Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Differences between public and private schools

I am joining this thread late, but Massachusetts has a number of public school systems that I consider to be as good or better than all but a few of the nation's best private schools. And I'm talking about schools available to anyone in the town, not exam schools like Boston Latin.

Our school system does not encourage grade acceleration, nor is there really separate classes for gifted kids. Yet my son's grade has has 3 of top 100 math students in the country, and recent high school grads have included an IMO gold medalist and Davidson Scholarship award winner. The average SAT score is above the 90th percentile.

And there is another public school system in Massachusetts that is arguably even better. These schools are admittedly rare, and the towns are somewhat expensive to live in. But given the cost of private school tuition, they are an absolute bargain. I am sure there are similar schools in many other states as well.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Are you certain that the accomplishments and awards you mention are a direct result of the particular public school systems per se?

Or is it possible that these students participated in after-schooling, enrichment, camps, self-study and/or other academic courses in areas of passion to attain these accomplishments and awards?

indigo, I get that correlation does not imply causation.

Instead, families interested in education move to towns with strong school systems. It is a conscious self-selection process because these towns have higher costs relative to otherwise similar towns with lesser school systems.

The parents in turn support the school system through higher taxes relative to other towns, and hold the school system accountable for high standards. Teachers are selected based upon quality, and teachers partially self-select themselves because good teachers love good students.

Students compete against each other, making everyone stronger. Parents and students see the older students perform exceptionally and know that the same might be possible for their children, given the right talent, effort, and coaching. Exceptional local teachers or former teachers offer high-level coaching outside of school, and there is ample demand for it.

In short, a strong school system becomes the center of a self-reinforcing ecosystem of high performance.

I've heard this theory and do wonder if there is evidence to support it.

Families interested in education may also home school or send their children to other schools including private/independent school, parochial school, or boarding school. Not all families interested in education are interested primarily in obtaining a local public education for their children. Also, families often live in (or move to) towns adjacent to parental employment.

Again, that depends. How do you define lesser school systems... lower ratings/rankings? Less teaching to the test?

The higher taxes may be based upon property value, which depends upon many factors including anticipated resale value, amount of money homeowners tend to reinvest in remodeling/improvements/maintenance of their residential property, crime rate, and local employment. There have been areas where a large employer closed or moved operations, followed by massive unemployment, foreclosures on mortgaged homes, a decrease in property values, and blighted neighborhoods. Therefore some may say that it is not the "strong school system" but a strong local economy which determines relative cost.

Unfortunately, many public schools have seen "alignment" to weaker standards under common core.

Is this not also true in other schools, including private/independent and parochial schools? It is currently an employer's market, as high unemployment means large numbers of applicants for each job opening.

Again, that depends. By "good students", do you mean those easily teachable with minimal effort? Some good teachers obtain deep satisfaction from helping outlier children with gifted, LD, 2e, SES, language, or cultural challenges... those often not perceived as "good students".

Again, that depends. When students compete against each other, that creates a competitive atmosphere. Some may thrive on competition, some may be altruistic and non-competitive by nature, thriving in a cooperative, reciprocal environment.

In discussing "coaching outside of school", it is revealed that the school per se is not to be credited for the accomplishments and achievements of the students.

Some may say this sounds a bit like the folk tale of "Nail Soup" or "Stone Soup", wherein possibly too much credit is given to the nail/stone or school system. The nail/stone or school system is used for a rallying point or marketing.

The 2 biggest differences seem to be that teachers in private schools are able to select their own curriculum (or it is at least done by a committee of teachers/administrators) and private schools are able to skim the cream and set admission standards while publics are required to try to educate everyone.

The first issue regarding curricula could be eliminated if elected officials would stop meddling with public education which they themselves by and large disdain and/or stop pandering to particular base instincts in the electorate. It would also help if elected officials would stop lining the pockets of friends, family, and cronies through testing companies which have made a killing off legislation written by their lobbyists and enacted by their friends in state legislatures or Congress. Yes, I am cynical, but yes, it is also true.

In the “good old days” of US public education, teachers were able to select teaching methods and curricula which could be tailored to a particular group of students, to regional interests, to living standards and conditions of the student population (for example, urban versus rural), etc. What worked in a diverse area of urban Southern California may not have been suitable to a rural, mostly homogenous population in New Hampshire.

