Why I'm a Public School Teacher But A Private School Parent

[summer]

The Atlantic

Last week, I observed a high-school English class on a campus without bells. The school didn’t need them: Every student showed up for class promptly, and they remained attentive until the last minute—without packing their books early or lining up at the door. San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA) is a private school in Central California that promotes "personal character" and "love of learning," and the tangible difference between this environment and that at the public high school in the area was stunning to me—even though I'm a veteran public-school teacher. And even though my own daughter is in her second year of preschool at SLOCA.



I’ve also spent the last four decades exclusively at public schools—either attending them, coaching at them, or teaching at them. I have dedicated my life to them, as have all of my good friends. I even superficially loathe the local Catholic school for its elitist attitudes and alleged recruiting techniques. But as my daughter embarks on her K-12 journey, my wife and I are leaning toward this small, 322-student private school for one really simple reason: The kids take pride in their personal character, and they admit that they love learning.



My 4-year-old daughter, for now, is just like them. And I’ve always found that it’s exponentially more fun, fulfilling, and productive to engage in activities with other people who have "bought in" to whatever they’re doing with the same level of enthusiasm. For me, this has been true in grad school, baseball practice, watching football on TV—anything, really. For my daughter, this happens when she’s learning about personification, reciting poetry, and being a good human.

Personally, I was struck by the degree of student buy-in at SLOCA—which serves just 32 high-school students—compared to a typical public school nearby. In 90 minutes of observing the private-school class, there were zero interruptions, zero yawns, and zero cell phones. All 15 students, ranging from sophomores to seniors, had their homework successfully reviewed within the first five minutes of class; they all had their pens and notepads in front of them without being asked. As I listened to their interactions, it became clear, too, that they were engaged. They laughed when one of them made a joke about Frederick II being excommunicated a second time, and they lightly knocked on their desks when they liked a classmate's comment—a delightful custom I had never heard of. Each of them, moreover, answered a question from the teacher at least twice. Other than these moments, there was no noise, not a single distraction—and I was struck by the apparent absence of gender lines or observable differences between the youngest and oldest students in the class. Throughout those 90 minutes, they seemed like a group of old friends, united by a love of learning.



That the teacher was fluent in that day’s topic, the Holy Roman Empire, was clear in at least two ways: One, she answered every question thoroughly, without hesitation; two, I could actually hear every word she said, in the tone and volume she intended. She didn't have to yell to be heard, and she didn't speak quickly in fear of interruption. She could subtly emphasize certain words, and her jokes landed. Observing this class, I started daydreaming about what, if given the chance, I would teach these kids—not how I would teach these kids.



* * *



As I am writing this, I am observing a different class—one at the 825-student public high school where I teach. The educator’s passion is evident, and his typed lesson plans are immaculate and thoughtful. It's not completely clear how fluent he is in the subject matter, however, because he has been interrupted or distracted by 20 things in 20 minutes: a pencil being sharpened, a paper bag being crumpled and tossed, a few irrelevant jokes that ignite several side conversations, a tardy student sauntering in with a smirk, a student feeding yogurt to a friend, a random class clown outside the window, and the subsequent need to lower the blinds, to name a few. The teacher is probably distracted by a disconcerting suspicion that he’s talking primarily to himself. For the past half hour, I've been thinking about how I would teach this class—not what I would teach this class.



I know most of the kids in this public school: They're not hurtful or malicious, and most of them aren't even consciously rude. They’re just "cool" by default, the opposite of being intrinsically "stoked" or "pumped" (to borrow a few words from their vocabulary) about learning. It’s not a classroom-management issue in this case. The teacher could outlaw food and cellphones, but there would still be jokes, fidgeting, students with passes to or from another place—something to distract them. No matter how diligently he teaches them about the appropriate time to sharpen a pencil, there will still be this culture of coolness, the norm of disengagement.



SLOCA charges between roughly $3,000 and $7,000 per student in annual tuition—thousands less than the average cost of private high schools in the Western U.S., which according to some estimates is $29,000. And according to school figures, SLOCA also doles out $50,000 a year in need-based scholarships, as well as about $52,000 in tuition discounts. Granted, SLOCA’s tuition is probably too high for many families, but I don’t think the cost of attendance explains why SLOCA is such a special place—the biggest visible difference between my public-school students and their counterparts at SLOCA has little to do with money or natural brilliance (or, if it does, it isn't apparent or even relevant to me). Just like their public-school peers, the kids at SLOCA wear jeans and hoodies, and none of them seem to be any kind of genius; in fact, one of them was a student of mine at the public school, which he still attends part-time (I’ll get to him later). The biggest visible difference is that, at SLOCA, personal engagement is "cool." And any interruption is going to annoy everybody—not just the teacher.



