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

I wonder to what extent the differences between public and private schools perceived by the author are true in general. And I really wonder how the private school operates on tuition of less than $7,000.

Why I’m a Public-School Teacher but a Private-School Parent
MICHAEL GODSEY
The Atlantic
MARCH 4 2015

I don't know about public/private differences in general, but I think small private schools have definite advantages over large public schools. The small, private school my son goes to exudes a love of learning, but the kids there are allowed to move through the core curriculum at their own pace, so everyone is constantly challenged and engaged. Most classes have around 10 kids, so the teacher is able to individualize to a degree that probably isn't feasible in a large public school.

Our private school is also a relative bargain--again, I believe, because of its relatively small size. For one thing, there isn't a lot of overhead in buildings and maintenance. There's no gym, for example; instead, PE and extracurricular sports activities take place at a public park one block away.

In many ways, our small private school does "more with less."

One major way they're keeping costs down at SLOCA is by leasing space at an unused facility that saw its past life as a public elementary. Now the district wants that space, so they'll have to find other digs.

Privates also tend to pay their staff less, in both wages and benefits. This is a major reason why they hire teachers with lower credentials and/or less experience.

In addition, the privates in my area that are similarly-priced have large fund-raising activities, demand a certain number of parental volunteer hours as part of the price of tuition, and also have some hidden costs that are passed on to parents throughout the year.

Our local public schools provide services I don't want and don't need (transportation, breakfasts and lunches) but won't let a 4 year old who can read start kindergarten.

I was on the board of a small, independent, private school with low(ish) tuition (~$7000). We made it work, kind of as Dude says - lots of fundraising, lots of parental volunteering, lots of hard decisions when budgeting, and hiring young teachers. No hidden costs from us, but I'm sure other places may have those.

Aside from the lower salary benefits of an inexperienced teacher, you also get someone more willing to buy into your school's philosophy of teaching.

--S.F.

Our private school has many ex-public school teachers and numerous faculty with advanced and terminal degrees. So at least in our case I see no "credential gap".

A teacher having a bachelor's degree in a field other than education is a positive IMO.

Also, by surrounding them with engaged students, you're automatically putting these teachers in a situation where they're primed to succeed.

The author of the article summarized it well... while observing the private school classroom, she's thinking of WHAT to teach those children. Observing a similar public classroom, she's thinking of HOW to teach them.

Public school teachers generally have to acquire teaching credentials over and above the requirements of a bachelor's degree, irrespective of the nature of their bachelor's. Entry-level teachers can often be hired without them, so long as they demonstrate that they are concurrently enrolled in a program to acquire them.

Private schools typically have no such requirement.

I think the love of learning comes through at our private school in part because the principal and teachers themselves are lifelong learners. The principal puts high value on continuing education and travel among her staff and seems to hire naturally-curious types with colorful hobbies and life experience. That zest for learning definitely comes through in the classroom.

But again, in our case, I think it's the small class size that ultimately lets the teachers focus on WHAT rather than HOW to teach. Classroom dynamics change as the class size decreases. At our school, classes are so small that everyone knows everyone. Age and gender distinctions don't come into play (even in middle grades). And I can't help but think classroom management has to be less challenging.

I often think my son's school must be a teacher's dream.

I think the author has a great point - the one I like most - which is - when someone is invested in their school, they usually are more focused on their education.

Public schools have to take everyone. And, right now, there seems to be too much emphasis on teaching to the test.

For some teachers, they may choose to take the lower salaries to be in a smaller classroom where they usually have more control over their curriculum and where the families are more involved in the school. And where they don't have to invest all their teaching energy on those very kids who don't care because their performance/job depends on that.

One thing I've observed is that the private school teachers seem more invested. In the public schools, teachers rarely come to the kid performances unless paid. At private school, all the teachers typically turn out for student events.

In public school, teachers seem weighed down and focused on bureaucracy (common core, school requirements, district policies). My son's teacher complains daily about state and federal policies to her 5th grade class. I don't see this focus and distraction in the private schools.

It seems that the private school DS attends has higher expectations from the teachers and the students. A lot of the teachers seem to have no credentials in teaching and go through the school's certification and training process. But they more than make up for that with the passion and energy that they put into their work. They seem to be able to take on more tasks on a day to day basis. Which include both teaching tasks as well as non-teaching tasks. The level of customer service we receive from the administration and the teachers themselves is far superior to what we encountered at the local PS. And there is a lot of focus and time spent on developing the student's character, preparing for contests (for those interested), teaching many soft skills and enrichment activities in addition to rigorous academics.

Our experiences with children at a particular private school in our town have been a complete turn-off. You couldn't pay me to send my children there. Obviously, this is one school, but the elitism, entitlement, and toxic attitudes are something to see. It is the most expensive private school in town.

I don't think either public or private is better, but it's good to have choices and options as a parent. In our case the application process was somewhat arduous, but in retrospect this weeded out a lot of folks (parents and kids) who were not 100% committed to the school and to making things work. It's not a casual thing.

The scale of private schools is also nice - everyone can know me, my spouse and my kid. This gets harder as schools get bigger and bigger.

I will speculate that there are marked differences between small, relatively inexpensive private schools (say, <$10,000 annual tuition), and larger, more expensive private schools (many prep schools, name schools with large, elaborate facilities). With the fancy buildings and grounds come a hefty cost in capital and upkeep, which requires them to recruit families from a segment of the population which is enriched for the elitism, entitlement, and toxic attitudes referenced by ultra. Sweeping generalization, of course.

Small, budget private schools, OTOH, are often eking along on fundraisers and multiple-hat-wearing staff and volunteers, which has the added benefit that faculty and staff tend to know the students from multiple perspectives. The schools also may be more likely to have some kind of common vision underlying their existence, whether it's religious or other-philosophical in origin. A school that prices itself lower is probably more concerned with access than exclusivity.

And, of course, all private schools select for families that have made conscious choices about their children's education, while public schools must take all comers, and cannot de-select challenging or labor-intensive students of any description

Hey! Even reactionaries have feelings .

