Current Events > why do so many public school supporters send their kids to private school?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm thinking specifically of politicians who don't support charters, school vouchers, or other forms of 'school choice' due to the impact it has on public schools. Setting aside how valid those concerns are, is it hypocritical to send your kid to private school if that's your position? That also harms public schools, in the sense that it reduces the funding they receive, though the impact is limited because only rich people can do it.

---

I don't feel like this is true...

---

Solid Sonic posted...

I don't feel like this is true...

which part?

---

The same people who always say "immigrants and POC are welcome", but then freak out of their home values when they actually move into their neighborhoods.

I see that ALL the time in Northern VA, particularly in Arlington and McLean.

Balrog0 posted...

which part?

The title.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

The title.

It's not a specific quantification so I don't know what your objection would be. Just assume that what seems like a lot to me seems like a little to you, what is your response to the question?

---

Balrog0 posted...

That also harms public schools, in the sense that it reduces the funding they receive, though the impact is limited because only rich people can do it.

Does it? I'm not an expert on American school funding, but I was under the impression the funds US schools get have nothing to do with the number of students in the school.

I've never met anyone who says they want better for public schools yet never send their own kids to one. Most of the people saying they want better public schools around here are underwhelmed by the experience that their children are getting.

---

JE19426 posted...

Does it? I'm not an expert on American school funding, but I was under the impression the funds US schools get have nothing to do with the number of students in the school.

This is false.

Attendance absolutely affects how much funding schools receive.

Though the bulk of funding is supposed to come from local property taxes.

---

Politicians tend to have security concerns that other people do not, so I dont think it's unreasonable

---

JE19426 posted...

Does it? I'm not an expert on American school funding, but I was under the impression the funds US schools get have nothing to do with the number of students in the school.

you're wrong; it's almost exclusively about how many children are in the school (specifically with federal funding)

Solid Sonic posted...

I've never met anyone who says they want better for public schools yet never send their own kids to one. Most of the people saying they want better public schools around here are underwhelmed by the experience that their children are getting.

That's not the framing that I presented, though.

An example of who I mean would be Elizabeth Warren, who did send a child to public school, but who also sent another child to private school. If you don't think that's hypocritical, that's fine.

---

Why do we even have public schools? It just gathers a bunch of children, some of which may have dangerous mental instabilities, in the same place and fostering prison-like mentalities of cliques and exclusionary behavior that leads to traumatic childhoods...

---

eston posted...

Politicians tend to have security concerns that other people do not, so I dont think it's unreasonable

Is that actually true? Most elected officials don't have security details or anything like the president. My city councilor has security concerns for their 14k a year job?

---

Solid Sonic posted...

Why do we even have public schools? It just gathers a bunch of children, some of which may have dangerous mental instabilities, in the same place and fostering prison-like mentalities of cliques and exclusionary behavior that leads to traumatic childhoods...

To condition you for life after school, which is work.

Get up early and in before 9 am.
Work
Leave around 4pm.

Rinse and repeat until you're 65. Then you have 10-20 years left to die.

Balrog0 posted...

An example of who I mean would be Elizabeth Warren, who did send a child to public school, but who also sent another child to private school. If you don't think that's hypocritical, that's fine.

Was the private school she used a general education school or one with a focused purpose (like a magnet school)? Because I can understand sending a child to a private school if that school has a specific objective that you see potential your child to tap into.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Is that actually true? Most elected officials don't have security details or anything like the president. My city councilor has security concerns for their 14k a year job?

As a public figure, yes. And in this context we're referring to their children.

---

De Evolution posted...

Attendance absolutely affects how much funding schools receive.

Though the bulk of funding is supposed to come from local property taxes.

both of these are correct. the state partially funds the schools too.
property owners did have to pay extra taxes to have a new school built out of the tsunami zone (which will come in handy if something does happen within the next 50 years or more).
---

eston posted...

As a public figure, yes. And in this context we're referring to their children.

That's an interesting take. I disagree with you 100% -- I think your stance, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that politicians and their children deserve some kind of blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings (which public schools are). But I appreciate the input

---

If we're talking about "some" politicians, are we really talking about enough people to make a difference in a particular school's budget?

---

shnangyboos posted...

If we're talking about "some" politicians, are we really talking about enough people to make a difference in a particular school's budget?

Nope! They can individually decide to pursue what they feel are better options for their kids and it is easy to ignore the impact it has on the school's bottom line because it is small. Does that make it not hypocritical?

---

Balrog0 posted...

That's an interesting take. I disagree with you 100% -- I think your stance, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that politicians and their children deserve some kind of blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings (which public schools are). But I appreciate the input

And by "logical conclusion" you obviously mean "hyperbole that goes well beyond anything I said or implied"

---

eston posted...

