Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Gifted schools - Are they only for the wealthy?

I am concerned in that I am considering a school for the gifted for my daughter. The tuition is roughly $16000/yr, not to mention the $1500 required IQ test. According to the school's literature, approximately 33% of the students at the school receive financial aid.

It seems a little odd that 2/3rds of the gifted students that attend this school are paying this tuition. What about the gifted students that cannot pay the tuition? Is this a school for gifted children or wealthy gifted children?

I don't mean to provoke but it just rubs me a little wrong. What do you think?

It's like the old Shelley Berman joke about "a doctor specializing in diseases of the rich."

DeeDee

In NYC, the private school set up for HG is 30K+.

I don't think there is anything wrong. Private schools are a business. While most are ostensibly non-profit, those providing initial funding want the school to be a sustainable business, which means that they must at a minimum cover their costs. And you certainly want the school to be able to attract highly talented teachers, and that drives up tuition costs as well. Given all that, if the school is good, I think that $16K per year is actually very reasonable.

Your other alternative is to live in a city with outstanding public schools. They certainly exist, but you will generally find that the home prices are higher as a result because of the school quality. However, your higher mortgage costs will probably still work out cheaper than private school tuition.

Private schools around here are $10k-$20k per year. Some parochial schools are less, some are not. We don't have a private school specifically for gifted kids in our area.

It doesn't rub me the wrong way - private schools have expenses that have to be met - building costs, maintenance, salaries, supplies, etc. I've served on the board of a private school and my kids have also attended two different private schools. None of the schools I've been associated with has made anything remotely resembling a profit - the $ that is paid in tuition and via fundraising goes back into the school, and there has always been "more" that the school staff and parents wished we could do if we only had more $.

Based on our experience, I think it's actually impressive that as many as 1/3 of the students are receiving financial aid - that's a good sign.

I also wonder less about the students who can't afford to attend private gifted schools than I wonder about the students that I suspect go unidentified in our local public schools simply because of their socioeconomic situation and the school they attend.

I hope you're able to find a way to afford the IQ test.

polarbear

It's a side-effect of a social system in which people have property and some have more than others (as opposed to a naive interpretation of "property is theft"). People can then choose what to buy, and some have more choices than others. Somehow it's easy to accept that some people can buy diamond necklaces, but more difficult to accept that some people can buy better education for their children - I suppose this is because we tend to feel that the children, having no responsibility for the wealth or otherwise of their parents, shouldn't be affected by it. But it's impractical to make that so, without getting rid of a property-based social system altogether. A society could ban private schools, but then people who cared very deeply about education and could afford it and thought the public schools near them wasn't good enough would buy a house near the best public school, or homeschool with the best tutors, or move to a country with a less restricted education system, or afterschool, or enrich with expensive educational trips, or... You can't prevent parental financial resource having an effect on the opportunities available to children. (And of course, more important than money is parental attitude - there are plenty of rich people who *don't* spend their riches on optimising their children's education!)

What you can, and IMO should. do is aim to make what's provided out of taxation good enough that everybody is getting such a good education that the difference between what the richest people can provide their children with and what everyone else can is only frills, not the important stuff.

I don't think the UK is anywhere close to that ideal, and here too it's often when you look at provision for gifted children (although we don't use that term much here) that the phenomenon is most starkly obvious (to get back on topic for the board!). The government here has recently abolished the obligation for state schools to identify their most gifted students; they've never had an obligation to do much for them, though of course there are schools that do. There are no specific state gifted schools here (there are a few selective "grammar schools", a few of which are "super-selective", as a remnant of the old system of grammar and secondary modern streaming at age 11, but only in a few areas of the country). Because state spending on schools is under very severe pressure here at the moment, provision for gifted children in state schools is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future; unless your child is fortunate enough to get a fantastically dedicated and talented teacher, prospects are very bleak.