In general, the teens at the public school don’t appear to have bought into an educational environment like that at SLOCA—and for good reason: There's nothing to buy. It’s difficult for them to show personal choice in their schooling because they’re obligated to be there regardless of whether they want to. As in many states, California law explicitly prohibits the school from requiring that parents pay for anything; at this particular institution, the administration even forbade an English teacher from asking parents to buy their kids tickets to an inexpensive play. After tax dollars, support for everything from extracurriculars to learning materials is expected to come through fundraisers, and schools can’t require that the students—the actual beneficiaries—participate in the fundraisers themselves. I completely understand and support the valid reasons behind these kinds of rules, both on conflict-of-interest grounds and, especially, in defense of equality. To me, however, that doesn’t negate the unfortunate, unintended consequence: When the kids aren’t obligated to invest their time and energy in a group project, they’re allowed to play it cool.

Meanwhile, at SLOCA, the students—if only because they’re attending the school—seem to declare that they want an academic experience unavailable at mainstream institutions. Though SLOCA does have a few small athletic teams and host a couple of dances, the students here visibly favor their studious environment—one that lacks the gyms and swimming pools and other fun amenities available at some public schools. During the day, they’re willing to surrender their personal technology—phones are prohibited during school hours—and, presumably, the intimate gossip that comes with those devices. According to one teacher, "none of them date each other" because "it would be weird for them [in this environment]."



Likewise, if the parents are paying tuition at an independent school—one that advertises an alternative approach to education and promotes a "love of learning" as its cornerstone—they are publicly claiming a stake in a specific curriculum and pedagogy. They’re not simply accepting the title of "stakeholder" at the school that’s chosen for their kids because of, say, geography. And they’re not choosing the school because of something like superior facilities, either; SLOCA’s campus doesn’t boast any material advantage over nearby public schools. Far from it: SLOCA’s campus sits on an old elementary school that the district abandoned years ago and is now leasing out on a temporary basis. In fact, the district now wants the buildings back to establish a new public elementary school for academically accelerated students, meaning that SLOCA will have to relocate again. Undeterred, the parents continue to give it their time and money.



I noticed the same effect of "buying in" when I used to teach Advanced Placement English at another public school. By law, anyone was allowed to take the class, but the school encouraged every interested student to get a signature from a former teacher to vouch for his or her qualifications. The simple act of taking the initiative to procure a signature was enough to show "buy-in": On the first day of school, every student had made a tiny but significant act that showed that they had chosen to be in this class. This served as implicit evidence that they cared about their education, at least a little bit.



I was once one of those students. As a teenager enrolled in a public high school in Northern California, I often wore a T-shirt with an angel proclaiming "Do not trust the government!" and earned the average grades that came relatively easy to me. Near the time of graduation, my father told me that he saw no point in investing in my college tuition because academics were clearly not my priority. So I started bussing tables and save up money for college on my own, and once it was me paying for my own education, I was angry rather than relieved when a professor canceled class; I constantly calculated how much each hour was costing me, and my grades skyrocketed.



Today, despite my excitement about kids who "geek out" about education, I hope my empathy for and belief in public-school students are evident, if only for my choice of occupation. I’m not trying to be combative, but I do find it ironic that many people who argue against private schools work in the private sector. For 20 years, I have deliberately invested my life in teaching public-school kids, coaching them, and advocating for the ones who don’t have the same support that other kids have. In fact, I chose to teach in a public high school precisely because I pitied the children who felt forced to be at school, who felt trapped like I did when I was their age. I spend my own time and money advising clubs, tutoring those who struggle with English, helping students apply for college, and, sometimes, feeding kids who aren’t sure if they’re going to have dinner. On a daily basis, even as I’m surrounded by a million competing interests and distractions, I work hard to make their compulsory experience something for which they would volunteer.



And I should note that, in expressing my concern about public schools, I’m not talking about individual students—all of whom I care for, respect, and support. Most of these kids are wonderful people, and some of them are fantastic students. Nor am I talking about individual teachers or classes. After all, statistics show that public-school teachers have comparably more classroom experience and qualifications. From what I’ve seen, public-school teachers are just as talented as, if not more talented than, their private-school counterparts; I’ve observed countless public-school classes in which students were, indeed, "stoked" about a particular lesson. And private schools for their part undoubtedly have bouts of misbehavior and poor choices.

