<p>I think the general feeling is if kid doesn’t get into ‘right’ preschool, she won’t get into ‘right’ elementary school, prep school, college, etc and so forth
Keep in my mind, there is a VERY limited enrollment at these schools - Collegiate has less than 700 students in k-12. Dalton ~1200. It’s not like there are a lot of people who are going this route.</p>
<p>^all the more reason not to live in the Northeast.</p>
<p>Those must be some pretty special safety scissors they’re using in that kindergarten. Or do parents get to bring their own school supplies and bag lunches on top of that tuition?</p>
<p>My family was not at all wealthy, not even middle class for most of my childhood.</p>
<p>I’m a product of NYC public schools, K-8. I got a fine education even in a “bad” school district (Harlem). With one exception, my teachers were creative and conscientious and class sizes were not out of hand. This was in the 70’s. We even had a swimming pool in the basement and we all learned to swim. Budget cuts killed that soon after I left.</p>
<p>In 1980 I was in 8th grade and applied to 2 performing arts publics (audition), 3 academic publics (test) and 5 privates (application, essay, interview, testing). I got into most of these. 2 of the privates that did accept me offered me a full scholarship. I took the one I liked better and had a great experience. When college app time came, it was cupcakes, I’d done it all before, and more.</p>
<p>The two schools I turned down are both mentioned in that article…I am glad I didn’t attend because neither was known for having many financial aid kids and while the kids at the one I attended were mostly wealthy, many of us were not. It wasn’t awkward. At those two, it would have been.</p>
<p>Most “smart” kids i knew either went private on scholarship (some even to boarding schools), or to one of the “special” publics. But plenty of kids did their local public school for elementary, a few less for middle/junior high. Most were out of the “normal” system by 9th grade.</p>
<p>I assume financial aid is still widely available at these schools. The one I attended is up to 33K for upper school, but i know they are still generous with financial aid.</p>
<p>“I’ve heard that there is a “prestige” factor in the Northeast with choosing nursery schools, which is pretty ridiculous.”</p>
<p>True for some, but it’s also about finding a good school that’s nearby. And, we are not just discussing prep schools but also Quaker and Montessori schools, etc, thus, people are interested in the philosophy, not prestige. Also, many fine schools go from preschool up to 12th grade. If you want your kid to go to that school, the best way might be getting him or her in there when they are 3.</p>
<p>“However, it is also possible that the public preschools/kindergartens are lousy and that the private schools overcharge because they can. In fact, overcharging might increase the allure.”
As I said earlier, there isn’t any middle ground. Schools in NYC are free OR are $35K, or religious. One can’t shop around to find the best price. </p>
<p>Yes, private schools do give out financial aid.</p>
<p>In-state Tuition for 4 years at my uni costs as much as 1 year at my private high school. It’s ridiculous… this is in the DC area mind you. I don’t know why they chose to pay that much money (went there for 8 years) when I could have gotten a good education at the public high school in my district for quite a bit cheaper. Whatever, haha.</p>
<p>I think what redpoint said is true. Many private schools have defined entry points. For example, pre K, K, 6, 9. The only way to get in outside of these grades is if a current student leaves. I think that is why some parents are willing to pay outrageous tuition for Kindergarten or preschool- they’re worried it may be their only chance to get in.</p>
<p>Choatie Mom</p>
<p>Some of the worst performing states are those without teachers unions (GA, Alabama for example). I do think that the Unions can be problematic, but they are truly just a small part of the problem.</p>
<p>I love and admire the work that Canada has done, but to call the results amazing makes it sounds like the gaps have been totally closed. The gaps are still really large. I suspect that it will take a generation or more to really get where Canada wants to go. (When you have to teach mothers how to speak to their children, you have a long way to go.)</p>
<p>There is no easy answer. Societal changes are probably contributing more than anything to the challenges our schools face today.</p>
<p>The parents are willing to pay 39k for nursury school, because they can get a foot in the door NOW. If they they wait til high school to get their kids into one of these schools, the chance of admission is bleak.</p>
<p>In addition to reasons already given for high NYC private school costs, I would imagine that tuition in NYC would be higher than many schools in other states because of the property values. It’s expensive to rent or buy a building, salaries are higher than many other places, and the upkeep of those expensive facilities would be quite high as well, especially in Manhattan.</p>
<p>My D’s private school charges a graduated tuition, has lovely facilities which sit on 100 acres. NYC values for 100 acres would probably be beyond my imagination.</p>
<p>@lastminute: Even Canada would agree with you that the gaps have not been totally closed, and I agree there is no easy solution. However, there are significant barriers in our public schools to attacting and retaining the best teachers, not the least of which is tenure, and that appears to be fundamental to solving the problem.</p>