At the same time, the general economic difficulty makes it harder than it was for parents to afford to send their children to private (including "public" in our confusing UK terminology) schools, some of which provide fantastically for gifted children. Most of them are charities and have an obligation to make some provision for funding places for children whose parents can't afford fees (this has been under scrutiny lately, but let me not go there...) but inevitably this is adjustment round the edges - the bottom line is that here too, if you take two children with identical needs, one of whom has wealthy parents and one of whom doesn't, the first has a statistically better chance at a good education.

It's a live issue for us: at the next stage of education, we probably can't afford the school that would be best for DS. We'll be looking at all our options and choices and doing the best we can; we can do no more.

Little'un attends a prestigious private school (year 7) in North Liverpool - until today when we finally take him out. The same company has another school in North London.

What's the difference?

Bullying persists - and if it occurs it will be treated as much along financial as much as moral considerations. In our case when little'un was set upon by 7 boys the school makes a choice - potential loss of 1 fee paying victim against the potential loss of 7 fee paying bullies. It's as simple as that, as a lawyer who deals with education matters told me straight just yesterday.

Sure, private schools may be non-profit and they have costs, but I have come to the opinion that schools should teach business but schools should not be in business.

Your little ones may be less quirky than my son, a little less vulnerable and so the bullying issue may never arise - just think on it.

Also the finances do limit the cohort to the, how shall I say , the better off. That may not be an issue to you, and with little'uns background we weren't too bothered. We just thought the school would cater for and look after him - which it did to some extent but a good state school would have done the same.

Also be aware that the more monied, more influential or higher status the parents are the greater the child's opportunities will be. Now I know this is controversial, and some will shout foul but trust me I have seen it with my own eyes over the past 3 years that little'un has been at private school.

is there a school locally that has a reasonable cohort with good academic results, pastoral support and teaching. If so, save your money and use it to take them on good holidays to interesting places, and do other fun enriching activities - that is what I plan to do with the precious few remaining years of little'uns childhood we have left. God knows the education system of both colours have taken enough off us and out of us- as you can readily see from my many many posts on this wonderful forum over the years

I am looking at switching to private schools for grade 5, including a grade skip with the switch. DD would be in grade 1, with the private school provision of 9/1 birthdate deadline for K. Yet, will consider her for a skip after a few grades.

I wouldn't get the skip in public school. It is an expense but I have known people who got into the private school and then ended up with financial aid. So you may want to see if it is a good fit and then try to get them to help finance you after the first year. I find strategy is a big part in getting our kids the education they need.

there IS another option...homeschool. I don't know if that is truly viable for your situation, but I just wanted to be the voice of "hey, other options exist"

I have a friend (on this board)...I chose to pull Butter and place her in our "home study" school. We also have a second child in paid school (so I could get her in kinder at 4.5) and only one income worth mentioning. Our friend has only one child, chose a private school and may have to take a part time job to help pay for it.

I would rather do what I can now to help my child and save the money for later, college, camps, enrichment, etc...I don't think the cost of the school usually guarantees anything other than a pricey bill lol!

My personal opinion is that while private gifted schools may be pricey, its just like everything else in this world. Some have, some don't. Some can buy X while others can only afford Y. I don't spend my time worrying about what I can't afford for my kiddos. I spend my time working on what I can provide and finding resources to help them along the way.

I don't think just because a school is labeled "private" or "gifted" that they are getting a superior education. Some schools are better than others, some just think they are or use their title to make people think they are. Learning can happen in so many ways. Fairness isn't going to happen anytime soon so I refuse to worry about who has more than us.

... but unless you already have an unpaid or low-paid parent, homeschooling is typically even more expensive than private school; fees rarely exceed a professional's take-home pay (although the school I'm concerned about being able to afford is an exception).

It's a really tough call. I love homeschooling, but if the homeschooling parent has a certian income-earning potential, then it can be just as expensive as private school. Plus working can lead to more income-earning potential. I don't want to say homeschooling is bad - I think it's so good that it is worth it for many families to make the sacrifice, but I don't want to sell homeschooling as the inexpensive choice. If the primary wage-earner can't work at some future time, the homeschooling parent who has been out of the job market for a long time may have lost a lot of opportunity for economic growth. Of course this all varies in individual situations, and I think it's a lovely and wise choice if a family decides to live a live a simpler lifestyle so that one parent can be out of the job market and have more energy for parenting. That has real value, and is a hard path in a consumer culture.

