These private schools were founded by wealthy people to educate their children. Just like accounting to Agnes in the Gilded Age, “Charity has two functions in our world, my dear. The first is to raise funds for the less fortunate, which is wholly good. The second is to provide a ladder for people to climb into society who do not belong there,” private education has two functions. The first is to teach and the second, to provide a ladder.

At least our wealthy weren’t like the wealthy of Downton Abbey, who believed in strict class divides. But they weren’t entirely self-sacrificing either.

When the lauded, top public school system has gone woke, follows a narrow DEI directive and is hemorrhaging competent teachers, private schools suddenly become the ONLY choice.

#fcps

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a well known fact that most (not all, most) people that send their kids to private school are racist, whether they admit it to themselves or not. I just wish people would be honest with themselves about the fact that they only want the “right kind” of diversity- the diversity that is palatable to them. It’s the same people who put those yard signs preaching inclusivity who are the worst of the lot. I prefer people to be open about their racism.

Who cares what you prefer?

Since we’re making blanket statements about people we don’t know, here’s mine: People who come to a private school forum to make intentionally inflammatory statements about private school parents are jealous and broke. Please take your bitter, impoverished opinions to the public school forum where they belong.

I prefer that people are open and honest about their penury.

Amen. But you left out stupidity. Anyone who has kids old enough but could not make enough money to afford private is de facto a moron. Morons need not post here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inclusion = entropy, lowest common denominator behavior and environment. Almost by definition, it is impossible to have anything better than average WITHOUT exclusion. How could it be otherwise, that’s basically a tautology? Anything worth having requires a boundary that excludes.

Of course. That’s why every decent public school has some kind of boundary—a geographic boundary, an exclusive application process, or at least an inconvenient location and a lottery that the least organized won’t know to apply to. The interesting question is why are exclusive private schools going around preaching inclusion, while building their schools on exclusive cost and exclusive admissions?

As you point out, inclusion doesn't mean anybody can enroll. In a private school context it would hopefully mean Black people can attend without being harassed or shamed for being who they are (e.g. dress codes that prohibit corn rows), or that the school reasonably accommodates disabilities where possible. These things don't necessarily happen in public or private schools even though they should.

Anonymous wrote:Inclusion = entropy, lowest common denominator behavior and environment. Almost by definition, it is impossible to have anything better than average WITHOUT exclusion. How could it be otherwise, that’s basically a tautology? Anything worth having requires a boundary that excludes.

Of course. That’s why every decent public school has some kind of boundary—a geographic boundary, an exclusive application process, or at least an inconvenient location and a lottery that the least organized won’t know to apply to. The interesting question is why are exclusive private schools going around preaching inclusion, while building their schools on exclusive cost and exclusive admissions?

Anonymous wrote:Inclusion = entropy, lowest common denominator behavior and environment. Almost by definition, it is impossible to have anything better than average WITHOUT exclusion. How could it be otherwise, that’s basically a tautology? Anything worth having requires a boundary that excludes.

Raciiiiiist

Inclusion = entropy, lowest common denominator behavior and environment. Almost by definition, it is impossible to have anything better than average WITHOUT exclusion. How could it be otherwise, that’s basically a tautology? Anything worth having requires a boundary that excludes.

For context, the only DCPS zoned school that is 11% Black and located “across the street” or “next door” from a high school is Powell. Powell is about 75% Hispanic.

Private schools in the DC area for sure don't have the economic diversity as many public schools, but it always seems a little silly when people try and act like private or public schools are a monolith. The DC public school we are zoned to is 11% Black, and our private school is 15% Black. While I admit there are likely more children who qualify for free lunch at our zoned school, I'm not sure that it's as economically diverse as our private school either even If we don't have any families that would qualify for free lunch. One difference is that at least a few times a year there is a shooting or stabbing on the street out front of the school (the high school is across the street) in our DC zoned public. That isn't happening at our private. So while parents who are sending their kids to Walt Whitman, where they have about 4% Black students and most of the houses within boundary are in the millions, it's a tad absurd to think diversity is the reason. I will happily keep sending my Black kids to a school where they aren't one of the only Black kids and where I don't have to worry about lockdowns when the high school next door pops off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t come across such a refined critique of woke schools.

It all boils down to limousine liberal. It's still the best descriptor of the kind of person who believes that a 60k private is about inclusivity or lives in a $2M house while caring deeply about affordable housing

I live in a $2m house and don’t want to be anywhere near affordable housing. I also send my kids to public through 8th.

Anonymous wrote:Where is the paradox more prevalent ? In GDS, Maret, or Sidwell ?

Hypocrisy, you mean.

It’s a toss-up between SFS and GDS. SFS for the religious reasons stated above and GDS because it was founded as the private school open to Jews and Blacks but has lost track of that original mission. GDS makes a bigger show of DEI efforts so maybe they win in the end.

Maret is third. They are much more open about not wanting actual diversity and inclusion.

Anonymous wrote:It’s a well known fact that most (not all, most) people that send their kids to private school are racist, whether they admit it to themselves or not. I just wish people would be honest with themselves about the fact that they only want the “right kind” of diversity- the diversity that is palatable to them. It’s the same people who put those yard signs preaching inclusivity who are the worst of the lot. I prefer people to be open about their racism.

Who cares what you prefer?

Since we’re making blanket statements about people we don’t know, here’s mine: People who come to a private school forum to make intentionally inflammatory statements about private school parents are jealous and broke. Please take your bitter, impoverished opinions to the public school forum where they belong.

I prefer that people are open and honest about their penury.

It’s a well known fact that most (not all, most) people that send their kids to private school are racist, whether they admit it to themselves or not. I just wish people would be honest with themselves about the fact that they only want the “right kind” of diversity- the diversity that is palatable to them. It’s the same people who put those yard signs preaching inclusivity who are the worst of the lot. I prefer people to be open about their racism.

OP sounds like they are pitching a vapid magazine feature that uses a ton of words to say the obvious.

Anonymous wrote:In a city where private schools proudly champion inclusivity and social justice, there’s an ironic twist: these values are nurtured within exclusive bubbles, far removed from the diverse realities of public schools. Parents preach the virtues of equity but often pay top dollar to avoid sending their children to public institutions—the very environments where their talent, privilege, and resources could have the most transformative impact. Instead, inclusivity becomes a brand, polished behind ivy-covered walls, while public schools, brimming with untapped potential, are left out of the equation. Is it inclusiveness we seek—or insulation?

Would you rather private schools not try to teach rich kids that other less fortunate people unfairly struggle? Should privates discourage social justice? Most private school parents are just looking for smaller class sizes, academic rigor, individual attention, ability to play on a less competitive sports team than public, specific courses, clubs, etc.