Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like OP and others (I think) the problem is not so much the exclusive nature of the schools as their simultaneous preaching of inclusion. It’s really weird. And particularly grating at religious schools, although the non-religious ones tend to have their own kinds of invented religion.

There are catholic schools that preach inclusion and then follow through with large scholarship programs, programs aimed at immigrants, and programs for SPED. Quaker and Episcopal, not so much

Different biz model but yeah there is hypocrisy too.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t find it contradictory - I have a young kid and I hope to afford private school by their middle school years. I’m not progressive, but a run of the mill Democrat, and I think there should be more discipline in public schools. From talking to people, elementary schools years are fine but then behavioral problems in the classroom become really apparent. I don’t want my kids education to be sacrificed for equity purposes. I’d be happy with my kid going to college at schools like Syracuse or Maryland, which is certainly possible from their zoned school, but I want them to actually be prepared for college and learn in a safe environment.

This. And it’s not like sacrificing the best edu options for your child does anything to help the less-privileged. Do what is best for your child and think no further.

Anonymous wrote:The joke is pretending that private schools' ethnic diversity is meaningful. Whatever the variation in skin tone, the culture is the homogenous culture of the wealthy.

The 'diverse' students at the private schools have a lot more in common with their school peers than the typical kid, white or otherwise.

And that is a good things for my black children. No apologies.

Anonymous wrote:I sent my kids to a diverse public school where they learned very little for a while, we left as soon as we could afford to put them in a place where they would get a stronger education. I have no regrets about getting my kids the best education I could afford.

We lasted through elementary and pulled them when we realized how far behind they were falling relative to suburban publics

It was private or move

I sent my kids to a diverse public school where they learned very little for a while, we left as soon as we could afford to put them in a place where they would get a stronger education. I have no regrets about getting my kids the best education I could afford.

Anonymous wrote:"...public institutions—the very environments where their talent, privilege, and resources could have the most transformative impact."


This notion is patently false.

This has been niggling at my brain. The type of person who says the quoted part is exactly the person who would enroll a kid in a Title I school and immediately PO the entire community by rallying everyone to "make things better" in the image of "better" that OP incorrectly believes to be universal. After several years of trying to "make things better," with OP's superior talent, privilege, and personal resources, OP would become jaded, and maybe, hopefully, have the good grace to be embarrassed looking back on this post.

What "transformation" are you even imagining, OP?

OP sounds like a grad student who grew up in a nice suburb, doesn't have kids, and probably has never set foot in local public or private school. The whole post reads like a parody of what a social scientist imagines people they've never met must be thinking.

We've spent nearly a decade at our local Title I DCPS, applying out for our oldest to attend private middle.

While we obviously feel our child has something to gain from private school, we also keenly feel how much she has to lose.

We are grateful to be in community with people from all walks of life, something that public schools offer uniquely. Our DCPS is mostly working class, while we are professional class. The experience of close friendships and relationships with families from a wide range of backgrounds has been so important for us and our children. We see the experience as essential to developing them as citizens.

(On one private school tour, a student told us about a time when their class spent a day emulating the life of "low-income people". I understand the experience was supposed to cultivate empathy. But we found it emblematic of our concerns. "Low-income people" are just regular people like you and me, not anthropological subjects.)

Why are we applying to private? Our DCPS experience has been quite positive, but as other posters have noted, the teachers are not able to meet or challenge the most advanced students in class. We’ve understood this and have addressed the gap by augmenting at home, but we realized that at middle school doing this would be more than we could handle. We had hoped that local privates would be more committed to SES diversity, but the application process seems designed to select for professional-class families. We have told ourselves we’ll try private for MS and see how it goes. Others have told us that once you switch to private you don't switch back. I guess we'll see.

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?

Liberal here with kids in private, and I disagree with your premise. I don't see my school championing inclusivity, or parents preaching about equity. We all know why our kids aren't in public.
But, many of us would put our kids (back) into public if public offered the education privates do - small class sizes, appropriate classroom behavior, thoughtful instruction, meaningful art and music opportunities. I think public school kids should have all of that too. Most of us tried public school first and would have stayed if it were better.

I also disagree that my kid's presence or absence is meaningful to the quality of the school. Not only has that been debunked as a theory, but this is an affluent area with plenty of "talent, privilege, and resources" in public school families. It hasn't transformed anything.

Finally, to the extent my school is concerned with social justice, it's actually nice for those discussions to play out without any crazy parents trying to ban books or get a teacher fired for talking about current events.

We live in a little house at the edge of a super rich formerly redlined neighborhood that is >90% white. My family is mixed. The only diversity at our zoned elementary comes from kids, primarily boys, who are bussed in for a special education program housed at the zoned elementary.

We didn’t know any of this when we bought our house- we were just trying to find a SFH close to DH’s new job. Once we had DD we realized we didn’t want her to be the only girl of color in her grade, so we applied to private school where it is just 60% white and draws from a far wider pool of kids. I’m not happy with every aspect of the school, but it was the right move at this age in order for DD to not be the only non-white girl in her grade. So yes, some of us sought out private schools to find diversity that we couldn’t get in our public school.

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?

1. If someone is paying top dollar for their kids to attend private school there is a good chance they live in a more expensive neighborhood already. The public schools in the affluent areas might be less diverse than some of the private schools.

2. Who says the public school wants the parent’s talents and resources? It can widen the disparity if parents in an affluent public school are donating lots of money for extras. I’ve also found that at times the public school my kids were in had a very specific lane for parents - PTA events. For any possibility of change or to make an impact, you had to somehow know several parents that all had the same challenge and then find a way to approach the school together.

What you mean is someone choosing to live in an economically diverse neighborhood including the elementary school even when they can afford an affluent neighborhood. Most people I know wouldn’t consider it unless there was a track record of kids getting into top colleges from that economically diverse school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironic, since most people posting here are women, and it's their husbands' salaries that pay the tuition. The Dickinson English degree isn't going to bring in enough to cover two at Sidwell.

In my experience most people at private school have family wealth, it’s their grandparents paying tuition. You think the family summer homes and exclusive vacations come from DC salaries? And they are fine with their kids having racially diverse friends and classmates but want them to end up with people from the same social class.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironic, since most people posting here are women, and it's their husbands' salaries that pay the tuition. The Dickinson English degree isn't going to bring in enough to cover two at Sidwell.

Some posters (and OP) seem to think every school fits some private or public stereotype, which is simply wrong.

"...public institutions—the very environments where their talent, privilege, and resources could have the most transformative impact."


This notion is patently false.