What timing! I was at a kindergarten preview event for YDS this week, which was our first actual public school event. ODS (our identified PG kid) has been at three private schools so far. The last time I called the public school to explore possible attendance, it didn't seem that they were very flexible nor knowledgeable about higher levels of gifted.

I was sitting in the kindergarten event feeling like an odd duck, indeed. We are looking at it because it's close, free and YDS has decided he wants to go there (!). We also have not done well in meeting friends for the family or boys in our area, largely because we travel to take the boys where they are now and our closest neighbors don't have kids.

Was fully prepared to be turned off, and instead, I was surprised by the way they run things and believe it could be a good fit for him. He is our more easy-going child, also very smart but more likely to fit in because of his personality, if that makes sense. They talked about how they move each child along throughout the year from where they start, with the goal being academic growth. Even gave good examples. Lots of small group and individual work. (I was turned off a bit by the comment that they never have parents say they wish their kids had started earlier, rather than go through the transitional/pre-K, but am trying to be fair and think the parents who feel that way probably don't bother to say it. At any rate, he's going at 5, so does not apply. lol)

ODS was already so far advanced at 4 that public k wasn't even an option for him at that point. So I was also feeling sad and thinking about how much I wish he could be in a local environment with some of the public school amenities and friends nearby. But it doesn't work for him, unless we really want to have him wait a lot for others to catch up. I just feel like we are the weird family, no matter where we go.

I agree with Bostonian. That remark was a bit much.

I know families who struggle to pay the tuition at pricey private schools. Many of them have to make monthly payments (rather than being able to pay tuition in a lump sum), and they drive the same old cars for 15 or more years because they can't afford a car payment and a school payment.

Also, at least around here, the environment at prep schools tends to be far from "entitled" and more along the lines of "Get good grades so that you get into a top-tier college! "

I realize that we have a serious problem with wealth disparity in this country, and I've seen outrageous entitled attitudes up close. I've also seen outrageous attitudes among people whose incomes are all over the board. While the specifics of what drives each person's bad attitude are different, a lot of it derives from the same basic set of character flaws. So I don't think that painting prep school families with a broad brush helps.

Looking at this point through another lens, a lot of people (including many teachers and school administrators) see parents of gifted kids as self-entitled elitists who act as though their kids deserve more than what everyone else gets.

One aspect that hasn't been discussed is parental engagement. Because of the nature of compulsory public education, the public schools spend a lot of effort trying to promote parental engagement, because they're dealing with many children who are being neglected at home to varying degrees. In private schools, there's the opposite problem, because not only are wealthier families who select private education prone to tiger mom syndrome, but these parents feel a greater sense of entitlement as paying customers.

On an unrelated note, we have rejected our local privates, because they appear to support their reputations for academic excellence by loading down the children with unacceptably excessive amounts of homework.

This is a powerful and important point. But it has multiple implications. Many here are using it in an "ewwww - they have to take everybody way." I'm exaggerating a bit. But really - that's the point.

For DS7, there's a flip side to "everyone." Notwithstanding the challenge presented by his extreme asynchrony - they have to take him. Speaking frankly, he'd probably be asked to leave many private schools with a "we can't meet his needs" explanation. And they're right - they probably can't. They could also try a little harder. But why - when they have a waiting list of easier kids they could bring in instead.

But in public school - they're effectively stuck with DS. And I work my ever-lovin' backside off for the school, to help them help him. Volunteering, supporting the school, backing up the teacher. Yes - there are awful folks in the system. But awesome ones as well. But I scramble every day to get the good ones on my son's team. I'm just constantly trying to find a path of least resistance/best resources to help them do well what they are stuck with doing anyway - having my DS in the school.

It has not been smooth. Last year was a nightmare. But all my legwork paid off with a great teacher assignment this year. And things have been much better. Next year - fingers crossed. But the good news is that the principal is now a friend, and definitely "on the team." I still have a seizure every time I see the school's caller ID on my phone. But I can't deny that he is growing and learning this year, and is generally happy, and learning to function in the challenge that is our diverse and goofy and sometimes unfair world.

Again, you're painting all the schools with a brush that's way too broad. I live in NorCal, too. There are literally DOZENS of private schools where I am, and you simply can't claim that they'll take easy rich kids over quirky ones in the blink of an eye. Respectfully, that is a bad attitude itself and shows a failure to explore the question in depth.

I've had too much experience with different private schools here becuase of schools moving, forcing us to find new ones. I've visited umpteen schools and have friends with kids at private schools my kids haven't attended. The prep schools tend to pile on the homework, as Dude pointed out. The kids I know from those schools don't act entitled; rather, they're stressed and busy. Yes, there are some uber-wealthy people here (say. >0.1%-ers) and some self-entitled types, but their kids are a tiny minority of the school population. Plus, some go to public schools. I knew a guy who was in that category. His child went to a PUBLIC school and the kid felt poor because of the conspicuous consumption by other kids at that school. So entitlement doesn't just reside in private schools.

Between them, my three kids have attended four private schools with one closure and two moves, and not one of them had the outlook you describe. There are many small private schools around here that work with quirky kids like mine. There are 2E kids and ND kids with disabilities at these schools and the non-uber-wealthy parents are thrilled.

Can we PLEASE try to look at the nuances of a situation rather than making broad generalizations? Isn't this what we want schools to do with our gifted kids? If we won't think carefully, why should we expect the schools to?

Obviously, not all private schools are the same just as not all public schools are the same. It doesn't do much good to speak about them as if they are uniform. The biggest problem I see with private schools (aside from the 80% of them which involve religious indoctrination), is how they tend to siphon off children and parents who do care about education and would likely improve the public schools by being involved. Private schools have also enabled people of means to push for reduced taxes and funding of public schools without being concerned that it will have a direct negative impact on their children.

While individual private schools can be wonderful and highly beneficial for individual kids, I think there is sufficient data to show that on a macro scale, they're bad for society. If every parent who sent their kid to a private school used the extra commuting time and money spent on tuition to make their public schools better via advocacy and donations, I think it's likely that the public school situation would improve significantly.

