Slashdot Mirror


Why One Woman Says Sending Your Kid To Private School Is Evil

theodp writes "Slate's Allison Benedikt is ruffling some feathers with her recent manifesto, If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person. 'Not bad like murderer bad,' Benedikt writes, 'but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.' If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.'"

11 of 1,255 comments (clear)

  1. Why read past the second paragraph? by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    First lines of 2nd paragraph:

    I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve.

    Thanks for telling me up front that you don't know what you're talking about so I got to save time by not reading the rest.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  2. not applicable in Hong Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    where most schools are private, and the public ones are more prestigious than the private ones.

  3. Re:Oh, really? by tylikcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had to go to a private school to get (neo) Marxist indoctrination. It was pretty great ;-) (for one year. Between dropping out of college - I was 13, and got into a fight with my program administration - and going back for lack of other reasonable options.)

    Public school... well, one of the lines that annoyed me the most is about how your gifted child will be fine. For some kids, yes. Or maybe your district has a decent gifted program. But for many children gifted education is a type of special needs education, and keeping them in a standard setting is not only cruel, it's likely to turn them into angry disaffected hackers who get lousy grades and blow things up for kicks.*

    Er, not that I'd know from first hand experience or anything.

    Gods, when people say that your teens are the best years of your life...

    * Oh, wait, technically that was the gifted program, right before they decided I needed to try college.

  4. Re:If I... by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  5. Re:Oh, really? by Peristaltic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The school we’re zoned to is not just tough, it’s dangerous- Most teachers don’t try to teach; if they prevent major crimes from occurring, they've had a good day. The stories that come out of that place are gut-wrenching; the kids there aren't being prepared for squat. I've busted my ass and sacrificed a lot to send my son to a private school as a result.

    What little good that could come of us participating in the local public school would pale in comparison to the harm it has the potential of doing to my son- not only to his well being day-to-day, but to his chances of success afterwards as well. I'm not sacrificing my son's future on account of Allison's idealist prattle. From what I've seen, not many of the our local public school system's participants: teachers, parents (especially the parents), or the students give a rat's ass about making their school system any better.

    I attended a very tough school while growing up, and learned more about avoiding having my ass kicked than anything else that I needed for college- as a result, it took two tries and 6 years to finish my first degree- my first two years were spent learning what I should have learned in high school.

    Allison Benedikt has her opinion of me, and I have my opinion of her. My son is my responsibility until he's grown; if his young life is made difficult by starting out with a rotten education, I can't see Allison getting very worked up about it... I mean, it's no skin off of her ass, is it. Allison can go fuck herself.

  6. Re:Gates, Obama, Damon on Opting Out of P.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dont coment often but i had to do it this time.

    Isnt it a tragedy if our public education system is not good enough to make sure your kids get a education that is good enough for them to actually pursue their goal. I mean most families doesnt have the luxury to pay alot of extra money for their kids to go to private schools.

    I think its a serious problem for the future when important personalities like Matt Damon, Bill Gates, and the american president says that public shools wont give their own offspring the skillssets needed to progress in the american society. This means essentially that for +80% of the population the "american dream" is stone dead. All the big paid jobs/popular jobs will be reserved to the rich minority who are lucky enough to be born into a rich family, that can afford private schools for their children. The rest of the population will be left in the dust, fighting for the scraps.
    I really dont see how a country can keep up the stability and prosperity with that policy and mindset from the people we see at the top of our society today.

  7. Re:Another damned collectivist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You (and everyone else) are missing the point. The point is, if "good" parents are disinvested in the public school system, they will not strive to make it better. Public education will keep getting worse because the people who can make the biggest difference lack the incentives to do so.

  8. Priorities for the Concrete and the Abstract by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [...] what exists in reality are individuals.

    Indeed concrete individuals should take priority. I think she's approaching from a kind of categorical imperative. Hence her statement, "Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it." Or, again, her rather annoying, "ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad." In other words, she would prioritize the needs of the "nation" over those of your "spawn" [her word, not mine]. After all, wouldn't it be wrong to put your own children before the common good? Isn't it selfish to secure for your own what humanity is often denied?