I've had personal experience with 2 private schools, neither marketed for gifted, but both 'college prepratory' in orrientation. In one school there was bullying that wasn't addressed because the parents had clout. I can't imagine that happening in the school my son is at now. Integrity is certianly possible in this world, just not something one can assume. It's possible that private school who are only for high schoolers can afford to have more integrity because they only loose for 4 years instead of potentially 12 years.

If a parent can't use what resources they can corral to help their own children have better lives, then what's the point of corraling resource? I also recognise that it's in my best interest if my children's intellectual peers get a good education regardless of those kids' parent's ability to corral resource or even advocate. I think if one is politically in favor of public schools that work for everyone, including gifted kids, then one should work for that in various ways - politically, direct service, short of keeping one's child in a public school that doesn't work for that individual child. My responsibility to my own child is quite different from my general responsibility to children in general. That's why I'll advocate for a school meeting my child's individual needs but not put energy into advocating for a local gifted program. A local gifted program that meets most gifted kids needs would be unlikely to meet my own child's needs, and would convince the school folks that 'we're already doing enough.' That is the true problem with independent school that market themselves as 'for gifted students.' As you know there is no standard accepted definition of what 'gifted' is, and there is no certianty that a gifted school will have a definion that inculdes any particular child's reality. Go and observe the classroom. Ask for specific examples of how outlier gifies were helped in the past.

/vent
Grinity

If the school you are considering seems to be an ideal match for your child, and a 1/3 of the kids are on some type of scholarship or financial aid, then perhaps you might qualify for help to put your child there.

We have found that the public schools in our particular area prepared our kids to a level similar to those of the elite private schools and sometimes even had more options due to higher populations and funding.

My great-grandmother, who lived most of her life in poverty but was one of the most centered, happy women I've ever known, gave me some great advice that has helped me focus on what is important: You can spend your energy resenting what isn't fair or you can spend your energy figuring out what it is that you want and how you're going to get there.

Fair or not fair, it is what it is. So if you think the ideal is for your child to attend that school, use all of your energy and ideas to come up with a plan that will work to make it happen.

You are essentially paying around $12/hr for someone to care for your child 7.5 hours a day *and* give them an education. It's less expensive than having a parent leave the workforce to homeschool, unless that parent's earning potential is less than $12/hr.

It stinks that the public school system that everyone is already paying for can't find a way to create at least a few schools in each state that would really serve HG+ learners, so that highly gifted kids whose parents are in the bottom 50% of income could still get an appropriate education.

I support school vouchers. Your property taxes pay for public schools (I assume), but you don't intend to use the service. It would be nice if you could use the money that would be spent on your child in a public school to help pay for a school that is a better fit. If you got a $9000 voucher to help pay for a $16000 school, then it would only cost you $7000.

My DD attended a free public gifted magnet school. As to whether it serves HG+ students...well, I don't know how well (DD is MG), but it's a big improvement from her former situation. I feel fortunate to have access to this option.

Yes, me too. The thing about private schools is that they have to serve customers, which gives them some oversight. If the parents are unhappy with the education, they can vote with their feet.

oh I purposely just left the bomb of "homeschool" like that true-tons of factors...true-I make less than $12 an hour usually, but we've made choices that enable us to be happy and satisfied, while not living a fancy life. I was already working from home because that's what was working for us so homeschooling was the easier answer for us. I do realize this isn't everyone's situation, but wanted to open up the discussion more

We went to a magnet, not a gifted one. We don't have an actual "gifted magnet" here. And to be honest, what I've seen of our GT options, I don't think they will fit my child, so, for now, for my own sanity, I am creating an environment we can work within...