I am, however, concerned about the general culture at public schools—at least at the ones I’ve seen—of disengagement and compulsory learning. So when it comes to my daughter, I opt to invest a little more—to ensure she’s immersed in a community where it’s acceptable, and even admirable, to show natural enthusiasm for knowledge. I trust this particular private school, one that was created by like-minded parents, will best set her up for success. After all, numerous studies corroborate what teachers and parents have always observed: A student’s habits and beliefs are significantly affected by his or her friends. Schools like SLOCA, fantastic as it may seem, are possible as long as the students and their parents are willing to buy in. Unfortunately, the critical mass of engaged students and parents that’s integral to creating this environment seems to be lacking at many of today’s public schools. And it may be impossible to attain when everything is both free and compulsory.



Of course, everything I’ve said until now is from my perspective as a parent and teacher. So, wanting to see what an actual student has to say about the issue, I recently sat down with the aforementioned teen who, as part of a unique arrangement, continues to attend the public school where I teach while taking a couple of classes at SLOCA. A typical junior who has a 3.4 GPA and takes few honors courses, the student emphasized that while he really likes his peers and teachers—and the opportunities he has to play soccer—at the public school, he prefers the classes at the academy. "At SLOCA, the kids really want to learn, and they want to be focused," he told me. "At [the public school], some kids don’t, and that puts a damper on things. And then the teachers unfortunately focus on [those kids]." He used the word "damper" again when I asked, hypothetically, what would happen if a SLOCA class were infused with 10 additional disengaged students. And that same word came up yet again when I asked him about ways in which public schools should handle the distracting "cool" kids who pollute classroom environments: "There’s no way to change that. You’d have to take them out of the class, but you don’t have the right to segregate them. Who gets to decide who’s putting the damper on [whom]?"



He’s right: Nobody gets to decide who puts the damper on whom. As taxpayers and citizens, American individuals are entitled to pursuing their own happiness, whether that entails an emphasis on athletics, church, real estate, you name it. For my family, we choose to emphasize a specific learning environment. And though we’re by no means martyrs for carving out $600 a month for tuition and aren’t sacrificing in the same way that many disadvantaged families do, we’re certainly not frittering away our disposable income in an attempt to give our daughter an unfair advantage. We’ve simply made a choice, and that in part means we live in a modest apartment designed for college students.

Of course, not everyone agrees with me. Vox editor Matthew Yglesias claims the country should tax private schools even more because, "At best private school is a private consumption good, like buying your kids expensive clothes." Gawker writer John Cook argues that private school should be illegal. A "public school dad" recently published a "plea to private school parents" on ABC.com that efforts like mine to "get the best education possible in the land of the free … sucks on a bunch of levels." And at least 70,000 people on Facebook liked the "manifesto" against private schools written by Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt, whose many points included: "If you send your kid to private school" then you are "a bad person … ruining one of our nation’s most essential institutions."



Public schools have my tax money, my lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me; pulling my daughter—one student—out of the system is probably the least of its worries. And on a more abstract level, the above criticisms fail to acknowledge the cumbersome, almost fixed nature of the dominant culture I’ve seen at public schools—one that occasionally isolates students who love learning, are teased by the "cool" kids and even bullied into joining the masses. No matter how much she voluntarily recites Shakespeare, the student I envision my daughter becoming would never be able to single-handedly transform a public school into an environment that is cool to learning.



These private-school critics, of course, are free to do whatever they want with her own personal time and money. Admitting that she’s "judgemental," Benedikt says one reason she "feels so strongly about public schools" is that, while some teens like to read Walt Whitman, "getting drunk before basketball games … did the same thing" for her. My girl deserves to be in a place where she won’t face diatribes from judgmental students who call her names just because she chooses to buy into her own educational aspirations. She should have the opportunity to read Whitman with sober, like-minded friends knowing that they, too, are getting what they bought in for.

[cookiemdough]

I am bothered by the tone in his article. He seems to make it seem like privates are great because it is filled with kids that want to learn, almost as if they had those characteristics before schooling. It seems that the atmosphere is more the result of small class sizes and parents buying into an education that also does personal values development with their "personal character" focus. How would that work in public schools with a large population and different cultures / religions / values? He acknowledges the school is small and actually relatively inexpensive by private school standards it almost makes me wonder about how great that particular school is.

In general though, based on my research of privates in this area, the education level is not that different with exception of the elite privates. Most of the religious based schools or cheaper privates are really only a better option based on behavior because of smaller setting and the ability to better influence behavior because it is much easier to kick out those causing disruption.