NZ doesn't have a lot of private schools. We used to but there was a deal made that the church schools were absorbed into the public sector as 'special character schools'. This means they have the same teachers and curriculum as other state (the state as in the country) schools with add ons. Where I am there is a private intermediate (years 7/8) and a steiner(waldorf) primary about an hour away. Our schools do sound more pleasant than a lot I read about on these boards but they have many of the same problems on a smaller scale and I think the differences are due to size and location rather than absense of private options. My children do not appear to find school unpleasant but they don't learn much either.

What specifically are the rich kids saying or doing that the schools ought to address?

Sorry, can't agree with you. I live in the Silicon Valley and send my child to a private school and there is no elitism at all. Instead my DS has met peers for the first time there. There are parents we know who hold 2 jobs so that they could send their child to private schools on their monthly salaries. The parents are a mixed bag (very rich to middle class). But, there is no sense of entitlement and schools focus a lot on character building. And the kids are really hard working from what I see and do not spend time talking about their butlers or their designer backpacks. Parents are focused on academic excellence and a lot of the kids participate in academic competitions and take up music studies, competitive sports etc after school which keeps them very busy. Just my experience from sending my child to a private school as well as attending open houses or shadowing days at every single private school within a 10 mile radius of my home.

You know - reading the above responses - I see that my impression is ill-informed on a local basis. I am willing to retract my comments about elitism etc. I'll just stick with being happy that my public school is working hard to help my son!

I apologize if I ruffled feathers with badly reasoned thoughts.

Sue

The major differentiator between private and public schools, IMO, is that privates, as businesses, have inherent flexibility that can't be matched by larger scale, bureaucratic organizations. That allows them to be (at least theoretically) more responsive to the client. The lack of a unionized teaching workforce gives the parents greater bargaining power in the school, which results in an experience that can (absent terrible management) be better tailored to the students' needs.

Well-run private schools adopt an efficiency wage model, whereby teachers are paid a premium in gross compensation over their public sector counterparts. This aligns the incentives of the teaching staff and the administrators, creates a disincentive for deficient teaching and mentorship, and mitigates agency problems present in public schools.

So, really, it's a situation that uses economic incentives to align the interests of parents and teachers around a common goal. With a double-sided positive self-selection bias, teachers and students are positioned more collaboratively in private schools simply by dint of a common purpose.

As a current private school teacher (at an elite private academy... my third in the last 12 years) with 20 years of classroom experience...

I'd never send my kids to private school. Ever.

I know that things look very different from outside the classroom, but having seen how the sausage gets made, my family is going the public school route all the way. I have noted in the past the only three good reasons I've ever heard to go to private school are:

1) ideology, generally religious ideology, because a school's "educational philosophy" is never shared by the majority of the teachers, regardless of what it is (and many won't even be clear on what it is),
2) networking with other families who have particular skills, interests, and connections that you want to cultivate, or
3) a genuine fear that your local public school would be a specific threat of some kind to your child.

I see your point, but I'd argue that this concern is an administrative concern, and a sign that your past principals were unqualified, ineffective, or both on the business side of the equation. Educators are educators, administrators are administrators. Too many private schools are run by educators, only, when both business and education credentials are needed.

I have three remedies to your concern, assuming someone with relevant business training is at the helm of administrative decisions:

1. Pay teachers more, so that the cost of not adhering to the school teaching ethos (being fired) is painful and the reward of staying is strongly appealing.

2. Conduct multi-stage interviews culminating in an evaluation center simulation to tease out how teachers act in challenging situations. These are expensive but so worthwhile if choosing the right talent is valued by management.

3. Set SMART goals with specific outputs tied to the school philosophy in the employment contract, with transparent measurement and action.

And a bonus strategy: spike the staff room Kool-Aid. Just kidding!

I went to two different public high schools that were nationally ranked and in some of the wealthiest parts of the country - one high school with some of the craziest tiger parents I have ever seen starting from kindergarten (and it is probably even worse now). And the amount of showing off of their wealth was so extreme that I hated to tell people what town(s) I lived in - and the public schools reflected those values.

My big issue with our public schools is that DS has not even had a chance to start, and we already hit head on into the age cutoff policy - and DS was already lashing out due to boredom in a traditional age preschool despite our attempts to push them to get what DS needed. We had to make a change, and only option was private school.

suevv, my main point with the statement that public schools have to take everyone is not on dealing with children with special needs but mainly even if the child does not want to be there and the family is not interested in addressing their child's educational needs, the rest of the kids in that class is still stuck with the churn and issues that comes with that child. We got a taste of that apathy in preschool (before the director finally gave up and asked the family to leave, when it became clear that the parents had no interest in addressing their child's misbehavior - violence towards other children that did not improve at all - after a few very long months). All the kudos to you that you work so hard to push and advocate for your child.

But for me, apathy is hard to battle - and that is what I find difficult to find acceptable for my children. So filling out an tediously long application or making effort to get teacher recommendations usually indicates that there is strong interest to be involved - there is some value to that. In fact, the author alludes to this with the AP English example - where just the act of getting teacher recommendation to apply tends to make those students more alert and focused in their class... I think there is something to that. I have experienced that in various times of my own school experiences, where that process of applying to a program/class (in public schools) really made those classes/program different - and where I feel we really got the best of what school was about. But those are rare.

This theoretical model is inconsistent with the facts for most private schools in the U.S. According to the National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.10.asp average salaries for public and private school teachers in 2011-2012 was $53K and $40K, and the differences persist when conditioning on highest degree attained. The differences in non-salary benefits are huge. Private school teachers are not accruing pensions.

Which is why I stipulated well-run.

I agree that the model I pitched isn't common.

Private school teachers usually are not state-licensed teachers, even if they are well educated. You don't need to offer the same salary to hire them and keep them. Furthermore, public school teacher compensation is boosted by their politically powerful unions, which can determine the outcomes of many elections in state legislatures and governors' races.

Opportunity cost is opportunity cost. Assuming a top quality private school teacher is employable in the public sector, or in a lucrative research/industry position, schools have to compete to retain talent, just like any other industry.

I wasn't limiting this to "rich" or "kids." But my points have gone off the track of what I was trying to say about why public school appears to have worked better for our family. I've edited my posts to try to re-focus.