Val:
"The thing about private schools is that they have to serve customers, which gives them some oversight. If the parents are unhappy with the education, they can vote with their feet."

You can do that in state schools too - only there is a bigger choice of state schools. Your financial clout is maybe 1 in 600 (if the school has 600 pupils) and inevitebly Little Lord Fauntelroy or a kid whose dad is a highly paid soccer player has many times more clout than Jonny Briggs from the council estate (housing projecct?) unfortunately.

If you want to maximize systemic control of the institution, ideally you want your parent to be the superintendent of the school district or principal of the school you are attending.

We've spent a lot of time thoroughly looking at the "top" private (and public) schools for Mr W in the area. We've met a lot of parents and know many of the kids at these schools. Most of the parents are professionals - physicians, lawyers, nurses, IT types, and small business owners. They live in modest homes and put most of their money into educating their kids. Are they wealthy? I doubt if most have a net worth over 500K.

Sure, a handful of families do have significant net worth. These are the "wealthy." They are the primary sources for the heavy endowments at the schools so that poorer kids can attend and they sit on the boards and oversee the policy changes so this can occur. Without their support many of the professionals could not send their kids either.

As part of looking at schools, I have done an analysis of their costs to try to figure out what I am paying for should Mr W and the Womb Raider attend one. And whether its really worth it given the alternatives. At its simplest, a class is one teacher and 15 kids. If the teacher makes 60K a year and the burden taken from private industry of 50% is added, then the cost of the class is around 90K. Divide by 15 and that is 6K per kid per year. Which is in line with many public school districts.

So, what is that 16K to 30K a year really buying? What are they really selling? From what we have found, parents' reasons for privates vary widely.

But, think of the private tutoring one could buy for that!! Or the month long summer trips abroad with a college prof doing real history!

Don't get me wrong. Many of the privates are phenomenal schools. But many top publics do just as well or even better if you dig down into other things like the AMC tests and science competitions. (But many parents hire tutors whose kids go to publics..)

The real draw of privates for GT kids and their parents is that the privates are much more flexible and tend to have a concentration of GT kids. And the teachers are carefully chosen. And the environment is conducive to learning. For parents who are of limited means, a top private school on a full ride is something to really consider.

I find it strange that anyone would want to ban private schools. At its root, an autodidact spending hours every day at the library is a private school. So is homeschooling. Church is a form of private school. Books are a form of private school. Two people discussing something are a private school.

So, to conclude, at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, what is a school? What am I trying to teach my kids? What is the end goal? I think that the answers to these questions, no matter your means, should then drive your choices.

I can only speak about California schools here.

In my area of this state (Bay area), the public schools are basically atrocious. The courses are watered down (see our recent discussion about geometry textbooks), the teachers and principals that I've encountered are mostly not really well-qualified, and the schools are poorly run. Add to this our ridiculous budget deficit and you get a disaster of superficial teaching.

In contrast, the private schools tend to be better-run and the teachers are better qualified and more responsive to gifted kids. They don't truncate the school year, either. We send our kids to private schools because we had no choice. Our eldest skipped two grades thanks to private schools. My DD7 skipped kindergarten because the staff at the private school said that it was "obviously the right choice." Yet the principals of the local public schools all told me that they are generally against grade skips. My eldest is in a charter this year (complicated reasons why) that advertises itself as being all about math and science, yet his math teacher believes "there's no such thing as a mathy mind" and teaches basic, superficial geometry at a snail's pace. Other courses (to be fair, not all of them) lack depth and go for memorization of facts without delving much into ideas. Etc.

Private schools aren't perfect. We've had our share of frustrations with them. But they don't compare to the frustrations we've had over the last few months with the charter school. YMMV. I know there are great public schools and woeful private ones. I wish I could send all my kids to public schools. I really do.


Yes, but think of how miserable your kids will be for 7 hours a day in the wrong school. I'm NOT saying that private schools are better! I know nothing of schools in your area.