[downtoearth]

This makes me sad, not because he found a great school for his daughter that inspires kids to love learning, but because he is giving his "tax money, [his] lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me" to public schools, but he isn't using this to try and change or inspire the public school. It's like although he found a great model, he's just writing it off as "won't work here" like the student who attends both. I think he's so focused on making sure he daughter develops a love a learning that he sounds like he's given up on fostering that in the tough public school environment.

ETA: Oh and I looked up that great school and it's 8:25 to 2:30 with no before/after care. And the idea is that it's a homeschool/traditional school hybrid, so parents REALLY need to be involved. That means that it's probably easier for a family with two smart, college-educated parents, one of which has a flexible job or no job to help facilitate your child's education. Which is great and I applaud, but our "career" driven world does not.

[rugbywife]

I think part of the reality of the 'diverse needs' that exist in any school/system/classroom includes levels of engagement. It is something we are working on with our teachers right now.

Not all students are equally engaged (and lets be honest, neither are teachers - but they have a choice to be here, kids don't)…not all children are equally motivated, have the same learning skills, are as able to commit themselves to work outside the classroom, etc…

Do we teach only those who want to learn? Do we segregate those who want to learn from those who don't? Do we only teach students the specific things they want to learn and not those they don't?

Just as we don't give up on kids who have learning disabilities, we also shouldn't give up on the disengaged. And just as integration is, for the most part, the ideal model for those at varying ability levels, it is also the ideal model for those with varying levels of engagement.

We don't write off students with learning disabilities as having nothing to offer other students within the classroom, we also shouldn't write off disengaged students as having nothing to offer others…it is just more difficult to 'dig into them' and figure out what their strengths and interests are and use those things as motivators. It takes a lot of time, effort and compassion, and a willingness to do so.

[irishbride2]

My kids will always go to private school and even I think this article is sanctimonious crap. The tone is obnoxious. You cannot paint public or private schools with a broad brush. Individual schools and systems are so different.

[IIOY]

One of the primary reasons I wanted my kids in private school was the environment.  I want them to be surrounded by kids who think academic success is the pinnacle of cool, where geekiness is rewarded, not shunned, by everyone, not just the nerd clique.  I also wanted them to be in an environment where respect, kindness, and service are emphasized, and I think our school does an outstanding job of this.

The flip side is that people paying five figures to our school sometimes think that means they don't have to play by the rules, and we've had situations where our school has bent over backward to make them happy, at the expense (IMO) of other children.  Private schools definitely attract those who think they can simply buy the privilege without doing the work.  The flip-flip side is that several families have left the school in frustration as a result, which has forced the school to change for the better.  Money talks in a private school, which means it can also compel quick progress.

At the end of the day, though, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other for anyone else. Both public and private schools have parents that are involved, and parents that are not.  Parents who are willing to put the effort in with their children can make school work for them.  

[NewOrleans]

Mar 6, 2015 8:10:19 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This makes me sad, not because he found a great school for his daughter that inspires kids to love learning, but because he is giving his "tax money, [his] lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me" to public schools, but he isn't using this to try and change or inspire the public school. 

With what power? With what money?  Who is even listening when teachers talk? And look at all the resistance tres3 met banding parents together.  She got taken to court, FFS.  If this guy is experienced and exhausted enough to know he can't affect change, I ain't mad at him.

[downtoearth]

Mar 6, 2015 8:38:46 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Mar 6, 2015 8:10:19 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This makes me sad, not because he found a great school for his daughter that inspires kids to love learning, but because he is giving his "tax money, [his] lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me" to public schools, but he isn't using this to try and change or inspire the public school. 

With what power? With what money?  Who is even listening when teachers talk? And look at all the resistance tres3 met banding parents together.  She got taken to court, FFS.  If this guy is experienced and exhausted enough to know he can't affect change, I ain't mad at him.

I didn't say I was mad at him for feeling like this, just sad that he doesn't feel like public schools can do this anymore.

Oh and you're right, I'm not jaded yet, in fact, I am working on change in our district right now with a group of really great parents and teachers - have been for 4 years.  OMG it's slow progress and frustrating most times and there isn't money for studies or quick changes.  But I do think we can affect change. 

I'm not denouncing that awesome private school - I just shared that school's website to a group page about school change in our area to inspire people.  Also in our area we don't have a choice like this - our ONLY private school options are unaccredited Christian schools that were started b/c the health curriculum teaches sex-ed and that families come in all different types, which is against a parent's ability to only talk abstinence and to denounce same-sex people as the debil. 