I have yet to find this mythical small private school that only charge $7000 and is willing to be flexible. Maybe I need to look harder.

I was very interested to read that private school teachers in US can be paid less and less qualified, although I am sure there are exceptions. As a general rule the opposite is true here. All teachers must be registered and accredited to the same base standard. Private school teachers are often paid more and may have done further training, a Masters degree for example.

Pay here is generally higher than the U.S. if what I read here is true. Entry salaries are around $58000 and can go to $110000 depending on the state. The catch is finding a permanent job. A substantial number of teachers are on contract which is for the school year and so are not paid for the six week summer holidays.

I think some of the problems between public and private schools exist here too. Paying a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean the best education, can be a means to socialize with a different social strata and access the benefits of the "old boys network", it can be about being seduced by a pretty facility rather than what happens in the classroom and it doesn't guarantee they will take children with challenges. In fact, the opposite can occur if it impacts on their state test averages and makes the school look like a poorer performer. Definitely not true of every privte school though.

where I am in NZ we are in the middle of several very good privates - they are all very large though.

We have opted for public school in primary/intermediate and the private for secondary. Our reasoning is that the private school benefits won't really kick in until year 7/8 so that saves us $$$ plus we would like our kids to experience some diversity - our city is very very WHITE, our local public has a very high Maori/Pacifika student body so this is great. The local private does not :-(

Also - as a family that can indeed produce some very elitest children if we chose to, sending them to public will hopefully nip that sense of entitlement in the butt.

We like the private school because the opportunities they offer in terms of facilities and activities are just so much more than the public secondary schools. Thankfully we are in a position to send our kids. There is nothing wrong with the local public high school, it's just not as good as the private.

BTW as someone in a fortunate life position - I'd like to point out that I am at great pains to make sure my kids never take anything for granted.

My apologies if anyone was offended. Obviously, I don't think that all, or even most, prep school families are elitist snobs. And clearly, there are substantial numbers of families who sacrifice significantly to send their children to elite (in the academic sense) private schools. But I do think that there is a subculture for which certain kinds of schools are enriched--perhaps it's not wealth per se that is the selective quality, but there may be correlates. For instance, is it unreasonable to postulate that schools with standout physical facilities (similarly, not bad in themselves) are more likely to attract families for whom visible qualities in a school resonate more than teacher warmth does? These families would be much less likely to fetch up at tiny schools whose selling point primarily is intimacy. Maybe I should have put it the other way, that elitist attitudes are less likely to attend small, no-name private schools, but they have to go somewhere. One could probably say as easily that this mentality tends to preferentially move into certain public school districts. But those districts are by no means entirely occupied by people with this attitude.

Big, facilities-rich schools are marketing a certain product. Small, cozy schools are selling a different one. It would not be surprising if they ended up with different clientele.

That is interesting, because as a lifelong public school educator, in systems ranging from high-resource, upper SES suburban to low-resource, low SES urban, I view sending my children to public school as a last resort, after homeschooling and private school. Maybe this has something to do with having seen behind the curtain.

This really makes me nervous. Private teacher does not recommend private schools, public educator does not recommend public school. I am the product of a combination of public, and homeschooling. I was miserable in public school, and lonely for the homeschooling.

Is there a better option? Are there any good options?

On this list people often share the quote "when you've seen one gifted kid... you've seen one gifted kid." Well when you've seen one school... you've seen one school -- public or private.

Private schools can have more options and services -- or not, as some wealthy districts have amazing public schools. Public schools have to take everyone... but that can be good or bad depending on the everyone's they take. Private schools have more flexibility... which they can take advantage of or not or use to create a different kind of conformity. Public schools are bound by bureaucracy, except when they aren't because teachers and principals want to make a difference. Public schools have poor apathetic kids who don't care about their education (sometimes). Private schools have rich apathetic kids who don't care about their education (sometimes). Private schools cost a zillion dollars, except for the ones that cost less. And public schools can cost a surprising amount if you includes outside enrichment, after schooling, fundraising for the school, or -- above all -- the million dollar home you had to buy to get into the good school. Compare that to private school tuition.

I'm normally down on public school because we had a hard time making it work for us in this district. But that doesn't mean every school in the district is bad (because it's not like we can just pick and choose from all of them). And I've spoken to the two top secular private schools in town and while they sound great and do great with the kids I know who go there, they would definitely not be OK for my kid.

Schools are different. Sure I wish less of them kind of sucked. And I wish there was less disparity between them. But they are still all individual, and made up of individuals.

In the end, it comes down to the people. Whether people "get" high levels of giftedness or not. Some people do. Some people don't but could with some education. And some people just won't. And that's a more fundamental issue than school choice.

From the viewpoint of parents of gifted children, I've not heard this to be true.

School statistics may give a rosy picture. Schools may enjoy high ratings/rankings. Some of this may be attributed to practices such as grade replacement, and other means of raising the grades (if not the performance) of kids at the bottom.

Meanwhile gifted students may be thriving in spite of the school/district/teachers/policies/practices, not because of them. For example, a child who is bored in school may then spend time after-schooling in an area of interest. The knowledge gained in this endeavor, utilizing personal time, may then result in a high standardized test score, or ACT/SAT score, or other academic award/accomplishment for which the school/district/teacher will be glad to usurp credit for the child's performance.

I didn't read the whole thing. But we are looking at long term options for specialized high schools, same as there were in NYC. Because of gifted testing and parent fundraising, the differences in public schools within the same district are significant. Some public schools are much better than the second tier private and you get the top slice of gifted together, so you get the interaction and peer group you want. And on the high school level, that is even moreso. Hunter and Styvescant are free high schools but you have to test to get into them. They send more kids to Harvard and MIT. Sty isn't even on the list of best high schools because you cannot go unless you score well. But Sty is a public high school, just not anyone can go. Same here in Toronto. They have these specialized math and science programs and the students get more scholarship money than the gifted high schools and get into top programs but you have to test in the top percentile for one of those 60 spots. But still public. And it seems that Canadian universities are weighting the programs now. it used to be strict grade average. Now if you take AP programs, and go to an elite public high school, you have an advantage for the better programs and schools.