I'm just saying that you might want to be careful about thinking that tutoring or summer trips can solve a problem that your child deals with all day, five days a week, in school. As only one example, what if he has a ton of busywork as homework and teacher won't exempt him from doing it (a real possibility)? He might be too tired for tutoring after doing a sheet of 30 6+8 type problems when he's doing 6587/124. Summer trips are great in July, but they can't cure what happens during, say, November, when there are still months and months to go until that magical day in June (or May, as the case is around here).

We're in MA where there is no state mandate for gifted programs or schools. My eg/pg son has been in two private gifted schools. One of them cost $12K; the other one costs $16K.

I've found that the vast majority of students who have attended these private gifted schools are definitely NOT wealthy. In fact, most parents struggle to pay the tuition or receive a partial reduction (1/3 off). Many parents are teachers, librarians, computer programmers, lawyers, shopkeepers, or work a couple of jobs to pay the tuition and other bills. I only saw one or two parents driving a newer Porsche; most parents had old, beat up cars. One parent told me she drove a school bus and cleaned when her son attended one of the private gifted schools! In our situation, my parents have helped us pay the tuition.

Usually parents end up sending their kids to these private gifted schools because their children are gifted and/or have attentional issues and/or have struggled in the public schools. The parents knew the public schools in MA wouldn't accommodate their kids. This is one of the reasons why we decided to place our son in the private gifted school.

Saying this, these private gifted schools (I think most private gifted schools) are aimed at MG/HG kids and not long-term solutions for the EG/PG kid, but this may vary depending on the school and situation.

My neighbor, who was a close friend of my parents and who had a son in my grade who was a friend of mine, was the district superintendent when I was going to school, and it was generally remarkably easy for my mom to get things done at my schools after the first time she called his number from memory in a principal's office...

I agree with this. From what I have seen, the PG kids max out the STEM side by 9/10 grade if not sooner. But at least they find peers and teachers who respect them at these privates.


I agree Val and this is a great point. I was thinking more about the home school side of things. The psychological effect of the right surroundings are really profound for kids.

I've heard things like, to make a good citizen & educated population, to contribute to society, to earn more money/better retirement, to contribute to society/humanity..
Gr8 ideas..every one of them.

I would add that I'm a reverse unschooler. �I want my kids to "follow their bliss", pursue their passions. �But for life. �

Looking @ schooling options ATM. �One private gifted school, child led, robotics, chess, drama. �Gifted grown-ups as teachers. �Mentions SENG.
Benefit: �the video shows all the kids in the class eagerly participating, raising their hands with answers.
Cons: the parent reviews shows the four year olds parents are happy because it's not divided by age but by ability, but the 8-10 year olds, not so much. �It's too loosey goosey and the gifted achievers are consistantly getting bored after a certain age.

One charter school (not here, but we have close family there) has a rigorous classroom. �Some parents complain that they expect first graders to read worksheets & follow directions. �They have art, computer, orchestra, everything the other schools are cutting out. �The rigor is at an advanced pace, not MOTS. �Happy, healthy kids, right.

I'd teach the kiddos up to a solid sixth grade level of output, if I was a homeschooler, then start passing the responsibility to them to pursue an education, believing that I had ignited the fire that they will pursue an education. �That's what's in my heart anyway. �

Am seriously thinking about "the right environment". �I'm meeting a lot of the kids who are one year younger than my late birthday kid. �They're great for playing tag, chase, forts, swords... But for school?! �Zomg. �
Ah, why not? �I'm probably taking it all too seriously anyway. �

So there's a few different takes on "what's an education for.". The one school fosters nerd culture, self-esteem, an the pursuit of your own thing. �One school is a high ability magnet, for those that think "education makes kids smarter" and ability groups to speed up the pace, deepen the approach, and reduce MOTS. �And the other school is the local school and they believe parents send children to school. �Kids go to school. �That's what school's for.

Side note: the argument against the vouchers is that the involved parents in the community will bail, rather than pushing for school reform. Here's my pet peeve. Why should the involved parents have to be pushing?! Why hinder high achievers? (still po'd for being denied early entry to pre-k this year when my kid would have almost fit better).

