Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

The Miseducation of America’s Elites
Affluent parents, terrified of running afoul of the new orthodoxy in their children’s private schools, organize in secret.
by Bari Weiss
City Journal
March 9, 2021

...

What does it say about the current state of that meritocracy, then, that it wants kids fluent in critical race theory and “white fragility,” even if such knowledge comes at the expense of Shakespeare? “The colleges want children—customers—that are going to be pre-aligned to certain ideologies that originally came out of those colleges,” says a STEM teacher at one of New York’s prestigious prep schools. “I call it woke-weaning. And that’s the product schools like mine are offering.”

...

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.

I suspect the phenomenon of paying for an education one doesn't really find satisfactory, but ostensibly chose (and then paying extra to get the education one wants) plays out to some extent at least a bit further down the income scale too--and likely for related reasons. aquinas's observation rings true--they are buying not an education, but access to something else (Ivy enrollment, social status, a particular community), and the education per se is sacrificed to that other goal. Even high-performing suburban public school districts are subject to the same pattern, but instead of paying a specified tuition for an undesirable educational product, families pay higher property taxes in exchange for access to a certain kind of "free" public education--often also with markers that provide increased access to elite post-secondary institutions, social status and communities with certain qualities. And then on top of property taxes, parents pay for afterschooling and tutoring, to get the education they think their children need.

This isn't to disparage private schools, high-performing public schools, or the families who choose them, but simply to note that, for most affluent families, there is choice involved. And those choices could be wielded in different ways, whether to prioritize education or other values, and using different approaches to achieve their goals. Paying for elite private or elite public schools is not the only way to invest financial resources in high quality education.

And btw, private teacher salaries, on the average, are lower than public school teacher salaries. And typically have smaller benefit packages. If one funded a private school at public school teacher salaries with benefits, one could likely attract some quality staff.

What public school districts spend per student:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-spending.html

It is my understanding that "spending per pupil" is largely reflective of teacher salaries/benefits and varies based on cost-of-living in different areas.

After teacher salaries/benefits, the next largest budgetary categories for many/most schools are administration and building/grounds maintenance (not necessarily in that order).

"Spending per pupil" is not necessarily correlated to educational resources, materials, opportunities, experiences which are made available to students.

Very interesting and insightful 20-page downloadable PDF:
https://www.hw.com/pdf/Anti-RacismatHarvard-Westlake.pdf

On page 6, two artists are featured. These are their websites:
1) Basil Kinkcaid - https://www.basilkincaid.com/
2) Janna Ireland - https://www.jannaireland.com/
From her website, I understand "Her name rhymes with "Donna," not "Hannah."" But I do not understand "Hard J" as I am familiar only with G having "hard" sound as in the word goat and a "soft" sound as in the word gem... where the "soft" sound of the letter G is the same as the sound of the letter J.

On page 8, the Glasgow Group is mentioned. This is their website:
https://www.theglasgowgroup.org/
- This is their election guideline PDF, which specifies being NON-PARTISAN, focusing on issues not personalities, and creating a culture of dialogue not debate:
https://www.theglasgowgroup.org/upl...w_group_guidelines_for_election_2020.pdf
- Another PDF links to the American Psychological Association (APA) webpage on Civic Engagement:
https://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement

Again, very interesting material... layers and layers of links and more links to explore. This may take some time.

Thanks for the clarification, indigo. My point in noting public school per pupil spending was actually in comparison to private school tuition--which in turn is not necessarily fully representative of per pupil spending, as many private schools rely heavily on giving outside of tuition (as do many high-performing publics). But it's at least a point of reference when discussing educational costs and return on investment.

And fwiw, private schools' principal expenditures are not all that different, with possibly more emphasis on capital/building/grounds expenditures, and somewhat less on personnel.

Of course, as you rightly point out, spending is not necessarily reflective of effectiveness or meaningful resourcing. But I think that's one of the takeaways from the original article.

I think "hard J" means j as in "just", or the "dg" in "edge", while "soft J" is the sound represented by "si" in "vision". Used in English mainly in loan words from other languages, such as "raj" or "Beijing" (ironically, mispronounced with respect to the original languages--which both use the hard J sound in these words).

Thanks, aeh.
Do you have a link or source/reference for the hard/soft "J" sounds?
And, may I also ask, do you have a word with the letter "J" as an exemplar of the soft "J" sound?

Not saying this is the height of reliable sources, but here's a tidy rundown from the thefreedictionary:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Forming-the-zh-Sound.htm

I added a couple of examples to my previous post while you were writing your response...

Thank you, aeh.
When I did a websearch for soft J, and for hard J, I did not find word pronunciation examples, but the urban dictionary had meanings for these.

The sound of ZH, I get this... as in Beijing.
Others have also shared some interesting pronunciation examples with me:
- Hallelujah
- Elijah
- jalapeno

Taking all this into account, the female artist featured in the OP's linked material would be pronounced like " John - uh "
("Her name rhymes with "Donna," not "Hannah." Hard J.")

Thanks again.