I understand what you're saying here, but I should point out, my first eight years teaching were in public schools, and I presently spend five days a week as a volunteer classroom/library aide at DD's public school. I have a fair amount of experience behind that curtain as well...

In my experience private schools have all the same issues as public; compounded by inexperienced teachers, under-qualified profit-minded administrators (with little to no educational experience), micro-cultures and cliques of various sorts (the loosely organized groups of rich parents, religious parents, gifted parents, and so on), and more.

If you live in an area that can support a strong, well-reputed private school, chances are VERY good that there are strong, well-reputed public schools nearby. They may not be your local campus, but they're probably not far away.

I live adjacent to what is considered by many to be the single worst, most poorly administered, scandal ravaged, public school system in the country. It drives many in that community to enroll their students in private schools (a few of which I've taught at). But, in that system there are a number of schools that are BELOVED, some of which have Academic Performance Index scores of 1000. And in my small home district, which again is right next to this dysfunctional behemoth, EVERY school is highly rated.

I think the tendency for parents, not just parents of gifted kids, to assume that private schools can better meet the needs of their children, is largely driven by a mixture of fantasy and salesmanship. Having been in the classroom, I see little evidence to support those beliefs.

P.S. As an aside, a personal bugaboo of mine is the current trend at elite private schools to hire unemployed PhDs as teachers. Elite schools love to use the claim that x% of our faculty has a PhD as a marketing draw (I've actually worked at two schools where I was the ONLY faculty member without a PhD; including folks like the PhD theater teacher and PhD P.E. coach). There is nobody less qualified, nobody, to teach a 6th grade class, than the PhD who thought they'd be tenure tracked at an Ivy League university by now...

Did someone else already notice this? The school in the article is a university model school--essentially a school-homeschool hybrid, which is probably why the tuition is so low.

As for tiny private schools, my sons attended one for a few years. I found them to be more flexible in some ways (they let my younger son skip two grades, for example), and less flexible in others (if you're in 10th grade you must take all 10th grade courses because of how the schedule works). Also, while there are some teachers who were excellent, and obviously there because they love teaching and don't care about money (which was abysmal--half or less of what comparable public school teachers make), there were others who were horrific and obviously there because no one else would give them a job.

I think there's one type being missed here, which is the very small private school that really does manage to be different. If I may quote from Lori Pickert's Project-Based Homeschooling:

This more or less describes the school we recently left. The co-founders are nearing retirement age, and I believe the school is nearing the end of its 20 year run as a hidden gem in our community. Precisely because they are so small, I never heard of them by word-of-mouth.

MsFriz, your school sounds so similiar, you had me wondering which parent from our school you were! (Until I looked back at your old posts and found some details that prove it's not the same school.)

Couldn't agree more with all of the above. This has been our experience. Spent 4 years in a large public school district on the east coast that was not wealthy but had many specialized programs to meet the differing student needs including magnet gifted schools, IB program, specialized academies, etc. Spent two years at a small, award winning, very wealthy school district (and what the school budget doesn't cover in extras, the nonprofit supporting the schools does!) and it was a year and half too long in a district that does nothing to try to meet gifted student needs, at least at the MS level. It was not my first choice, but my kids are at (different) private schools meeting their needs now. Yes,private school teachers may be paid less than the well compensated tenured teachers who show up and do nothing but rote teaching and are more babysitters than anything (this is NOT all teachers - some were amazing - but unfortunately it aptly describes half of my public student's teachers)...but across the board in my kids private schools, they are absolutely more engaging in the classroom. Who would have thought the extra bonus of putting the kids in private school is the significant decrease in peer emphasis on things like clothes, cars, electronics, ski vacations,etc. Just one parent's experience but it's real.

I should clarify: what I meant by referencing seeing behind the curtain was that one is most aware of the flaws in a system with which one has intimate insider knowledge. Other systems might appear better, if only because we don't know about their issues. You are in the position of having seen behind multiple curtains.And this is not a fad restricted to private schools. I've seen a few PhD faculty members, too, some of whom were already teachers, but went back to grad school (that works out no worse than a non-PhD teacher, and sometimes can be good), and others of whom did have a bit of that couldn't-get-a-tenure-track-job odor clinging to them. At the least, at the secondary level, their content specializations have some value.

This does sound similar to our private school, which we love. It was the vision and continues to be the life mission of its founder, who has run the school for over 30 years. She started the school precisely because she was frustrated with the one-size-fits-all approach of public school and saw a better way.

The school is K-12, so we're all just hoping that the director sticks it out until DS10 graduates from high school (he's been there since kindergarten and is in middle grades now). Even if the school outlasts the founder, I know it wouldn't be the same.

I'm sorry perhaps I was unclear, but this was the exact point I was trying to make with my post. A school is good or bad for a high LOG child because of the people there who are willing to make it good. Not because it's public or private or rich or poor or has this elective or that student profile. Some people have better experiences with private (we did!) but others with public.

I can think of a lot of people who are less qualified than someone with a Ph.D. "who thought they'd be tenure tracked by now," like people who can't do long division, and at the more extreme end, people who are functionally illiterate, and people who have a sobriety problem. I would bet money that there are a solid number of current 6th grade teachers who honestly aren't qualified to be teaching sixth grade because of lack of subject knowledge.

This is just a sweeping generalization that comes with a strong implication that a teaching credential is more important than subject knowledge. It's also quite judgmental about people who got Ph.D.s in our US doctorate factory, only to discover that academic jobs these days are largely built around low-paying positions filled by adjuncts. And you blame these people for finding a job and getting to work? Should they know their places and stick to teaching college students instead? Or is it that you met a couple terminally-degreed people who maybe weren't suited to teaching, and extrapolated that fact to everyone with a Ph.D. who isn't an academic? Like being unsuited to teaching never happens among the credentialed crowd with BAs in education?

Writing sweeping generalizations doesn't help.

Ivy, thank for your wonderful posts.