    This kind of thinking always puts me in mind of a passage from the Brother Karamazov. In the passage a woman declare to Elder Zosima her great love for all of humanity, but her apparent inability to actively love an individual. Zosima replies:

    “It's just the same story as a doctor once told me,” observed the elder. “He was a man getting on in years, and undoubtedly clever. He spoke as frankly as you, though in jest, in bitter jest. ‘I love humanity,’ he said, ‘but I wonder at myself. The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular. In my dreams,’ he said, ‘I have often come to making enthusiastic schemes for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually have faced crucifixion if it had been suddenly necessary; and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with any one for two days together, as I know by experience. As soon as any one is near me, his personality disturbs my self-complacency and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he's too long over his dinner; another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.’” [...]

    "I am sorry I can say nothing more consoling to you, for love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams is greedy for immediate action, rapidly performed and in the sight of all. Men will even give their lives if only the ordeal does not last long but is soon over, with all looking on and applauding as though on the stage. But active love is labor and fortitude, and for some people too, perhaps, a complete science."

    Loving and caring for abstractions like humanity or the nation is comparatively easy. Humanity, nations, or the people are objects which can be loved without fear. They will never leave or reject you. They can be readily idealized, so one never doubts the worthiness of loving them. And since they're abstracts, one needn't have to worry about them remembering those times you didn't particularly feel like caring for them. It's also very rewarding. In some cases, all we need to do is vote the way we think best, and then we can hold our heads up high, even regarding neighbors in scorn who have failed to see our good sense.

    Loving and caring for concrete individuals is quite hard. They are sometimes ungrateful--in the case of infants and teenagers, it can seem almost constantly so. They have bodily needs which require unpleasant cleaning. They have wills of their own and cannot be idealized. They can remember your bad days. They can suffer and you may feel responsible, even when you're not. They can break your heart. They die.

    This, I think, is at the heart of the preference many have, particularly among the educated and white collar, for giving priority to abstracts. A person such as Benedikt can hold you in contempt, for she prioritizes the higher ideal of the national good, while you privilege your "spawn" by giving them the

  9. Re:Oh, really? by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TL;DR: If we play Prisoner's Dilemma, I'm defecting.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  10. Re:Oh, really? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I went to one of those middle class highschools. While we don't have gunfights in the hallways, I'd say there's plenty of anti-intellectualism (the real deal, not the leftwing slur), dogmatic policy, and athleticentrism while I was there.

    1. sports programs need to be separated from academia. move them to camps, state or privately funded. They don't belong in school. This really needs to happen at the university level too. athletics is some kind of cult in public schools in the USA. If you don't play some kind of sport, you're branded a 'loser' by the students AND the staff. While I don't mind them, and I do realize they can teach life lessons when they aren't neutered by political correctness, they compete for academic funding and relative importance within the school culture. that has to stop. same thing goes for other extra-curriculars.

    2. The school budget should focus solely on math, science, the english language (in the USA), history (not 'social studies'), and a life-skills program (minus the political correctness in current health classes). This program would cover things like: eating habits, sexual behavior, phys ed, and at least a basic program on managing money. If the kid plays sports in after-school camp, then he's exempt from phys ed.

    3. remove the tenure and bureaucracy that rewards non performers. Also, get rid of the crazy overreacting discipline policies. Stop expelling kids for bringing a fork to school to eat lunch, etc. If a kid's trouble, warn, then throw him out for the period. If it happens repeatedly, call the parents. No need to confiscate belongings, search lockers, or tell them what they can wear. If the policy gets in the way of doing these things, change the policy.

    4. kids don't need ipads or other stupid toys.. They need teachers, decent textbooks, and buildings that aren't 90F in the summer and 40 in the winter. Bonus if they don't smell like urine. For technology access, a few computer labs are sufficient.

  11. Re:Oh, really? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry, I can't agree with most of that reply. What I'm referring to is awards for "participation", which has nothing to do with effort. We have created a system that actually builds a false sense of worth in students. People that have ability above the norm are termed "gifted" and punished for fucking up the curve. Isolated, uncool geeks and nerds are going to do poorly if they do not have challenges that would humiliate their contemporary classmates. With the exception of sports (where it is OK to abuse the less gifted) everyone else must be equal... until they hit the market place at 18. Thus the only option the (often themselves gifted) parents have is to get their kid the hell out of a school or district that will not work in the best interests of the student. Making everyone feel good only benefits low grade teachers and administrators. Looking at results via cost per student tells us we are not going about education in the correct manner
    http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
    and there is no way for any parent to change that by demanding change at the school level... THEY have to do what is best for their kid, and maybe that kid can grow to occupy a place where accountability will roll down hill and change the system... but given the way things work in the upper levels, I don't hold much hope for that happening.

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office