Despite the fact that average premia for housing in high-performing school neighbourhoods and private school tuition are roughly comparable (from my rough numbers upthread), the latter nets FAR more bargaining power at the school level simply because the payor is more easily discernible (or concentrated in its advocacy), and teachers are attuned to the fact that they have a responsibility to use the resources at their disposal effectively.
The funding is virtually the same, but the institutional attitude is light years apart.
The point of the original article is that at some private schools, parents are afraid to voice complaints to the administration, partly because their children could be asked to leave the much-desired school. It's true that public school administrators and teachers are well-entrenched, but so are the children. I have emailed the school superintendent several times, criticizing anti-racist programming and computer programming clubs that exclude boys. At least she reads and replies. She has no power to expel my children from the public schools. Public school parents can run for and lobby the school board, which hires superintendents.
That’s right, and that analysis I provided speaks to how much parents stand to gain or lose in their decision to leave a private school from rocking the boat: advocacy efforts lost, reduced fit for 2e and special education students, administrative willingness to cooperate, potential delays to identification of giftedness or other exceptionalities, the true financial opportunity costs, etc. This is obviously not including social and emotional disruption to the child from a change in environment. There’s a lot to consider, so thank you for following along.
As I said upthread, racial issues aside, I would not be satisfied in the general case if an organization I was paying to educate my children was doing so in a way that fundamentally misaligned with my values, particularly where I was actively discouraged from expressing concern, and I’d want to weigh the costs of staying vs leaving. Only individual families can determine for themselves when costs exceed benefits.
On the other side of the coin, I will also say this: the documentation from Harvard-Westlake’s anti-racist policies states that the changes in curriculum and activities were at the behest of the parent community. If those changes represent the wishes of the majority of the stakeholders of the school, the administration has a fiduciary responsibility to honour that. These kinds of schools generally have a well-established point of view on social issues, and aren’t shy about advertising that to appeal to their ideal customers. It is well within reason that some people will not be a good fit for the school, and will be asked to leave if their continued participation would substantially reduce value derived for the majority. It’s a fine balance to keep everyone reasonably satisfied. Those decisions should be made with a sensitive and full understanding of the implications for the child.
What response have you received from your superintendents?