[cookiemdough]

Mar 6, 2015 8:18:55 GMT -5 @songforyou said:

Mar 6, 2015 8:06:54 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I am bothered by the tone in his article. He seems to make it seem like privates are great because it is filled with kids that want to learn, almost as if they had those characteristics before schooling. It seems that the atmosphere is more the result of small class sizes and parents buying into an education that also does personal values development with their "personal character" focus. How would that work in public schools with a large population and different cultures / religions / values? He acknowledges the school is small and actually relatively inexpensive by private school standards it almost makes me wonder about how great that particular school is.

In general though, based on my research of privates in this area, the education level is not that different with exception of the elite privates. Most of the religious based schools or cheaper privates are really only a better option based on behavior because of smaller setting and the ability to better influence behavior because it is much easier to kick out those causing disruption.

Do you think that private schools are better or worse depending on their cost?

I don't know that "personal character" is the only or even best way of achieving the "buy in"--although I see how it can help--but I don't see how that trait would be contradictory to any culture, religion or set of values?  It sounds like what they're ultimately talking about is merely integrity.  

I think the cost factor is something I see more frequently in my area.  The elite schools cost upwards of $25-$40K and the only way they can justify that price tag is to offer something truly unique in educational opportunities.  Where I live, most of the other privates are religious based schools and while I like the social atmosphere, the class sizes were not necessarily impressive and so at a certain point they struggled with the same things as public schools...how do you do differentiated teaching to address multiple skill levels in a class with 30+ kids.  If you look at the curriculum many of them were consistent with what I received from a public school education, so in that population I wasn't overwhlemed with the educational aspect.  I also have spoken to some parents that felt that their children were behind when they transitioned into public school after private school.  They did do a great job in providing additional classes such as computer lab, art and music which is suffering in public schools in my area.  

I do agree that they are probably talking about integrity but how you implement that does involve a level of teacher / parent involvement that is not typical in publics. If you send your child to private school with the knowledge that they will work on the "whole child" then you are probably okay with them disciplining the child for smaller infractions, and you are also more likely to be okay with the consequences.  I think teachers in a private school setting call parents much more for smaller things with the hope that it is a partnership and the parents will also reinforce those values.  Everyone is okay with that and for those that are not, you can be asked to leave a private for far less infractions than leaving a public school.

I realize I am completely stereotyping here, so know I am saying this from a narrow focus and my own personal experiences.  

[Deleted]

C will be starting at parochial school this fall for K, since we haven't been able to move to a better district yet. The reality is our public school is part of a Title I district, has the lowest scores in the region, and we're slated for the lowest-rated elementary within the district. From everything I've experienced getting my MAT and talking with other parents/teachers in the area, the teachers are great. But the parents/community support is not there. It's a gamble whether you're part of a 'good' class with cooperative students to determine if you have a chance at a good academic year. And I know the socioeconomic challenges (jobs with out benefits, parents working multiple jobs) are a critical part of the issue/cycle. But at this time we have the resources to put C in a school where he'll be with 14 kids instead of 25, and the parents are hugely involved. My reluctance to participate in the struggling school is part of the problem, but I'm not willing to make my child a guinea pig and I don't have a huge amount of extra time to give him extra support if we needed to compensate for classroom issues.

Certainly there are great schools and poor schools within both the public and private options. But, as has been discussed here many times, so many school issues are really tied to living wage, flexible job schedules, a paid maternity/paternity leave, pre-school support, decent school lunches and all the other pressures that intersect to make students under-prepared and unprepared to learn. But heaven forbid we consider social programs, just get them bootstraps ready because heaven forbid we ask people to engage as a village rather than seeking individual benefits.

[tres3]

I think the author could find similar experiences in affluent public school districts, especially in the honors courses.

However, public schools have to serve all. they don't get to pick and chose their students and there are some great life lessons to be learned by not be surrounded by "like" people all the time.

[erbear]

I have struggled with this a lot. I spent the beginning of my teaching career (5 years) in public school (first outside DC, then in Philadelphia). My school in Virginia was an amazing place, despite the challenges of a huge ELL population, transient student body and big classes. It was well run and had a committed, passionate staff of awesome teachers. My school in Philly was, to put it mildly, a clusterfuck in every possible way.

I left public school for a Quaker school after two years in Philadelphia because I was burning out quickly. I decided to leave the week that someone handed me a script to teach my class because the focus on testing was so intense. It didn't help that I was told numerous times that "white teachers had no business teaching black kids".

