Private school and startling consumer behavior
As an advocate and satisfied customer of San Francisco public schools. I'm forever troubled by the high percentage of families that choose private school. It weakens our public schools when families with resources opt out. So while it's a personal decision, it is one with an impact on the whole community.
The thing that's really dismaying is the number of families who never even consider SFUSD and who see private school as their default option — especially those who aren't wealthy and have to stretch to pay private-school tuition.
I have no beef with families who checked out the options conscientiously and made an informed choice that a private school could meet their child's needs better — sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes because of other well-thought-out concerns. (There's a bit of an asterisk here on families who chose public for K-5 and automatically go private for middle and high school entirely because of a mistaken notion that teens are animals and only private school can protect their child from sex, drugs, violence, and pants four sizes too big.)
And I know families who gave at least a few SFUSD schools a serious look or a decent shot and weren't satisfied. I'm not always convinced that moving to private — rather than switching public schools — is the only option or the best one, but I'm certainly not quibbling with those families' decisions.
But it's the non-wealthy families who barely give SFUSD a passing glance — who just assume it's unthinkable — whose consumer behavior stands out as inexplicable.
Here we have two options that are, in general, the same thing: versions of a K-12 education that meets certain overall outlines. One option is free and the other can run $12,000-$20,000 a year per kid and up. Wouldn't you assume that the free option would be your default, and the five-figure-a-year option would have to thoroughly prove its worth to you, with rock-solid evidence and convincing guarantees of its clear superiority, before you decided to choose it?
But that's not at all what I've seen with many families. Au contraire, the option that will run them thousands and thousands of dollars is the default; they just assume that the free option is worthless. Maybe the belief that you get what you pay for is so ingrained that it overcomes self-interest and common sense — something that's free must have no value.
One friend I discussed this with explained it as status-seeking. But on reflection, I don't think so. I know many, many families who have this attitude — private school as the default option, even when it's a financial stretch for them — who would never drive a car they couldn't afford just to impress people.
I think it's more about peer conformity and group behavior. Even though most people I hang out with are public-school parents and advocates, I still get the "Wow, you were daring to choose public school" attitude at times. Sheesh — shouldn't the attitude (or the response) be "Wow, you were extravagant to choose private school"?
With a less-populist, less-informed group than the people I hang out with, I'm sure the pervasive viewpoint is, "No responsible parent would be reckless enough to choose public school."
The pack mentality raises another issue with older kids, too: Kids from public-school-minded families often look longingly at private school for middle and especially high school, when they see their peers heading for Lick Wilmerding or Bay School or Sacred Heart. This is a big problem for families who don't have the money, would rather spend it on other things, or just aren't fans of private school. Being part of a community in which private school is the default suddenly becomes a source of major stress and family friction.
I can't write this without addressing the issue of what private school DOES provide for the money, though to explore that would take a book. I would sum up the situation by noting that my son is going into 11th grade at a public arts high school that attracts many students from private K-8s, and there is absolutely zero indication that kids coming from private school are overall on any different level academically (or otherwise) than kids coming from SFUSD schools. Kids from private school and public school mingle in honors, AP and regular ed classes, with neither group standing out. Kids from private school and public school are represented among the stellar achievers, the struggling students and the vast array in between. There's just no visible grand overall difference. So what was all that tuition money spent on again?
I can keep going about how public school is the populist choice; how strong public schools strengthen communities and democracy; how families fleeing public school work against those ideals.
But for now, let's just make this about smart consumer behavior. Again, we have two things that are, in overall outline, the same product: a K-12 education. One is free and one costs thousands of dollars a year. Wouldn't the smart consumer view the free version as the default choice and consider the high-priced version only after thoroughly researching exactly what extra benefits it provides for the money, looking with a sharp and questioning eye past hype and marketing, demanding solid evidence and guarantees? In what other area would so many otherwise smart people spend thousands on something they could get free, based mainly on vague hearsay, without even comparing the options?
— Caroline
The thing that's really dismaying is the number of families who never even consider SFUSD and who see private school as their default option — especially those who aren't wealthy and have to stretch to pay private-school tuition.
I have no beef with families who checked out the options conscientiously and made an informed choice that a private school could meet their child's needs better — sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes because of other well-thought-out concerns. (There's a bit of an asterisk here on families who chose public for K-5 and automatically go private for middle and high school entirely because of a mistaken notion that teens are animals and only private school can protect their child from sex, drugs, violence, and pants four sizes too big.)
And I know families who gave at least a few SFUSD schools a serious look or a decent shot and weren't satisfied. I'm not always convinced that moving to private — rather than switching public schools — is the only option or the best one, but I'm certainly not quibbling with those families' decisions.
But it's the non-wealthy families who barely give SFUSD a passing glance — who just assume it's unthinkable — whose consumer behavior stands out as inexplicable.
Here we have two options that are, in general, the same thing: versions of a K-12 education that meets certain overall outlines. One option is free and the other can run $12,000-$20,000 a year per kid and up. Wouldn't you assume that the free option would be your default, and the five-figure-a-year option would have to thoroughly prove its worth to you, with rock-solid evidence and convincing guarantees of its clear superiority, before you decided to choose it?
But that's not at all what I've seen with many families. Au contraire, the option that will run them thousands and thousands of dollars is the default; they just assume that the free option is worthless. Maybe the belief that you get what you pay for is so ingrained that it overcomes self-interest and common sense — something that's free must have no value.
One friend I discussed this with explained it as status-seeking. But on reflection, I don't think so. I know many, many families who have this attitude — private school as the default option, even when it's a financial stretch for them — who would never drive a car they couldn't afford just to impress people.