One caveat to this, though. I do like the idea of national standards, which is all that Common Core was meant to be. Otherwise, I can guarantee that schools in Texas would not care one iota if certain aspects of science and literature are ever introduced to students. And especially would not care if 10th grade Billy is reading on a 4th grade level and still doesn’t know his times tables, but boy can he run fast with a football in his arms.


US public education would also greatly improve if we moved away from the antiquated notion that every child should be educated in the same way and up to the same age, regardless of interest or ability. I am NOT arguing that any child should be expelled from public schools against his/her or the parents’ choice. All I am arguing for is options for children who do not wish to pursue the traditional college route, most notably like Germany’s system in which usable, well paid trades are taught to youth who are not university bound. Again, I don’t want the government making that decision for children, but it would be nice if the option were there.


Otherwise, private schools can be as much of a mixed bag as public schools. Some are phenomenal and produce great thinkers and citizens of the world. Some turn out “graduates” who can barely read at a 5th grade level (private schools in Texas are very lightly regulated, not usually required to test students based on national norms though many do, and some are just fly by night operations meant to bilk desperate parents).

Yes, it's almost impossible to say with absolute certainty that public is better than private or vice versa, or even that a particular school would be great for all. Just far too many variables involved. We're trying to produce great humans, not widgets.

An overarching difference between public and private schools is that currently public schools are charged with closing achievement gaps, performance gaps, excellence gaps. While some efforts may be successful at helping to bring up students at the bottom, another way to close achievement gaps is to limit the growth/performance/achievement of students at the top.

My public high school was located in a blue-collar exurb with a high percentage of ESL students. Test scores would have put it solidly in the bottom third of the state. Its one claim to excellence was a top-ranked football team.

And yet, I had an outstanding educational experience there. It was the first time in my life I was actually challenged and engaged. In some cases, the high school classes were superior in that respect to their collegiate equivalents.

The major reason why the quality was so good for an HG student in a bad school: it was LARGE. As a result, there was a large-enough pool of AP students that a particular AP class would be available most hours of the day, allowing for flexible scheduling. Want to do two histories or two lab sciences in the same year? No problem. Is your English preference for AP Literature or AP Composition? We have different teachers specializing on each. Trying to take full advantage of the top-notch fine arts and/or foreign language programs? We offer early AP subject classes before the start of the normal school day, and other required subjects during summer school, so you can make room in your schedule for more electives.

A large school also meant a large faculty, with the best qualified and evaluated teachers tabbed for the AP classes. With one glaring exception, all of my teachers were very knowledgeable about their subject matter, and passionate about sharing that knowledge.

I share this experience because there have been a number of parents reporting how the highly-ranked public or private school failed to meet the needs of their gifted children on this forum, and my experience is the converse, where a poorly-ranked public school served the needs of a gifted child surprisingly well. The takeaway is rankings or reputation tell you little about individual experiences within an educational setting.

You make the assumption that testing for "national norms" means something - and that public schools do better with testing to national norms. I have seen people who can test well but have no capacity to really be a thinker (nor get very far) and vice versa.

One of the things I wrestled with when we were given DS's scores that stunned us was - what exactly do I consider an education? How/where do we want that educational setting to be? And that is going to be very personal - for some families, it is to be "best at every academic level", for some, it is "must go to ivy league/research", for some, it is to be at least at the "national" level for each grade. So schools (and to some extent, the teachers) will usually reflect the collective values of the parents - although public schools have to figure out how to combine the collective parental body's values with the bureaucratic dictates set by government.

Note - not all Texas parents are focused on football, and Texas has some great schools and great universities... all states will have pockets of poor schools and good schools - public and/or private, even in the highly touted MA (my husband went to a "highly regarded" public school system in MA, and we would never send our children to a school system like that. ever).

Hmmm... I was going to reply that if you lived in eastern IA, I could happily provide you the address of a wonderful, private, independent, K-5 school that is flexible and only charges $7000/year. However, bouncing out to their website, it seems that in the years since we left their tuition has crept up to a tad bit above $8000.

Now, with 20/20 hindsight, I'd still happily pay $8000/year for what we received. I also understand we are extremely fortunate to be in a position to afford that much and others are not.

Best of luck,
--S.F.