I love my job now, but I think constantly about returning to public school. I had always intended to send my kids to the neighborhood school, then apply to magnet schools in the district when they were older. Our neighborhood school is not a great school (it is in Philadelphia School District, after all, so the running of the district makes the running of the schools hard) - the classes are huge (30+ kids) with one teacher and no aide, there is a lot of teaching to the test going on, no art/music/language education. But there is also a group of parents who have decided that they are committed to public school and have been working hard to improve the school. unfortunately, they have a long way to go, and ultimately, we decided that we weren't comfortable putting our kids through as an experiment. We send them to my school, where they are thriving in small classes with kids who buy in, they have art, music, PE, Spanish 3 times a week and every day within their classes.

I feel a ton of guilt around this. I think it is very hard to commit to public education today when it's a crapshoot depending on the funding of the district. I want to be a public school parent, I love the idea of changing schools but I am not willing to put my kids through a substandard education to make a point. That's shitty. I acknowledge that.

We have decided that we will keep our kids at my school until 4th grade, at the very least. I would not be upset if they go all the way through high school, but we have some great magnet schools that start at 5th grade, so if they are interested, they will apply and finish in public.

[erbear]

Also, is that dude a hundred? No kid says "stoked" or "pumped" anymore

[taratru]

So, people who have the desire to make change and also the money to send their kids elsewhere are just sending their kids elsewhere. And the elsewhere: schools with lots of money, high parental support, and selected students are high achieving.

Well, nothing new to see here!

[erbear]

Mar 6, 2015 8:20:09 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I think part of the reality of the 'diverse needs' that exist in any school/system/classroom includes levels of engagement. It is something we are working on with our teachers right now.

Not all students are equally engaged (and lets be honest, neither are teachers - but they have a choice to be here, kids don't)…not all children are equally motivated, have the same learning skills, are as able to commit themselves to work outside the classroom, etc…

Do we teach only those who want to learn? Do we segregate those who want to learn from those who don't? Do we only teach students the specific things they want to learn and not those they don't?

Just as we don't give up on kids who have learning disabilities, we also shouldn't give up on the disengaged. And just as integration is, for the most part, the ideal model for those at varying ability levels, it is also the ideal model for those with varying levels of engagement.

We don't write off students with learning disabilities as having nothing to offer other students within the classroom, we also shouldn't write off disengaged students as having nothing to offer others…it is just more difficult to 'dig into them' and figure out what their strengths and interests are and use those things as motivators. It takes a lot of time, effort and compassion, and a willingness to do so.

I want to like this a million times.

Also there are plenty of disengaged students in private schools. The difference (for me anyway) is that I notice that kid more (since my classes are small) and I have a personal relationship with kids (again, I'm dealing with fewer than 100 students instead of the 200+ I had in public school) so I can pull them aside and have a conversation about what's going on. Finding that time was much harder for me in public school.

[IIOY]

Mar 6, 2015 9:16:40 GMT -5 erbear said:

I feel a ton of guilt around this. I think it is very hard to commit to public education today when it's a crapshoot depending on the funding of the district. I want to be a public school parent, I love the idea of changing schools but I am not willing to out my kids through a substandard education to make a point. That's shitty. I acknowledge that.

::shrugs:: I don't think it's shitty.  

[chw57]

I used to live down the street from this private school. Definitely a bubble within a bubble...of COURSE those kids are highly motivated and eager to learn. I nannied for a family that almost sent their kids there but ultimately decided the public school would be a better experience.

Anyway, I think a lot of the issues addressed vary considerably by school. I've now taught at 3 public middle schools in Northern California. 2 I would send my kid to withou hesitation and the third I wouldn't if you paid me.

I also firmly agree with rugby wife's comments

[downtoearth]

Mar 6, 2015 9:20:23 GMT -5 erbear said:

Also, is that dude a hundred? No kid says "stoked" or "pumped" anymore

I hear "stoked" out west, but it's mostly my 3rd grader.

[cookiemdough]

Mar 6, 2015 9:24:25 GMT -5 taratru said:

So, people who have the desire to make change and also the money to send their kids elsewhere are just sending their kids elsewhere. And the elsewhere: schools with lots of money, high parental support, and selected students are high achieving.

Well, nothing new to see here!

I only find it off-putting for parents that have done little to no research on the schools and just assume private is better.  It is not always better.  But researching options, or finding your child would thrive in a particular environment and having the means to provide it...is not a bad thing.  Again from my narrow experience, in my area I am frustrated with the flocking to private schools because with the exception of a few, they really aren't offering some amazing education.  Also, I think there are some good public schools that are getting a bad rep based on nothing but the county they are located in.    

