater to your needs. Better to learn now than later on.

Did you go to private school? Because I did, and I've never had the expectation that the world will cater to my needs. Quite the contrary - I am constantly surprised at how many people around here (who went to public school) think that.

If you didn't go to private school yourself, or didn't send your kids there for multiple years, your opinion on private school is useless. Same is mine on public school, which is why I don't give it.

I went to both private and public schools. Private schools absolutely cater to you. Why? Because your parents are paying customers.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

I'm curious about this too. I see if often here, but not really any details.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I don’t want sheltered kids. The world will not cater to your needs. Better to learn now than later on.

Did you go to private school? Because I did, and I've never had the expectation that the world will cater to my needs. Quite the contrary - I am constantly surprised at how many people around here (who went to public school) think that.

If you didn't go to private school yourself, or didn't send your kids there for multiple years, your opinion on private school is useless. Same is mine on public school, which is why I don't give it.

Private school wasn't as expensive when you went to school as it is now. Public school was just as free back then as it is now. We go on and on how much more expensive privates are than they used to be, but families that send their kids there are just the same grounded middle class as before. My club doorman went to St. Albans. His kids are not going there, I promise you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I don’t want sheltered kids. The world will not cater to your needs. Better to learn now than later on.

Did you go to private school? Because I did, and I've never had the expectation that the world will cater to my needs. Quite the contrary - I am constantly surprised at how many people around here (who went to public school) think that.

If you didn't go to private school yourself, or didn't send your kids there for multiple years, your opinion on private school is useless. Same is mine on public school, which is why I don't give it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

I am PP who wrote the quoted. In my case, both DH and I have advanced engineering degrees and professionally work with engineering and math, so we felt comfortable evaluating on our own. How we decided was due to our analysis of the curriculum of the schools we are looking at (the public option and the privates, not parochial). The public school helpfully held a math and science night (they know it's a strength, I suspect) with the teachers there. For the privates, we went to the open houses and sought out the math and science teachers. We evaluated the curriculums, looked at the textbooks, and talked with the staff. Based on that evaluation, we concluded that STEM was better at public school we are considering. This is at the HS level.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ewww. Sad for your kids

I disagree. I'm also a public school kid, support public schools, and live inbound for a Deal/Wilson feeder. There are plenty of educated, well-resourced families like PP's whose kids do very well, and have a large cohort of high-performing peers, in Wilson feeders (and some other schools). Some of the money they save on private can be used for enrichment activities, international travel, etc. This was us until recently, when we moved our kid from public to private for language immersion specifically. However, I'm under no presumption that I care more about my kids any than our friends and neighbors who've kept their kids in our neighborhood public.

The only point I'll disagree with the Hardy/Wilson PP about is the "country club, sheltered" claim. I'm sure some privates fit this mold, but not all. Our kid's private has a good amount of diversity, which was important to us as POC--our kid is far from the only "brown" kid in her class. The families we've encountered thus far have been pretty down-to-earth and friendly. We've also kept our kid involved in extracurriculars with neighborhood friends, so that she has both public and private school friends. So I wouldn't assume that sending one's kid to private is necessarily always done to buy them a privileged existence, or that they will necessarily have a sheltered upbringing.

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.

This. I don’t want sheltered kids. The world will not cater to your needs. Better to learn now than later on.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

Sorry, but STEM education is stronger in Public schools. And in this area, it's not even close.
Check out all the math and science competitions.

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.

Ewww. Sad for your kids

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.

People from public schools keep saying this about STEM, but I am not sure how they have decided that. Obviously, private schools vary much more than public schools with their standardized offerings. My impression is that many private schools give a more solid, traditional grounding in math, opting not to accelerate the bulk of their classes but to spend more time looking at math in-depth. Many have also not shifted to CC-based curricula. In Geometry, for example, my DS's class was highly proof-intensive, unlike MCPS' 2.0 Geo. However, the full range of math classes (M-V Calc; Linear Algebra, etc.) are available in the well-regarded privates, and most of the teachers have content degrees, something not necessarily true in publics. I guess your interpretation about superiority will be based on your feelings about the above.

I have absolutely not found that private school science is inferior in any way. The kids are exposed to much more science during the younger years. High school offerings are just as good. The only difference is that smaller cohorts of kids might require that specialized classes are offered on a rotating basis. All of DC privates offer the equivalent of all of the AP sciences, plus many more good science electives. There is likely less focus on science-based extracurriculars, though and probably less intensive computer programming (although most schools offer it.) Again - most teachers have content degrees.

My impressions are based on independent schools in the DC area, but I don't have as much familiarity with parochial school offerings. If that is what you are talking about, you should make that comparison directly.

Can you explain what you think the weaknesses of private STEM are?

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.

uhh...that's cause it's Bethesda...