I went to a private religious, college prep high school. It had a very good academic reputation. Yes, I did get into an Ivy League school from there. My class had 140 kids. Many of the positive things that people mentioned were present there. There were a few things that were lacking. For me as a high achieving gifted kid, they didn't have the breadth of AP offerings or extra-curricular options that the local high school did. They did the things that they did well but it was too limited for me. Also, no one has mentioned the social aspect of going to a school that draws from a large geographic area. When people come from 20-30 minutes away in all directions, you end up with friends who live 40 minutes to 60 minutes away. Even when I could drive starting in my junior year, my parents weren't thrilled about letting me drive across a large urban area on a weekend night to go hang out with my friends.

We have found good public school environments for our kids by finding schools with high choice enrollment and high parent involvement. My kids are in gifted and IB programs and none of them go to school more than three miles from our house. My oldest is thriving in the high school environment. For her going to a bigger school means that while it is harder and more competitive to get into certain classes and activities, it means that when you make it in, you are with a truly talented group of kids.

This.
DH is the head of the physics department at a public school headed by a principal who decided on teaching high school after getting that phd (a principal he is very happy with btw) and thus trains newly qualified teachers, some of whom are PhDs as well.
He says that he can train anyone with a solid grasp of their subject to be a good enough teacher, if not always a brilliant one. It I very hard doing this with someone who does not have that grasp - not merely because anyone who is only one step ahead of their students can be tripped up by any probing question, be it by a weaker student needing clarification or a talented student looking for further insight, but also because someone who spent years in university on a subject of their own choosing and still can't do it tends to lack more fundamental qualities such as the brains, the motivation and a healthy personality in the first place, it is much harder to turn someone in good enough teacher who lacks one or more of these qualities. They may have just scraped through at the bottom of their class, or have mental health or substance abuse problems, sometimes all of the above. Motivation helps if it's there, but it's still a slog, and students do notice,
I'd much rather have my child taught by that PhD. A bunch of gifties might LOVE having that phd teacher, and vice versa.

Very well-stated.

My mom was a lifetime primary educator-- it was her passion, and she was very good at what she did-- particularly with LD students or those with ADHD/ADD or ASD. Simultaneous with that set of salient facts, however, was the additional fact that she would have been one of the LAST elementary teachers that I'd have wanted for my own DD, because at higher LOG, she was not a good match.

Anyway.

I'll also add that she was (IMO) very wise when offering us advice re: schools and public v. private, etc. She had taught at both, and in situations both wonderful and awful (b/c of local cultural norms or administrators, ususally). Her advice was that there is no rule about which is "better."

It simply depends upon too many different factors. The child, the parents, the local prevailing attitudes about education, the local administration, the board, etc. etc. etc.

Bravo.


I love this post.

Yes. Our school is....well....it's the stereotypical, cookie-cutter, "do we LOOK like we care about your kid?" school. But the PEOPLE -- not the administrators, but the teachers -- are what makes it at least okay to good. Oh, there's bad teachers, but most of them really care about the students. They actually like the subjects they teach - some were previously employed in their field, or participate in it on the side. The amount of unpaid after school hours some of them put in is remarkable, even on non-after-school days (and this isn't even core teachers). They actually....try. And that's one of the biggest things about a school -- as much as school is academic, it's about the day-to-day human interactions. Do the kids respect each other? Do teachers and administrators connect with the kids, try to help them succeed? Or does everybody just...show up?

BTW, thanks for the kind feedback guys. I love this forum.

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.

You're right, I shouldn't have said national norms but national standards. This opinion goes back to personal knowledge of private "schools" whose grade levels were 1-3 years behind even the local standards, which should not be acceptable absent certain extenuating circumstances.

I am from Texas and still live here, so I didn't mean to offend. Several of my family members have taught in Texas schools for generations, and I could unfortunately provide hours of stories about students (mostly boys) being pushed through schools because they are good at sports. I never said every school and certainly not every family, but it's hard to deny that Texas is sports obsessed and has shown it is more than willing to sacrifice education in the pursuit of same.

Though I either still wasn't sufficiently challenged or just chose not to push myself, I had a very similar experience as you. A large (2500 students or so), somewhat urban, mostly poor, majority minority high school which today people are shocked when they discover it is where I attended. Because of its size, I was able to schedule 2 sciences each year of school, take 2 different foreign languages, go as far as I wanted in math/history/literature, with electives unheard of in today's schools for the most part. At the time, the area private school didn't have half the offerings my large public school did, and for that matter, neither did the small public school some of my family attended.

The one size/type must fit all approach to education is a large part of our problems.

I agree, but I also see that as part and parcel of the testing requirements which have been enacted by elected officials. Although schools are supposed to be testing whether the student has made "adequate yearly progress", in reality all that is tested is whether the student meets the grade level standards. If we truly followed the adequate yearly progress mandate, then even gifted learners and bright children would face more rigorous expectations- a good thing in my opinion! The insane emphasis on testing also hurts those children on the other end, those for whom meeting the standards of 2-6 grade levels below is actually a victory and should be recognized as such.

Agreed.

I disagree. Somewhat expensive = $300,000 to $500,000 premium on housing. Even the super expensive $40,000 a year schools are less than that, and I've heard they give generous aid to even wealthy families.

But, even that's assuming that these prestigious districts are appropriate for gifted kids rather than highly pressured hothouse kids, which is (from what I've heard) debatable. Several people have told me that a mediocre district is more flexible for kids beyond the norm.

Just saw the thread and wanted to share my experience in WA state.

I have a 3rd grader who went to public school for K&1(very good school district) and now participates to full time gifted program in public school.

My younger one is a Kindergartener and we chose to send him to a private school. One particular reason to choose a different path was class sizes. Public school general education classes are about 27 kids per teacher. Class size at the school my son attending is 12 kids per teacher. In addition to the education about 1/2 grades ahead of public school, he gets to have twice as many art, music, PE, technology and Spanish class. One more difference is that teachers at private schools are much nicer ;-) Even though it's a great private school etc., I don't think it can beat the full time gifted program in public school though. Full time gifted program starts in 2nd grade in our state, so we will get my son tested next year when he is 1st grade and pull him out to public school starting 2nd grade.

