4 ms·

> Some parents start with even larger line items. Trisha Jones, a stay-at-home mother in Norfolk, Va., sends her children, who are 6 and 8, to private school. E

• vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Why is it that you immediately associate avoiding public school with identity politics? I think you'd be well served reading the works of Ivan Illich (in particular Deschooling Society), John Taylor Gatto and John Holt that all just about debunk the fundamental idea of schooling as inherently inefficient and originating in a rather peculiar turn of events during the 19th century which had little to do with actually educating the masses. That said, I don't think most private schooling is a proper solution either, but rather free/democratic/Sudbury schools, unschooling, apprenticeships and a general rise in people associating education with autodidacticism rather than formal institutions.
  • spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
    Look at the UK where 90% of the establishment went to public school - liek wise for Harvard in the USA
    • carlob 12y ago
      Public school in the UK is private school in the US.
      • lotsofcows 12y ago
        Er no, public school _and_ private school in the UK are the equivalent of private school in the US. State school in the UK is the equivalent of public school in the US.
• gk1 12y ago
  Not knowing that what you have is a privilege is the definition of spoiled. If they know it's a privilege, they can be thankful for it and (perhaps) perform better in school. What you said is beneficial for children to learn, too, but it's irrelevant here.
  • carlob 12y ago
    "Listen kiddo, since your dad got a high score in SAT you get to a 500 points headstart on other kids in your class. So make the most of it." I think we'd all agree this would be a perverse incentive. My point is that there are already a bunch of advantages privileged kids get: more money, more access to culture, better social connections do we really need to actively try to rig the game any more in their favor?
    • Dylan16807 12y ago
      I don't understand how admitting the game is rigged actively makes it more rigged?
      • carlob 12y ago
        No, sending your kids to private school is actively making it more rigged. If you tell them, it means you know. Let me rephrase my previous post: "Listen kiddo, since your dad got a high score in SAT he can apply to get you a 500 points headstart. Other kids can't get it so make the most of it." You can still choose not to send your kids to private school if you feel it's an unjust advantage.
        • Dylan16807 12y ago
          I'm still unsure why knowing really matters. Anyway, I think the impact on the other kids is much more important than whether it's an advantage or not. If giving the advantage to one kid removes an equal amount from the other kids, that's bad. If it removes even more from the other kids, that's terrible. If it doesn't affect the absolute education level of other kids, then probably go for it, even if it's unfair. Raise the average quality of education, even if it's selfish.
• kelnos 12y ago
  This really made me cringe. Specifically why should you admit to your kids that what they have is a privilege. I think it's important for people to be aware of the privileges they can and do take advantage of. Even (especially?) kids can benefit from learning this early on. Your kids should know that is not really that good for them to be away from the poor/slow/racially inferior/wrong religion kids (or whatever your reason is), but it's actually really harmful for the public school kids not to have the kids who can afford private school in the same class. So you're saying that parents should intentionally give their kids a (presumably) inferior education, just because others aren't quite so privileged? My opinion is that recognizing and doing something about your own privilege shouldn't be about handicapping yourself, but should be about helping to elevate those without the same privilege. Now, you can argue that putting the more-well-off kids in a regular public school would do that, but the problem is it's another one of those solutions that only works if everyone does it simultaneously. And that's just not something someone is going to be able to make happen. So, instead, you have to compromise: you give your own kids an advantage that some people may not have access to. If you have the ability, you might also try to help out the less-advantaged kids by donating time or money (or something) to improving their education in other ways. Certainly not a perfect situation, but many families don't have that much wiggle room in what their finances will allow. Of course, this is all assuming as fact your assertion that private school = rich, smart kids and public school = poor, dumb, disadvantaged kids, which... I don't really buy as a blanket statement.
  • carlob 12y ago
    You have some good points and I admit that what I wrote came mostly from a gut reaction. However there are a lot of studies showing that there are few benefits for more well-off kids to avoid social mixing, while the damage inflicted to those who can't afford private schools and are deprived of interaction with other social classes is great. I personally don't believe in solutions like charity and volunteering to make a society more egalitarian and fair. I'm thinking specifically at the impact of this type of philosophy on American society vs advanced socialdemocracies like Scandinavian countries. If you realize you have a cultural or economic advantage I think you should really put it to use by sending your kid to the same school as everybody else and improving it passively by their sole presence, and actively by making your local public school as good as possible for everyone else.
• philwelch 12y ago
  Private schools are usually better schools; if you have the means to provide your children a better education than the state can, why wouldn't you? I never understood this Harrison Bergeron mentality of holding people down in the name of equality.