[downtoearth]

Mar 6, 2015 9:24:25 GMT -5 taratru said:

So, people who have the desire to make change and also the money to send their kids elsewhere are just sending their kids elsewhere. And the elsewhere: schools with lots of money, high parental support, and selected students are high achieving.

Well, nothing new to see here!

But, uh, how do I ask this without sounding pretentious?  I know not everyone loves their job and thinks about it outside their work day, but it seems like teachers often do.  Don't you wish if he was one of your teachers that he would have walked into a faculty meeting and said, "Hey, I observed some classes at school XYZ, while they have these different resources and super involved parents, I think we can learn something from them and try to at least implement [insert ideals that could work]."?  Doesn't this happen with teachers/admin during training or continuing ed classes?  Am I expecting too much of career teachers?

[erbear]

Mar 6, 2015 9:30:52 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:16:40 GMT -5 erbear said:

I feel a ton of guilt around this. I think it is very hard to commit to public education today when it's a crapshoot depending on the funding of the district. I want to be a public school parent, I love the idea of changing schools but I am not willing to out my kids through a substandard education to make a point. That's shitty. I acknowledge that.

::shrugs:: I don't think it's shitty.  

It feels shitty sometimes. I feel like a hypocrite talking up public school, advocating for public school change, etc. then turning around and sending my kids to private.

[taratru]

Mar 6, 2015 9:38:02 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:24:25 GMT -5 taratru said:

So, people who have the desire to make change and also the money to send their kids elsewhere are just sending their kids elsewhere. And the elsewhere: schools with lots of money, high parental support, and selected students are high achieving.

Well, nothing new to see here!

But, uh, how do I ask this without sounding pretentious?  Don't you wish if he was one of your teachers that he would have walked into a faculty meeting and said, "Hey, I observed some classes at school XYZ, while they have these different resources and super involved parents, I think we can learn something from them and try to at least implement [insert ideals that could work]."?  Doesn't this happen with teachers/admin during training or continuing ed classes?  Am I expecting too much of career teachers?

This does happen. But like you said, change is a long process and yes, even teachers get tired of fighting the fight. Add into that the constant cutting of funds, and the status quo is often maintained. That's why those involved and interested and vocal parents are so needed in schools that need change. And that's why it's frustrating to see them leave.

I also think the public isn't always open to understanding the amazing things that are happening in even the worst schools. And I understand the risk and worry of alllllll of it. I've worked in education for 20 years at awesome, terrible, big, small, rural, urban, suburban schools. The one constant in all of those is a majority of teachers who are trying their best with what they have. It makes me sad that what we have (good students, involved parents, funding) gets reduced because of reasons largely out of our control.

Also, know I'm only speaking to my experience, not for the system as a whole.

[IIOY]

Mar 6, 2015 9:43:56 GMT -5 erbear said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:30:52 GMT -5 IIOY said:

::shrugs:: I don't think it's shitty.  

It feels shitty sometimes. I feel like a hypocrite talking up public school, advocating for public school change, etc. then turning around and sending my kids to private.

I certainly understand *why* you might feel that way, and didn't mean to denigrate your feelings about this.  I was speaking more from the perspective of an outsider.  This truly is one of those issues where I just don't feel terribly judgmental about parents making the decision that they think is best for their children.

[erbear]

Mar 6, 2015 9:45:14 GMT -5 @songforyou said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:16:40 GMT -5 erbear said:

I would not be upset if they go all the way through high school, but we have some great magnet schools that start at 5th grade, so if they are interested, they will apply and finish in public.

Masterman  (hot)!

Mar 6, 2015 9:30:52 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Precisely

[erbear]

Mar 6, 2015 9:48:12 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:43:56 GMT -5 erbear said:

It feels shitty sometimes. I feel like a hypocrite talking up public school, advocating for public school change, etc. then turning around and sending my kids to private.

I certainly understand *why* you might feel that way, and didn't mean to denigrate your feelings about this.  I was speaking more from the perspective of an outsider.  This truly is one of those issues where I just don't feel terribly judgmental about parents making the decision that they think is best for their children.

I get you. It's my hang-up (though I don't think it's unusual for people in my position).

[heyjude]

Yuck yuck yuck yuck. Did he attach his name to this? Way to undermine his students and school and throw them under the school bus (the one that probably brings his students in from areas he never sets foot in except to slum it with "super authentic street tacos, bro"). Maybe the students he teaches don't care because they have a teacher who sees them as inferior in every possible way to his precious 4 year old. His 4 year old!!!

