Paying for private school

Tips and tricks for sending your child to private school

Month: April 2017

Why not improve your local school instead of sending your children to private school?

In an article over at LearnVest a parent graciously describes the details  and sacrifices of why they send their children to private school  to help educate us and share their story.

The comments in response to the article were filled with criticisms.

One comment stood out;

“I love the “we had no choice” but to put our kid in private [school] argument.  Why not put your kid in the public school and spend some energy improving the school? “

I honor and respect those who sacrifice by staying in a difficult environment to make things better.  They reject better choices for their family for the good of the community.

So lets extend this persons line of thinking to explore the principal behind it. Couldn’t the family take public transportation every where and become vocal advocates? Or move to a food desert and use their earning power and ability to problem solve to help the entire community have access to fruit and vegetables?

What I don’t understand is the willingness to put someone else (in this case, their children) in an environment that needs improvement on multiple levels that are unlikely to be solved in the time they are there.

Another alternative is to send your child to a private school that teaches social activism and key life skills. Thinking longer term, an adult who  will spend a life time thinking about how to help others and will have the tools and financial means to do is another valid way to help both the family and the broader community.

Is it wrong to go to private school?

In a conversation with friends, they made the case that it is wrong for parents to not send their children to public schools.

Are they right?

It is wrong and elitist to send your child to private school?

The argument proposed has a similar stance to that of insurance or immunization – we all have to do it for the overall system to be effective.

Their line of thinking was this: the diversity of income, education and perspectives creates a better situation for all.

For example, the mechanic can provide both material support and assess the conditions of the shop class. The lawyer can monitor what is expected, and, if needed, use the legal system to ensure the children are getting the resources needed. Meanwhile the single parent who is working three jobs benefits from the extra set of eyes and benefiting from the diversity of the community. The worse the school district the better the benefit.

Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=700891

High Court Bench – Source Wiki Commons

This is a compelling argument. So let’s take it further. If we seek to optimize this benefit it would make sense that we all live in public housing. Clearly, it is unethical to pick a house based on your preference. Surely a well heeled lawyer could do wonders to improve the community. And a police officer and their family would be a welcome presence to thwart malfeasance. Along this line of thinking if you are an involved parent you can make the most difference if you send your child to the *worst* possible school available. Certainly your child will suffer as a result because of the time it takes to reform a school but it is for the greater good. Right?

Similar arguments have been made for public transit and even employment sharing. And on paper it sounds good.

The role of self interest and competition

The observed reality is a bit different.

In a resource constrained environment a lawyer will understandably use their limited time to focus on the needs of *their* child which they understand best and have a prime interest in. Other children might lose attention as a result. After all, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And that wheel might sue. And the police officer in a dangerous public housing project will want to protect *their* family. Why should they have to patrol their own neighborhood after a long overnight shift after already doing that somewhere else? Should they have to work for free after a long day? Isn’t that a shared responsibility of everyone in the neighborhood?

Instead, grade the schools

An alternate model is one where schools competes to serve the needs of all the attending children. Those that fail too many for too long shut down. Those that do well can grow their system and benefit from economies of scale. This free market approach does require regulation (and for education, lots of it) but in aggregate it is a pretty good system in other areas. That is today’s private school system.  And home schooling. And the public school charter school system.

Indeed, the reason we send our child to a private school has nothing to do with academics and everything to do with the school naturally working faith and reverence into each day. That is important to us. For others it might be a school with a world class music program.

We donate beyond the required tuition and will likely send money long after our child has graduated because we want to see the religious framework of that school continue. Many of the children attend for free based on economic need. And you should see the children who graduate. They are concerned about social justice, have a sense of right and wrong internalized and have the academic framework to be able to make a difference. And that is good for everyone.