Interesting read, thanks Bostonian. This article speaks to the misappropriation of power, and some families' obsession with Ivy at all costs.
I'm going to put the issue of "woke" and race baiting aside and speak to parental agency in curricular choice.
The median US household income in 2019 was $68,700*. This article is discussing schools whose tuition ranges from 58 - 72% of the median household income for one student to attend for one year, in after-tax dollars.
The families paying for this tuition are affluent, (largely) two-income households who are choosing to send their children to a private institution. They have the capacity to choose alternatives if the curriculum doesn't suit their goals.
To me, what this speaks to is cowardice and entitlement. These families feel entitled to send their children to the so-called "best" programs in the country. This article makes very plain that the value proposition of these prep schools is Ivy access, not actual learning or instruction in responsible citizenship. Yet, despite the resources at their disposal, they feel disempowered. They are concerned with following orthodoxy that is perpetuated at the "best" schools, and not stopping to question whether: a) The cost of subjugating their core values is higher than the benefit of their children attending the parents' preferred schools, and b) They are being fleeced.
I note that the article suggests many parents at these schools object to the curriculum. Based on the donations listed, and tuition fees, these parents could easily form their own school which focuses on their curricular goals.
In the past, I've costed out building a private school in Canada - what would be considered elite curriculum without all the bells and whistles of the voluntourism-esque extra curriculars and lush grounds - and these tuition fees are running at 3-4x costs.** So even if one quarter to a third of parents share this view and opt out, they could recreate a viable alternative that meets their needs, and potentially have money left over to offer subsidized spaces for low-income and/or racialized students to promote equality of access. Now, THAT would benefit everyone and put the lie to any concerns about these parents being racist. As it stands, those parents are paying an awful lot of coin to get the private school papal blessing, and not a lot of social ROI. Thankfully they can make an empowered free-market choice and vote with their wallets, while also optionally sharing the wealth with those less fortunate, likely at no added personal cost.
It requires initiative and courage, both important traits to model for their children. Bad business deserves to fail. If a better model exists, build it!
*From the US Census:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html**I note that I've benchmarked to Canadian teacher salaries, which are unionized and much higher than for comparable positions in the US, so this may overestimate the true cost of starting a US school.