"The kids take pride in their personal character, and they admit that they love learning. My 4-year-old daughter, for now, is just like them."

Oh shut up you pompous windbag. Your child is not a special snowflake. This is ALL 4 year olds. But yes. Please keep comparing and contrasting your privileged toddler to the older underprivileged kids you teach. That's helpful.

This idea "buying in" is also crap. Kids don't "buy in." Their parents write the check. No 4 year old is going to love school more or less because mom and dad either wrote a check for it or did not. And if he is making a more nuanced definition of "buying in" that doesn't include actual dollars, the concept is still faulty as a comparison between public and private because parents can and do holistically "buy in" to their public school too. Especially if that public school treats families with care and understanding and gives them support and doesn't yaknow consider them inferior to other families in every possible way because they don't or can't send their kids to a private school.

Like this assmunch does.

[downtoearth]

Mar 6, 2015 9:51:16 GMT -5 erbear said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:48:12 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I certainly understand *why* you might feel that way, and didn't mean to denigrate your feelings about this.  I was speaking more from the perspective of an outsider.  This truly is one of those issues where I just don't feel terribly judgmental about parents making the decision that they think is best for their children.

I get you. It's my hang-up (though I don't think it's unusual for people in my position).

Plus as a teacher, you sound like you have seen the effects from a mass exodus of a socio-economic class of kids and parents and thus less support.  I agree on an individual level, I can't criticize or judge one family for doing what is best for their own kid.  But on a societal level, it's like we need to stop the flow or make changes to not turn the public schools into holding tanks and testing pots of only those who can't afford to leave the system.

[lexus]

Mar 6, 2015 9:38:02 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:24:25 GMT -5 taratru said:

So, people who have the desire to make change and also the money to send their kids elsewhere are just sending their kids elsewhere. And the elsewhere: schools with lots of money, high parental support, and selected students are high achieving.

Well, nothing new to see here!

But, uh, how do I ask this without sounding pretentious?  I know not everyone loves their job and thinks about it outside their work day, but it seems like teachers often do.  Don't you wish if he was one of your teachers that he would have walked into a faculty meeting and said, "Hey, I observed some classes at school XYZ, while they have these different resources and super involved parents, I think we can learn something from them and try to at least implement [insert ideals that could work]."?  Doesn't this happen with teachers/admin during training or continuing ed classes?  Am I expecting too much of career teachers?

You think teachers have more control than they actually do. I'm doing the best that I can in a mediocre school in SoCal. I can't fight the direction the administration or district admin are moving the school and the district but I can make sure that my kids (students) get what they need. Sometimes that means doing what I think is best instead of what has been "suggested". As long as it's working, nobody seems to care. At the end of the day parents have the power to make changes because they decide where their student goes to school. Like it not, your kid=money. If enough parents put up a fight, things will change.

[cookiemdough]

Mar 6, 2015 9:56:47 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:51:16 GMT -5 erbear said:

I get you. It's my hang-up (though I don't think it's unusual for people in my position).

Plus as a teacher, you sound like you have seen the effects from a mass exodus of a socio-economic class of kids and parents and thus less support.  I agree on an individual level, I can't criticize or judge one family for doing what is best for their own kid.  But on a societal level, it's like we need to stop the flow or make changes to not turn the public schools into holding tanks and testing pots of only those who can't afford to leave the system.

You bring up another point in terms of public schools being subject to standardized testing and privates are not.  I wonder how the author's school would fare if they had to take standardized tests.  

[erbear]

Mar 6, 2015 10:07:07 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Mar 6, 2015 9:56:47 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Plus as a teacher, you sound like you have seen the effects from a mass exodus of a socio-economic class of kids and parents and thus less support.  I agree on an individual level, I can't criticize or judge one family for doing what is best for their own kid.  But on a societal level, it's like we need to stop the flow or make changes to not turn the public schools into holding tanks and testing pots of only those who can't afford to leave the system.

You bring up another point in terms of public schools being subject to standardized testing and privates are not.  I wonder how the author's school would fare if they had to take standardized tests.  

We do take standardized tests (ERBs) but not the state ones. We do them once a year and it's not the big to do the way they are in public schools (it also doesn't "count" for anything, so less pressure for everyone).

 Our kids fare very well compared to national and suburban public schools, much less well as compared to our peer independent schools. But we don't bill ourselves as an academic powerhouse - the school has created its niche in being a place to develop well-rounded, service minded kids from a diverse environment. Academics are strong, but not the sole focus, I'd say.