OP, private schools are not really for the wealthy. Most private schools are for the religious and they're to cut down on bad influences. I had a single mom. I usually went to private schools. There's usually only one or two kids in each class rich enough to own a pony.

This sounds good, except that most private schools will just turn right around and raise their tuition by $9000.

Being unaffordable is kinda the point of many private schools. If they were affordable, then anyone could go there. <shudder>

First you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of humanity? What is the purpose of parenthood?

Then you can get to the school question, school being a subset of the human experience in general and parenthood in particular.

I have thought the same before about schools for the gifted and/or independent private schools. However, I believe very strongly that the public school systems should be required to provide schools for the highly gifted. I don't even have a highly gifted child, but I still feel strongly about this. These children truly require and deserve a learning environment that serves their needs, as is required by law on the other end of the spectrum. These are our future leaders, inventors, the ones who can solve the problems (potentially)! In my school district, we have a school for special needs/special education that draws people from hundreds of miles away due to it's reputation. Wouldn't public schools for the gifted do the same? It would be a win/win/win for parents, cities, and society in general. I have gotten away from pointing the finger at the high-tuition private schools, and more toward realizing that our public school systems need to take responsibility on this issue. Getting in front of the school board and voicing opinions to the school boards and city leaders through emails work! Keep advocating for these schools and eventually, hopefully a change will happen!

Given that most elite privates have admissions percentages around 10%, and could probably double their rates as a result, I cannot agree with this.

The Tier 1 privates in the DFW area actively recruit among the poor and minority communities with over 1/3 of their student bodies coming from the bottom quartile economically.

They also do not accept many bright kids whose parents have tons of money.

If a school is built to handle 600 students, and is already near capacity, then they have two choices:

1) Build.
2) Keep enrollment at 600.

If they build, they need money for construction, which they would easily raise and justify through increased rates. And the parents wouldn't care, because it's not coming from them, it's coming from the state. Sure, a lot of them would be disgruntled that the savings weren't being passed on to them, but if you were already committed to paying full tuition before the voucher, oh well.

If they keep enrollment the same, then assuming they're a for-profit, they can raise profits based on simple supply and demand fundamentals. There is an increased demand for their services thanks to vouchers, there is still a limited supply of 600 seats, and they'd be stupid not to raise rates.

If they keep enrollment the same, but they're a non-profit, then they can still raise rates based on supply and demand, only they'd use that money to upgrade technology, take more field trips, and pad the salaries of the people running the place.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason why schools wouldn't raise rates at least somewhat if a boatload of money was suddenly thrown at them. And it's a time-tested economic effect in tons of markets throughout history... the US housing market being the most recent example.

Sure, this only works if you're near capacity. If you're a school built to hold 600 and you've only got 100, this isn't necessarily an issue. But since the free market has a way of punishing businesses who operate this inefficiently, I think you'll find they're the exception, not the rule.

I appreciate your arguments, but the fact is that all Tier 1 privates are at capacity and have chosen to stay there and have not risen rates despite having 10% acceptance rates. In fact, the large endowments they get subsidize the rates for everyone. What schools do instead, is become more selective in the kids they accept.

You can make the argument that "endowments" are a form of rate increase, but the majority come from Alumni, not parents.

Externally, to finish what I have observed, more schools are then opened as the demand increases. Some are really good and others are good.

Rich corporations and the large group of taxpayers depend on getting the most thorough development of talented people, so they should pay for it entirely, instead of the self-financed development primarily of the talent of the upper class, who will subconsciously or openly use their development to enhance the power of that class, especially since they owe their education to their class privileges rather than to their ability. So subsidizing all people with talent will create solidarity within the new class of talented people.
But most important of all in overthrowing the present anti-talent system is that this begs the question by assuming that not to have to pay is enough. A society that immediately and materially awards students for their achievements will awe the world. School is work without pay, and work without pay is slavery or indentured servitude.