And by "logical conclusion" you obviously mean "hyperbole that goes well beyond anything I said or implied"

Nope, not at all. What's the security issue that you think justifies politicians not letting their kids go to their neighbors schools, but doesn't also apply to any other public setting?

I understand it seems weird and hyperbolic to you, but that's because you haven't really thought about it outside of this one context.

---

Obviously it's hypocritical, I was just doubtful about how much schools were actually harmed by it.

---

shnangyboos posted...

Obviously it's hypocritical

is it? People in this very thread don't think so

---

Solid Sonic posted...

I've never met anyone who says they want better for public schools yet never send their own kids to one. Most of the people saying they want better public schools around here are underwhelmed by the experience that their children are getting.

My HS principal sent her children to the best school in the area, a private school with a $10K tuition fee. Our school was a public school. If your kids are getting the best education via private schools, you're not going to be as invested in supporting public school as if you had personal stake in it via sending kids to it.

And public schools are to ensure the base line of education for the entire population is maintained at a certain level. The more educated your population is, the more they can achieve and contribute back to the economy.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Nope, not at all. What's the security issue that you think justifies politicians not letting their kids go to their neighbors schools, but doesn't also apply to any other public setting?

I understand it seems weird and hyperbolic to you, but that's because you haven't really thought about it outside of this one context.

The security concern is a perceived one - these people don't have snipers following them every time they step outside - but as a public figure it's enough of a concern that they take added steps other people may not feel they need to. In this context we're talking about public school versus private school, because private schools generally are safer and more secure. That is not anywhere near the same as deserving "some kind of blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings." That's why I referred to it as hyperbole, because that's exactly what it is.

And by the way, private schools are in fact a normal setting for people who go to those private schools.

---

I guess it ultimately boils down to not allowing those without means to give the best education available to their kids while giving your kid the best education available.

---

eston posted...

The security concern is a perceived one - these people don't have snipers following them every time they step outside - but as a public figure it's enough of a concern that they take added steps other people may not feel they need to. In this context we're talking about public school versus private school, because private schools generally are safer and more secure.

Yeah, I get that.

eston posted...

That is not anywhere near the same as deserving "some kind of blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings." That's why I referred to it as hyperbole, because that's exactly what it is.

What's the difference between public schools and any where else?

See, that's why it isn't hypoerbole. You're not explaining your decision between public vs private schools -- except that they're safer -- but lots of places are safer than any public place. So be clear about what the difference is

eston posted...

And by the way, private schools are in fact a normal setting for people who go to those private schools.

I never said otherwise! People in public schools worry about their childrens safety, too. How does that factor into the hypocrisy?

---

Unless you can argue that public schools are as safe or safer than private schools I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's not about avoiding being in public places, it's about paying a little extra for peace of mind during the 6 hours a day your kid is at school

---

because public schools aren't as good as private schools so why would you want your kid going to a shittier school if you can help it

the real kicker is if your kid isn't a loser, they'll likely do well in any school they go to (there are the extreme exceptions of course but the really bright kids all stand out above the rest)

eston posted...

Unless you can argue that public schools are as safe or safer than private schools I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's not about avoiding being in public places, it's about paying a little extra for peace of mind during the 6 hours a day your kid is at school

Right, so avoiding other public places isn't about avoiding them per se, its about the peace of mind to not interact with people you perceive as dangerous.

---

Balrog0 posted...

I never said otherwise! People in public schools worry about their childrens safety, too. How does that factor into the hypocrisy?

When you took it to the so-called "logical conclusion" of a "blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings" that is exactly the implication you were making my dude

---

eston posted...

When you took it to the so-called "logical conclusion" of a "blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings" that is exactly the implication you were making my dude

Lol, not even close. Public school students are normal, and you're saying politicians have a blank check not to interact with them. Just because they are choosing to interact with others don't change that.

The main difference is that public schools actually reflect their constituents, not a self-selected group of people.

---

They're choosing between two options, one of which generally provides more security. Public school students are normal, private school students are normal, but for someone who is in the public eye it seems pretty obvious why they'd opt for the more secure option.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

Why do we even have public schools? It just gathers a bunch of children, some of which may have dangerous mental instabilities, in the same place and fostering prison-like mentalities of cliques and exclusionary behavior that leads to traumatic childhoods...

the better question is why we have private schools. wealthy people should not be exempt from exposure to that sort of thing.

not to mention that more funding -- funding that could more easily be obtained if the rich kids were forced to go to public school -- would help prevent (or at least mitigate) many of the problems with public schools.

anyway, the question in the topic title is an interesting one. I'm not sure how statistically significant that portion of the population is.