<p>The problem will not be solved by hyper focusing on the teachers, eliminating tenure, upping merit pay, treating schools like corporations, focusing on high test scores, getting rid of teachers, blah, and everything else the so-called reformers, including Rhee, throw out. Their ideas usually fly in the face of what is actually good for the kids. </p>
<p>The problem is poverty. Thats what we as a country have to grapple with.</p>
<p>@redpoint: Exactly. And where there is poverty, there is often a dearth of education resources. If teachers make more difference to educational outcomes than facilities, how are you going to entice the good ones to those areas? I certainly agree that schools should not be treated as corporations nor should they focus on test scores.</p>
<p>But the reformers are are trying to tie teachers’ pay to test scores. Teachers don’t want to teach at failing schools because they will be considered unsatisfactory when their students’ struggle.</p>
<p>Really, the whole thing is so obviously misguided. Anyone can see it. Arne Duncan is a huge disappointment.</p>
<p>Teacher’s unions are NOT the reason for poor schools. If that were the case, the states without unions would be at the top of educational scales…and they are not. They would be the schools leading the nation in ACT/SAT scores, high school graduation rates, etc…but they are not.</p>
<p>@redpoint: I don’t know who these reformers are you’re talking about and @mncollegemom: I agree that unions per se not the reason for poor schools. Tying teacher’s pay to test scores will only promote insidious behavior to increase test scores, not improve teaching. The point is that there must be some solution to attract and retain outstanding teachers if one of the main problems with substandard education is to be solved.</p>
<p>Im with you, mn. </p>
<p>I also realize I should have called them “so-called reformers.” I hope I dont sound like I’m on their side. What a mess.</p>
<p>The “reformers” are the Michelle Rhees, Arne Duncans, Michael Bloombergs, Joel Kleins, the run-to-the-tops, the test-thumpers, teacher-pay-tied-to-test-score hawkers, anti-unions, charter schools over regular public schools, run schools as corporations, etc.</p>
<p>When we moved out to NJ, we put D1 in the good local public school. D1 was in 2nd grade, she would turn in her writing assignments and tests, she wouldn’t get them back until weeks or months later. When she got them back, at that age, she has already forgotten what she did. She didn’t have a lot of electives, like gym (few times a week), no art, language or music. What it meant was her homeroom teacher was with them most of the day without a break. When the teacher had to meet with the principle or other teachers, she had to leave the kids to do busy work. The only time she could grade tests or papers was at night. D1’s homeroom teacher was teaching English, math, science, hisotry, she was a jack of all trades.</p>
<p>When D1 was in a private school at NYC, even in K-2, she had gym everyday, art& music alternate days, and foreign language. Science and foreign language were taught by different teachers. As they got older, they had dedicated math and history teachers. Another word, those private school teachers had many hours during the day when they weren’t teaching. They had more time to prepapre for lessons, grade papers, have conference with parents and meet with other teachers. Students would often get feedback from their teachers within days, not weeks.</p>
<p>After a semester at a public school, we moved D1 to a private school, and D2 to a pre-K at another school. Could we have saved the money and spend it on something else (like retirement)? Yes. Would she have been able to get into a good college without a private school education? Yes, but that’s not the reason why we sent her there. D1 has told us that she got most of her education K-12, college just deepened her subject knowledge. She has thanked us for her education and would like to provide similar opportunity for her kids someday.</p>
<p>For us to make the decision of paying for the private school tuition wasn’t a “why not” decision. H and I did a lot of soul searching before we bit the bullet because we didn’t want to make a short term decision and then had to pulll the kids out later on. Whenever we had financial difficulties, we always made sure we paid the kids’ tuitions first. We were lucky to be able to do it without going completely broke, and in hind sight we are happy with the outcome.</p>
<p>ChoatieMom–I 100% agree that you cannot tie student test scores to teacher pay or even school ratings. First, as the current system exists, all you are testing is how last year’s class did compared to this year’s class. To get an idea of how a school as a whole is performing you have to track ALL the kids through the school and compare individual performance/growth–like schools did before NCLB…</p>
<p>When variable outside of your control are the determining factor for your pay, everyone loses. How would you feel if your (general your) pay was determined by the performance of someone in a different department 3 floors down that you have never met? That’s pretty much what people are asking teachers to accept.</p>
<p>To state the obvious, there are a lot of extremely rich people living on the upper east side of Manhattan. To someone who makes a million a year, $50K isn’t that much to spend on your kids. I feel for the middle class people there.</p>