Last year, DD's school won the Blackboard award for the best elementary school in all of NYC. It is public but I think that it works against many top tier private schools, though the facility may not be so fancy as a Trinity.

But it is the effort of parents, that we raise 500K per year to pay for the Spanish, chess and a really good music program starting in K.

We got grants for a technology lab. We are constantly writing for grants, which are above the 500K the parents raise through auction, movie nights, spring fair.

I am looking at middle school and a skip and wonder about paying the 35K for private and see what is out there. I think you can provide a great education, as long as you semi-homeschool by supplementing with the online math etc.

And all outstanding turn around publics start with parent involvement. There is a school that I think will overtake DD's in a couple of years and the principal is really pushing acceleration, which 15 years ago was a really down and out school.

Getting parents involved and fundraising is not easy but you can provide great alternatives to the tuition of privates.

Ren

My folks aren't wealthy. I was actually home-schooled because my PUBLIC school system forbade me from attending. (The town where I live has actually done this before, and is apparently still doing it, and have gotten away with it remarkably well.) It's very dark and Nazi-istic, btw:

They've actually forced parents to have their special-needs children committed to mental asylums of THEIR approval or face stiff penalties for child abuse.

The parents, mind you, not the school system.

Why do they do this?

Because it's more economically "safe" to sweep them under the rug and let them get cannibalized by the state mental health system than it is to offer services for special-needs at either end of the spectrum, be they profoundly retarded or on the total opposite side, extremely bright and intelligent but often with emotional/social difficulties. They're not getting bullied by their classmates, even. They're getting bullied by the state.

It's one of those in the red on the map here -- no, I don't live in Austria, but they sure do party like it's 1939. The ADA wasn't signed until 1990 and by that point this had been going on for over 30 years. Seriously, we're talking adult mental facilities for five-year-olds with maybe just the slightest hint of ADHD. Gifted/talented isn't a word in their vocabulary, never mind foreign taboos like, oh, "compassion" and "empathy"...

Basically if you don't conform to the paradigm your parents are charged with child neglect and forced to shove their kids off to the cuckoo's nest. I was one of the few lucky ones whose parents fought the system tooth and nail to prevent me from going up the creek and getting paddled. Unfortunately, the amount of money my family spent on attorneys to fight the school system drained all our resources for college and even health insurance.

Fortunately, however, I'm still here, which is why I'm typing this today.

A very utopian statement, but rather disconnected from reality. In the real world, the government provides a widely varying standard of education and parents have the option of replacing or supplementing that education. That is not likely to change.

The purpose of a corporation is to use legal means to maximize the profits for its shareholders. Their purpose is not to increase employment, or to be a good community citizens except to the extent that these side effects help increase profits. And as long as corporations can get the employees they need from a worldwide talent base, they generally won't intervene in public education.

It therefore comes back to parents (who are also voters) to change the public schools, or reject the public schools and go for private schools or homeschooling. I personally believe it is in the USA's best interest to profoundly improve our public school system to the level of South Korea or Finland. But while there are pockets of excellence, I have little hope of that happening nationwide.

So motivated parents will continue to seek educational advantages that less motivated parents will not. And the affluent motivated parents will have further advantages. Again, that is reality, and not likely to change.

I am also offended by the last part of your quote "especially since they owe their education to their class privileges rather than to their ability". What comprehensive educational experience do you have to make such a profound statement? I attended what could only be considered a poor high school, a good public university on a full merit scholarship, and one of the world's finest universities for graduate school. What class privilege did I benefit from?

The smartest and highest-achieving students are disproportionately affluent, and this pattern appears to be getting stronger:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/e...-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html
Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
New York Times
February 9, 2012

WASHINGTON — Education was historically considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But a body of recently published scholarship suggests that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a development that threatens to dilute education’s leveling effects.

It is a well-known fact that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race.

Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period.

“We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks and whites.

In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s.

In Coming Apart, Charles Murray cites studies showing that if you control for the IQ difference between rich and poor communities, that family income makes little difference. However, I haven't had a chance to review any of those studies.