I'm also not convinced that it's just flat-out hypocrisy across the board: someone could feasibly think that public schools should have more support while also recognizing that one person attending a private school over a public school wouldn't make a significant difference. it's also possible to support public schools while recognizing that, within the current system, the private school is possibly the better option for kids whose families can afford it.

---

eston posted...

They're choosing between two options, one of which generally provides more security. Public school students are normal, private school students are normal, but for someone who is in the public eye it seems pretty obvious why they'd opt for the more secure option.

I understand your point, I just disagree with you for the reasons I've stated. It's not obvious to me and if it were understandable to send your kids to private school for that reason, it still would still be a hypocritical stance. Thanks for the conversation.

---

There is a whiff of "but you participate in society" about this topic

averagejoel posted...

I'm also not convinced that it's just flat-out hypocrisy across the board: someone could feasibly think that public schools should have more support while also recognizing that one person attending a private school over a public school wouldn't make a significant difference. it's also possible to support public schools while recognizing that, within the current system, the private school is possibly the better option for kids whose families can afford it.

How is the former situation not hypocritical? I guess it might be understandable, but how does that make it not hypocrisy?

---

averagejoel posted...

not to mention that more funding -- funding that could more easily be obtained if the rich kids were forced to go to public school -- would help prevent (or at least mitigate) many of the problems with public schools.

you're still paying for public schools with your property taxes, even if your kids don't attend it

---

Malfunction posted...

There is a whiff of "but you participate in society" about this topic

Can you please elaborate? To me, the argument is more "but you don't want to participate in society" given the options they have and the choices they've made

---

averagejoel posted...

it's also possible to support public schools while recognizing that, within the current system, the private school is possibly the better option for kids whose families can afford it.

I also think this is a valid point, because politicians represent more than just themselves and their kids. Supporting public schools means supporting an important resource that is available to everyone. The fact that certain people can afford to send their kids someplace better doesn't diminish the importance of public school for those who can't.

---

Balrog0 posted...

in the sense that it reduces the funding they receive

wait really? i thought their funding was only driven by test scores and property taxes?

---

Sackgurl posted...

wait really? i thought their funding was only driven by test scores and property taxes?

federal funds are mostly based on student count per day -- the actual calculation is pretty complicated because different students receive different funds for different reasons (e.g., if enough students are low income you get different levels of FSLA money, special ed students get certain funding streams, etc) but it basically is about asses in seats

to emphasize that again, that is federal funds -- state and local funding sources vary by state, though yeah property taxes are a big source for most

---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm thinking specifically of politicians who don't support charters, school vouchers, or other forms of 'school choice' due to the impact it has on public schools.

Half if that is elitism (and a few other -isms), the other half is the knowledge that anyone who can leave a bad district will, and a kid (or a thousand) taking a voucher to Snobbery Snoberson II Preparatory Academy is a kid (or a thousand) no longer being part of a funding headcount for the prior school.

Setting aside how valid those concerns are, is it hypocritical to send your kid to private school if that's your position? That also harms public schools, in the sense that it reduces the funding they receive, though the impact is limited because only rich people can do it.

In what way? Bake sales? Football tickets?

Again, that guy sending his kids to Snobbery Snoberson II Preparatory Academy is still paying for the public schools where he lives. Where this doesn't apply, is when the family has moved out of a crappy district, but that's just the hard fact of wealth being more mobile than poverty.

how does the federal funding rate compare to the local property tax funding? is it the lion's share of the total, an equal share, or a smaller share?

---

Sackgurl posted...

how does the federal funding rate compare to the local property tax funding? is it the lion's share of the total, an equal share, or a smaller share?

nationally federal funds are only about 10% of educational spending, but those numbers vary

https://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-state-education-spending-revenue-data.html

the other variable is the level of state funding -- state funding is often allocated by a 'foundation funding formula' that itself uses number of students

https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/59/81/5981.pdf

so more local funding means less meaningful student count, more state/fed means more meaningful, as a rule of thumb

---

eston posted...

The security concern is a perceived one - these people don't have snipers following them every time they step outside - but as a public figure it's enough of a concern that they take added steps other people may not feel they need to. In this context we're talking about public school versus private school, because private schools generally are safer and more secure. That is not anywhere near the same as deserving "some kind of blank check to not interact with other regular humans in normal settings." That's why I referred to it as hyperbole, because that's exactly what it is.

The problem I have with this is that if you're a public servant in a position of power, you have the authority to make changes to make public schools suitable for your kids. That's why you were elected to that position in the first place to make the community you're representing lives better as a whole. Putting your kids in a private school while in that position shows that you don't believe that public schools are good enough for your kids. Why should people trust you to make decisions for public schools that you personally don't want to invest in?

---

tbf the main objection I have with that line of thinking is that 99.9% of public officials are nobodies that no one cares about and any perceived security concerns they have are a product of their ego

---