Summary is that there are so many factors to decide which one is best fit for your child/family. I don't think there is any right answer about which one is better? public or private?

Hope that helps...

I disagree with your math. Spending $40K per year on tuition is money gone forever. On the other hand, spending $40K per year on a 30-year mortgage @ 4% will allow you to buy a $700K property. Let's call it a $600K property to leave money for property taxes. Depending on the town and location, you can get a home with 1800-2500+ sq ft are available for that much money. That also gives you a place to live, equity over time, and possible asset appreciation. Or you could rent instead and get an even nicer place. The costs of public and private schools are not even remotely comparable.

Also, it matters little even if most of these "prestiguous" districts are hot-houses (which as you say, is debatable). All that matters is if the one you choose for your child is nurturing for gifted kids. We have found that to be the case in ours, and I hear the same is true in the town that is arguably better, as we know a lot of families with gifted children from both towns.

The mortgage lasts 30 years, but the private school tuition does not. With the kids we're talking about, 10 years is no sweat.

You can sell the home and move out when the kids leave school. Or if you don't want the risk of declining home prices, you can also rent.

We have experience similar to that described by mithawk (without the math olympiad stars, sadly). Our public district is strong, big enough to offer multiple very high level teams/academic clubs, and draws a good cohort of gifted kids for those reasons. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but for us, it is the best option locally by a long shot.

2500 sf for $600,000 in Lexington, Concord, Newton, Wellesly et al? Impossible. I'd be interested to see if a second toilet could be got for that.

OK, so excluding foreclosures and including every house under $600,000 (bidding wars! They'll sell for another $50,000+), there is a home selling for $599,900 in Lexington. The only one under $600,000, and it's 3/1, 1300sf. Concord's more reasonable, there are a couple at only $450,000-$500,000, big condos, 1400sf, one with three bedrooms. Wellesley has a house with 3/1, 1400sf, and some condos. See what I mean? And rentals are way worse. These would be a $3000 mortgage and rent for more than that per month.

For $160,000 (4yrs at $40,000), plus not paying closing costs on selling the $600,000 house when they graduate (5% is $30,000), plus not paying interest on that amount (which is also dead money), I know which decision would be wisest. And that's not including the possibility that that supposedly awesome district is really very awful, which is a situation a lot of my friends have been in. And then you're stuck with the enormous mortgage/closing costs and private school fees.

I rather think that mithawk was only talking about the loan amount and assuming that the 600k would not be the total value of the property.

A house advertised for $600,000 won't sell for anywhere near that, particularly the cheapest house in town when the next cheapest is $700,000+, and the next cheapest is $850,000. And then there are the houses with two toilets!

I meant that he is probably assuming a minimum of 20% of the purchase price to be already in hand so the 600k would represent the difference that would need to borrowed.,,

Tallulah,

Since you want to keep going, let's dig into Lexington, for the following reasons:

1. I don't live there.
2. Lexington High School is widely considered a gold standard among public schools.
3. It is mid-pack in terms of housing costs among the top school districts.

But first, let's back up. It is theoretically possible for a homeless family to have their child study in Phillips Academy for free, but that's certainly atypical. Everyone else will pay for housing. So in that vein, let's compare Lexington to a neighbor equally close to Boston, Waltham, where the schools are so-so and try to discover the "good schools premium". Note that I am ascribing 100% of the cost difference to schools, and completely ignoring that Lexington is a desirable place to live because of its rich history.

Suppose a family is renting because they haven't saved up a downpayment. They could rent a 2800 sq ft , 2.5 bath place in Lexington for $3000/mo.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Lexington-MA/house,condo,apartment_duplex,townhouse_type/56496978_zpid/19005_rid/days_sort/42.512475,-71.139822,42.389487,-71.309423_rect/12_zm/?view=map

In Waltham, the best deal I could find was a place with 3200+ sq ft, but it only had 1.5 baths. It was available for $2100/month. I will go out on a limb and say it's possible with enough searching and patience you could do better in Waltham at say $1800 per month.

So in this case the "good schools premium" is at most 12* $1200 = $14,400 per year. And for that you could send any number of children to the public schools there, for free.

Let's move onto buying a home with a 20% downpayment and a $600K mortgage, or a $750K target. Buying a home in these towns is a multi-month process, but if you had to buy something "today", there is one close at $780K with 3 bedrooms, 3 baths and 2226 square feet:

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Lexington-MA/56491151_zpid/19005_rid/0-800000_price/0-2947_mp/days_sort/42.512475,-71.139822,42.389487,-71.309423_rect/12_zm/0_mmm/?view=map

I will leave it as an exercise for you to determine the "good schools premium" vs. buying an equivalent property in Waltham, and the difference in mortgage payment. And as I said, Lexington is mid-pack. Further away from Boston, homes are generally cheaper in many towns with great school systems.

I guess this is where I should feel lucky that my zoned schools don't matter due to our admission-based magnet system for middle and high schools (actually, elementary too--we are on track to never have either child attend his/her zoned school at all). I get the schools with all the "goodies" (IB/AP, NMS in spades, advanced math track out the ears, etc) without having to buy a house in those zones. There's a cost, though. My family has been worrying about grades since my child was 9 years old.

Boston has three exam schools as well, including Boston Latin. But it is only available for people who physically live in Boston.

I know a family who lives in a neighboring town and bought a condo in Boston so the child can attend Boston Latin. The father and son lived in the apartment during the week (the father works in Boston) and go back to their other house during the weekends. It met the letter of the requirements, if not the spirit.

You're using Waltham and Lexington as your polar opposites? No. I'm sorry, this is going to be an unbearably dull for people to read, skip over unless you're a member of the endless Mass schools debate.

Lexington is hot house central, highly prized by a certain segment of the population who are trying desperately to get their kids into Harvard, and some very unfortunate people who moved there for 'good schools', then discovered they're not good, they're just high pressure, status driven places. Which suits some, sure, and they're welcome to it. But not people like us with kids like ours. But in this comparison, it's close to Boston/Cambridge, and properties have that schools premium.