I think it's more about peer conformity and group behavior. Even though most people I hang out with are public-school parents and advocates, I still get the "Wow, you were daring to choose public school" attitude at times. Sheesh — shouldn't the attitude (or the response) be "Wow, you were extravagant to choose private school"?
With a less-populist, less-informed group than the people I hang out with, I'm sure the pervasive viewpoint is, "No responsible parent would be reckless enough to choose public school."
The pack mentality raises another issue with older kids, too: Kids from public-school-minded families often look longingly at private school for middle and especially high school, when they see their peers heading for Lick Wilmerding or Bay School or Sacred Heart. This is a big problem for families who don't have the money, would rather spend it on other things, or just aren't fans of private school. Being part of a community in which private school is the default suddenly becomes a source of major stress and family friction.
I can't write this without addressing the issue of what private school DOES provide for the money, though to explore that would take a book. I would sum up the situation by noting that my son is going into 11th grade at a public arts high school that attracts many students from private K-8s, and there is absolutely zero indication that kids coming from private school are overall on any different level academically (or otherwise) than kids coming from SFUSD schools. Kids from private school and public school mingle in honors, AP and regular ed classes, with neither group standing out. Kids from private school and public school are represented among the stellar achievers, the struggling students and the vast array in between. There's just no visible grand overall difference. So what was all that tuition money spent on again?
I can keep going about how public school is the populist choice; how strong public schools strengthen communities and democracy; how families fleeing public school work against those ideals.
But for now, let's just make this about smart consumer behavior. Again, we have two things that are, in overall outline, the same product: a K-12 education. One is free and one costs thousands of dollars a year. Wouldn't the smart consumer view the free version as the default choice and consider the high-priced version only after thoroughly researching exactly what extra benefits it provides for the money, looking with a sharp and questioning eye past hype and marketing, demanding solid evidence and guarantees? In what other area would so many otherwise smart people spend thousands on something they could get free, based mainly on vague hearsay, without even comparing the options?
— Caroline
Labels: Charters, Enrollment
7 Comments:
IMO these private school parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars per year so that their families can be around families like their own, not to provide their kids with a superior academic education. Admittedly, it is much easier when your child is socializing with the kids of English-speaking professionals than with the kids monolingual recent immigrants and working-class parents who may have different values from those of more "enlightened" upper middle-class parents. It may be more adventagous in the long run for the kids (and parents) to broaden their view, though,
I went to public school in oakland, ca from k-12, graduating in 1991. After that experience, I do not wish to send my kids through the same meat grinder of under achievement, and entrenched student and teacher negativity.
I have been paying close attention to what both public and private systems offer since finishing college, and starting my own family. The biggest difference I see is the attitude of children in the different types of institutions. Kids that go to private school tend not to have the weight of declining expectations and perenially shrinking budgets and cut programs etc etc that we face in public schools. There is a greater sense of optimism and opportunity amongst private school kids.
Public schools do have have some good points - most notably public involvement, but I still see them as typically inferior to the very high quality private schools in San Francisco, Marin, and the East Bay.
Are you in San Francisco, Anonymous (no. 2)? I'm curious what you mean when you say you paid close attention to what schools offer.
I can see that your own negative experience provides a credible basis for your choice. Does that mean you didn't consider SFUSD enough to visit schools or partake of the standard information sources (Parents for Public Schools, School Fair etc.)? I'm not asking to harass you but because I'm curious at what point you ruled out public school.
Personally, I would not have sent my kids to my local public school and would have looked @ private schools, if I didn't have the option of the 2 charter schools my kids go to. They are fabulous charter schools.. K-8 and a high school.
I absolutely agree with anonymous #1.. it is ALL about having your kids hang with the "right" families, get into the "right" college and get on with the"right" life.
I also agree with anon#2.. the optimism and involvement in my charter school community is really the key to success. sometimes the public system gets bogged down in beaurcracy.. and it takes the energy of some new ideas to re-charge the system..i.e. charter schools and magnet art schools.
Caroline,
I now live in Oakland again, after having lived in San Francisco for almost ten years. I still work in San Francisco, and am open to moving back as riding BART everyday really wastes a lot of time.
Most of my experience with public schools in the past ten years has been through my work. I work with communities within or around public schools as a landscape architect creating green school yards and other outdoor educational environments. I like much of what I see through this work, and am fully invested in improving public schools, but I still see the same major problem I recognize from my youth - that a culture of pessimism and under-achievement pervades public schools. There are also bright spots of course. I had a few outstanding teachers in my day also, but over all they did not outshine the atmosphere of declining expectations.
When we make our decision, this is what we will weigh. On one hand we will rate our perception of student malaise against what we think of the teachers and extra curricular programs. However, our children are not yet school age. Our thought at this point is that private school is unnecessary to consider until the onset of Junior High/Middle School. Student attitudes in Elementary School tend to be more positive than not, and teachers do not seem completely overburdened with meaningless mandates from the bureaucratic machine.
Most of the motivation for private school is covert bigotry. It's about segreation, not education. In SF, bigots tend to stay in the closet, but public school bashing is the tip off. We love the public schools here. The SF private school education is definitely sub standard.
Hmm -- I have NEVER gotten the sense of a culture of pessimism and underachievement in my kids' schools, and I'm about to start my 21st kid-year as an involved SFUSD parent. There are challenges, but a culture of pessimism and underachievement has not even been on the radar. I guess it's a matter of perception, but I have a lot of insider experience. That goes for public middle school, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home