3 ms·
It is not. Remember that public schools (they are essentially free for the parents) are competing with private schools that are charging 20k+ per year per pupil
by rmk 6y ago
It is not. Remember that public schools (they are essentially free for the parents) are competing with private schools that are charging 20k+ per year per pupil. Most people who have to work for a living will not shell out 20k+ or (50-60k if there are siblings involved) simply because they are classist: they see clear advantages in private schools.
This year, most bay area public schools are online. Many private schools are still operating in person. For young children, this makes a world of difference. Just one instance of where private schools come out on top.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Most people who have to work for a living will not shell out 20k+ or (50-60k if there are siblings involved) simply because they are classist: they see clear advantages in private schools. Just because they see it doesn't mean it's actually there. Private schools attract the students that would do better in any environment (because of both socioeconomic class factors and involved parents making non-default choices), and measures of student performance reflect this. There's very little evidence that they do anything to actually improve outcomes, but what most people see (aside from marketing, which private schools put plenty of money into as well) is statistics that show correlation without controlling for other variables, from which it is easy to make incorrect inferences about causation.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago> Most people who have to work for a living will not shell out 20k+ or (50-60k if there are siblings involved) simply because they are classist: they see clear advantages in private schools. Im not sure why that would rule out classism.