Sending your kid to private school will save you $1,053,000

Time Magazine reports that private school can save you money by giving you home location flexibility. This in turn can save you $50,000. They are right! Our house is in a ok but not great school district. It is smaller so there are less repairs and utilities.

Less Pressure To Spend

More importantly keeping up with the Jones is a lot different in our neighborhood. Folks are lot more down to earth. Literally. Hiring a lawn service is considered either 1) a mark of shame or 2) you must be ill.

Folks who move here and hire a lawn service invariable shift to mowing it themselves. Small yard and you can’t help how easy it is to do. Plus the entire street is a tool sharing enterprise. Having two auto mechanics on the block helps for expert advice too but we rarely need it. The point being that a lower cost neighborhood is lower cost on many levels and with more down-home kind of folks we prefer.

The Up Side – More Earnings

And private school raises the odds of your kiddo going to college. And you will be used to saving lots of money and shelling out tuition expenses anyway so you are more likely to be set up to pay for it. And that equates to a million an extra income over their career (typically). Start to think across the generations and it starts to get impressive.

And while money isn’t the main driver for a private school it is worth noting that you save a lot more than $53,000 when moving to a lower cost neighborhood and paying for private school.

And lower costs houses are smaller, older and closer to area of employment. Your car costs will go down and with that shorter commute you will be more rested and eventually prompted.

 

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.

 

 

Are you a bad person for sending your kid to private school?

A recent slate article proposed that if you send your kid to private school you are a bad person.

The thesis for this claim is that if every single child to public school they would improve.

No studies or data are presented to back this up.

And she might be right – but convince us!

Will putting more people into a bad system help? Maybe. But why didn’t it help from the previous generation? Or the one before that? Were those parents lazy? Didn’t they use their influence and connections to improve the education system? Is it better?

An alternate approach is creative destruction. In a system where bad actors (second rate phone companies, restaurants that get everyone sick) are allowed to fail and good actors (first rate phone companies, barf-free restaurants) are enabled to thrive, over time, the bias tends towards more good actors.

That is the private school system. A public school can be reformed but, until folks move away it can also continue to operate “as is”. Indeed, private schools put pressure on public schools to get better by their higher performance. I emotionally get the “we all need to go to public schools to improve it”. Then I think of the clogged roads and how teleworking is opting out and improves

caption2
Does more here help? Image attribution: CC BY-SA 2.5, Link

my circumstances and enables more of a scare resource (roads) to be more available to those who need it.

We can do better than sacrificing a child’s education in the hopes that doing so might improve the over all system. A better use of these energies is to educate the children who need it now and thereby raising the standard upon which all schools are evaluated.

The cost of ignorance

Yesterday, a young child of a family we know over heard a discussion about the recent election and the various rhetoric about immigration and minority groups.

This child (quite young and part of one of the groups being discussed) interpreted this conversation to be that *they* are at risk of being sent away. As a result, the precious and wonderful child decided to work on a way to downplay their cultural identity – to hide it.

If only those discussing the current political climate were trained more carefully to consider the affects of their words they would have caught themselves instead of frightening this young child. How long will this child hold this viewpoint? Is this repairable?

This is not a political post.  And it is possible (and indeed likely) those discussing the election didn’t realize the affect this kind of discussion might have on nearby children.

Private schools are not under the separation of church and state framework appropriately enforced at public schools. This frees them to provide a religious education, focus on morality and,  often with a smaller class sizes, more easily reach out to children who need course correction as they learn about empathy.

An intentional morale framework is the main benefit and purpose of a private education in my opinion. The lack of that kind of training become all too apparent – and damaging – in times of turmoil.

There are many schools with different spiritual and morale frameworks.  If a private education is of interest to you, select the one that resonates with you  and your family and support them. The first step will be sending your child to that school.