But APS is also supposed to be good, hence my surprise. Anyway the Arlington poster came back to clarify that she meant people can afford private but go public so same as Bethesda.

I come at this question with a different perspective and struggle with it having 2 kids - ages 6 and 8. My older kid boy would really benefit we think from small class room size and a strong academic structure - he loves school, learning and he works well with structure. My younger kid could find her way out of the desert and I think would be fine anywhere on her own! She is bright and not as much into structure - she can learn so would benefit from a strong academic environment but short of that she is so smart she is going to be fine no matter what.

So here's the different perspective: when I think of education for my kids I take into consideration the question of why is it important for me to have them be in a strong academic environment? Is it because I want them to have the opportunity to do well in school to get into a competitive college, find a career that is mainstream conservative and stable ie CPA, lawyer, doctor, whatever professional white collar career track or am I looking at it from a principle of I want my kids to be "educated?" For me, it's the latter.

I work as a professional recruiter having been a corporate recruiter for top companies like Accenture, Citibank, etc. and I've been a "headhunter" in retained executive search placing senior level talent - CFO, CMO, CIOs at global top tier companies. I've done college recruiting at top MBA and grad schools - I've recruited for lower level customer service/admin positions as well however. What I have discovered is that on the whole, in general, what leads to happy successful people are families that strive to offer a culture of learning for their kids. Different motivations/personalities contribute to how successful/happy anyone is but when I see backgrounds of the top grads - and let me tell you everyone of them has an impressive background - it's all over the place. They come out of public, Catholic, private schools. And not every Harvard MBA is really "smart" in a way that really matters - you would be surprised by how many cannot put a resume or a sentence together! Your ability to get a job is based on so much more than where you went to school. Whether they come out of a private or public education system somewhat matters but what all my successful candidates have in common is the family background they have - they tend to be from very strong families which is not to say a mom, dad, multiple kids - it's close families whether it's a single mom or whatever. The parents spent a lot of time with the kids. Before I had kids I never really thought about it but as a parent now, when I see impressive candidates, I ask them questions about their backgrounds - education, etc. just out of curiosity. I have C level execs who have worked themselves up from community college. I have them out of prep schools too. The professional success of an individual is based on the individual themselves. A top school makes it easier to start higher up the food chain but you have to naturally be a good student to be able to really get through that program and not everyone is a natural student. You can succeed in anything only if you really love it. In the 20 years I've been a recruiter, this is what I've learned.

The other thing I know is that there are in this day and age SO MANY various career choices. So a formal education for me is not where it's at. It's about finding a school environment for my kids that will help them find themselves and maybe that's a bit of public and private at different ages. My kids are today in public and I love the aftercare they receive, I love the diversity and the teachers they have and I love the friendships they've been both able to make. I don't know we'll keep them in public forever but for now, it works.

For me, I want my kids to find something they love to do and do it well. It may or may not require higher education - my oldest is very talented in art and loves it. My daughter is into music. It's impossible at their ages today to predict where they want to be in life but I do hope they are people who are well rounded and have a strong foundation in knowledge - history, foundations of math, science, literature. Beyond that, I'm wanting to teach them how to get along with others in the world and to function within the parameters of society. I personally experienced a blend of private and public schools and enjoyed both. I'm more sensitive by nature and felt more comfortable in private. I will never know but for me, I probably would have gone further in life learning about the intangibles of life had I experienced more private than public but we'll never know and I turned out pretty well What's really important for us is looking at the personalities of our kids and trying to figure out whether the environment of the school we could send them to would contribute to developing their sense of self. The academics is in a way secondary because as parents, we can always hire a tutor or on our own which we do today, do more math, science, reading/writing with them. We can take them on vacations/trips and show them the world and introduce them to new experiences. It's less about academics for us and more about the connections they will make in school - a good teacher is worth their weight in gold.

I personally feel that on the whole the US public education system hands down sucks. The academic bar is set soooo low. BUT I don't feel that it means it's a terrible idea to send your kid to public. Again, it depends on the personality of your kid and what education means to you. Why and how is it important for a formal education to impact your kid and how much time do you spend with your kid? How well do you know your kid and connect with them? The private v. public question is a valid one but I think families have to consider more than just the system and drill down to actual realistic choices of schools and whether they make sense for the kid.

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.

uhh...that's cause it's Bethesda...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Default is public, private if issues crop up.

We can easily afford private and this has been our path. My kids are thriving in public.

Assuming you have a pretty typical kid, I'm willing to consider private school is possibly marginally better. But it's not enough to convince me to do it. Not enough ROI. Also, the admissions process for these private schools is a huge turn off to me. No thanks.

+1

We are in MCPS zoned for schools that most would laugh at. We moved out kids out of private this year and all I keep thinking is 'What the hell were we paying for the last 6 years??"

Status - that's mostly what private schools are for in this area.