Waltham does not have a reputation for much of anything, does it, sandwiched in between Newton, Belmont, Lexington and Concord, the 'good schools' districts and the rich Weston, Wellesley and Wayland. It just suffers the price increase from beingin there with decent schools, like Melrose or Reading. If you want a cheap town within reach of a good private school better to go with Medford, Burlington, Billerica, some of those towns on the T. If you're shooting for Phillips, why not compare housing in Wilmington? For Concord Academy, Billerica, for Milton Academy, Mattapan, for Commonwealth or BUA, anywhere on the T, like Lynn. For many of these towns you'll have multiple options well under $400,000.

Tallulah,

You responded to my first post with:


I have shown that the "good schools premium" for renters cannot be more than $36000 per year for any number of children, and that assumes that living in other places is free. Using some of the places you show, the premium is no more than half that. And that ascribes zero value to the more expensive towns having other benefits such as being generally safer, having a vibrant downtown, or a rich history.

Since that line of attack failed, you now feel you have to attack the school. I admit that Lexington can be a difficult school system for kids who are not academically strong, or even gifted kids with learning disabilities. But most EG/PG kids I know thrive there. Only you can decide if it is right for your child. I also know a few kids at Exeter, Milton, and BUA, as well as teachers at Phillips Andover. I think you are mistaken in thinking those environments are more relaxed.

Anyway we have beaten this to death. We are both entitled to our opinions. And before you start wondering if we are tiger parents who hot-house our kids, anyone who knows us finds us just the opposite. The last time my daughter did badly in school, my wife baked her cookies, and my daughter joked she should get bad grades every day.

My opinion of the Lexington public schools is similar to mithawk's. Whenever there is a statewide academic competition, Lexington is at or near the top.

It is not clear to me where you draw the line between supportive and engaged and "hothousing" parents. Very few parents think *they* are hothousing.

A community with lots of bright children that values education will also attract afterschool programs for bright children. IDEA Math meets at the Lexington High School. The Math Club http://www.themathclub.com/ meets in Lexington. The KT Byte computer science academy https://www.ktbyte.com/computer-camps is in Lexington.

Cross out Lexington and insert Cupertino, Saratoga, or Palo Alto (etc.), and you've described the Bay Area perfectly. Your housing points are spot-on, too, though the term bidding wars really doesn't describe this place properly these days. It's more of a crazed culture of mass insanity focused on a single goal: winning the competition to get the house at all costs.

Some years ago, during a down period in the real estate craze, my mom was visiting and we looked at an open house in an upscale part of an upscale town here. The place was on the kind of lot that causes you to imagine your children tumbling down it to their deaths. The house itself was in woeful condition and a balcony was blocked off because it wasn't structurally sound and was located high off the land below.

My mom said to the agent, "The house is not in great shape," and he replied, "Well, what do you expect for 1.2 million?"

I am not making this up. And it's WORSE now. Way worse.

Taking this idea back to the public-vs-private and status-seeking thing, status hysteria is thriving in many of the public high schools around here. Status comes from getting lots of A++++s with garlands, which leads to incredible pressure. My eldest used to go to a gaming day thing in Cupertino on Sundays last summer. I would go to the local library to self-teach mathematics. The place was always, always crammed full of high school kids doing their summer AP work. Most of them looked pretty miserable, and their whispered conversations revealed that they were certainly not there for the joy of learning.

Seriously, the pressure is so intense, there have been a number of teenage suicides on the train tracks near the Palo Alto schools in recent years (I don't know how many, but there have been 2 so far in 2015).

So IMO, public or private, we have a cultural problem in our high-achieving schools: get all As wherever you go to school! Win competitions, even if you have to spend a significant chunk of your childhood memorizing the dictionary for the spelling bee! Don't take risks! There are two kinds of people in the world: winners and losers! Etc.

Is the child within their normal developmental arc? Is the child suffering psychological distress from parental over-involvement? Etc.

Indeed, most people answer this question using the standard "I, you, they" exercise:

- I am providing my DCs with the enrichment they need to thrive.
- YOU are pushing your children.
- THEY are hothousing.

Jon said it very succinctly.

A school system like Lexington/Cupertino/Palo Alto can be a great school for a child. A gifted child in those schools can find many intellectual peers, activities that interest them, and quite often teachers that are highly engaged. It can also be crushing for students that are told they must be at the top of the class. Obviously only a few students can make it to the top, and the rest of the children with tiger parents suffer.

In my opinion, this does not make the school a "hot-house". It makes it a great school where some fraction of the children are hot-housed. My guess is it is the children in the top 20%, but below the top 5% that face the most pressure. The really bright kids will do well anyway without all that much effort. And the ones not in contention for the elite college admissions find these schools just like any other, with the focus being on sports, attracting the opposite sex, etc.

Top 5% by what measure?

My personal observation is that, the higher one looks up the ladder towards valedictorian, the more one sees cases of hothousing, and increasing in severity. High ability will carry the right students into the top 5% of class ranking easily (unless it's a very, very deep pool), but that still gives you a large pool of candidates for valedictorian, and there can be only one.

Well, honestly --- I'm not convinced that you're aware of just how toxic the environments at some of these schools are.

Even your estimate of the top 5-20% of kids facing the most pressure isn't as straightforward as it sounds (assuming it's correct). Remember that thanks to grade inflation and tiger parenting, high schools these days can have multiple valedictorians, with as many as 30 at some. So if, say, 20 kids are number 1, how many are in "the top 20%"?

When he finished 8th grade, my son graduated with high honors and had a 3.7something average, yet was about 1/3 of the way down in his class.

When dozens of kids are in one library studying for AP whatever on random Sunday afternoons in July and complaining to each other about it, it's undeniable that a large number of them are complying rather than studying because of internal drive. When two 15-year-olds in as many months kill themselves in front of commuter trains, how many others are suffering damaging stress levels that are far beyond what they should be subjected to at such young ages? And, honestly, I'm suspicious of the term "intellectual peers," because the meaning of that phrase is so subjective. Like-minded about Magic or Minecraft? Yeah, sure. Like-minded about the philosophical questions that bounce around inside many PG minds as a matter of course? Unlikely, even in a big high-achieving high school. Most of those kids are too busy just treading water.