At the age where my, and my friends' kids are in schools, I've discovered that a big advantage that private schools have is that they educate the kids "at will."
Many private schools make it very clear to the parents, as well as the kids, that there are plenty of other students that want the slot the child has, which gives them leverage to educate how they want.
Public schools, at least in California, are beholden to the loudest, worst-behaved parents. There was a serious disciplinary issue recently at a local school that resulted in a multi-day suspension, which pretty much everybody involved agreed probably wasn't going to change the behavior. After digging a bit and having some frank conversations, the administration wouldn't pursue any other form of consequence because of fear of being sued by the parents. If expulsion were a legitimate option it would have given the administration bargaining power, but for anything which defending an expulsion is not a slam-dunk win in court, the only 3 "safe" options for teachers and administrators are:
1. Loss of playtime during recess/lunch
2. Detention
3. Suspension
I don't know how big of an actual problem torts are, but I see a lot of bad policies (in education and elsewhere) enacted due to fear of torts.
Public schools are also bound to serve special needs kids, which is incredibly expensive. Private schools don't have the same responsibility (even if they're under any similar legal obligation, they can and surely do try to minimize that through various means)
That's part (part!) of why per-pupil spending in public schools seems so high for the outcomes they produce, and part of why private schools have an advantage.
Even when they separate the special education vs regular spending it's still expensive in my opinion.
At least in my area there seems to be a huge preference for new or fancy infrastructure. Many of the buildings are only built to last 20 years or so. The new middle school around here has a 2 story by 100 foot glass front to it. The glass panes are massive. Who thought that was a good idea (hearing/cooling, cost, possibly safety)?
I went to school in buildings that were 50+ years old and made out of cinder block. No artificial turf fields or fancy stuff.
Turf fields are more than "fancy". They allow unlimited traffic, as opposed to grass which gets a low, set number of hours-of-use. At my old high school, only the varsity football team got to use the stadium. Then they put turf in and everyone got to use the stadium - even community sports - as the turf wouldn't turn to mud.
True. It depends on the area. That might make sense in higher density areas, or overy arid/wet areas. In more rural areas it's easier/cheaper to have one stadium field for games and a couple of practice fields to spread the traffic around. Either way, it's like $.75M-1.5M with about a 20 year lifespan ($50k per year). That's a good bit of money for something that has limited academic application.
Right. Public schools are chartered to provide "Universal compulsory education" private schools only have to worry about the last word in that phrase. There's a patchwork of laws that try to ensure private schools provide some sort of equal-opportunity, but the success of that is very hit-or-miss.
There's paying, and then there's "paying... and a donor". They absolutely kick out the former if they feel like it, or, in lesser cases, simply fail to invite them back. The latter, I dunno, maybe not.
This is quite true; I was also speaking to selective private schools. Around here the admissions ratio for many private schools is crazy low, indicating that they are turning away plenty of qualified students and that they can recoup the lost tuition by admitting another pupil at will.
In that situation it starts to approach "is there something on campus with your last name on it" levels of donations if you want to avoid getting kicked out...
Yeah, the ones around here have wait lists, and they're not impressed by daddy and mommy Mr. and Mrs. VP and MD, paying list tuition price. There are a dozen more where they came from. If they think a kid might make a few other families think twice about enrolling next year, and some reasonable attempt to make things work out falls through, that kid's gone. Maybe not immediately (though, sometimes), but they won't be back next Fall.
Can confirm, went to a school like that but without a namesake building. They can either always admit someone else, or more often, just not bother because educating kids is an expensive loss leader for the endowment even with full tuition. It definitely seemed like there needed to have already been a family building or two before you got to campus if you expected much immunity because of that...
Sufficiently misbehaving kids, not being properly handled, will drive away paying customers when their peers want to transfer out - or if they stop short of transfering out, merely shit talk the institution and it's failures, driving down it's reputation and turning away future business.
If you think private schools won't act on those pressures - either by getting the kids the help they need, or by kicking them out - I have a tunnel to sell you.
From my experience, they would still punish sufficiently disruptive misbehavior. But they would let minor things slide like ignoring uniform policy or poor grades if you were a high donator. One incident I remember was someone bringing a camera in to the change rooms which resulted in the student being immediately expelled. That kind of stuff they still punish because its harmful enough to outweigh the benefits of the donations.
It depends. They have more discretion in most cases. The public schools are stuck with more stringent adherence to procedures, specifically about getting police involved.
One of the most prestigious private all boys schools in the country asked my cousin to leave because he was causing too many discipline problems. His classmates were bullying him because he's gay.
Many private schools make it very clear to the parents, as well as the kids, that there are plenty of other students that want the slot the child has, which gives them leverage to educate how they want.
Public schools, at least in California, are beholden to the loudest, worst-behaved parents. There was a serious disciplinary issue recently at a local school that resulted in a multi-day suspension, which pretty much everybody involved agreed probably wasn't going to change the behavior. After digging a bit and having some frank conversations, the administration wouldn't pursue any other form of consequence because of fear of being sued by the parents. If expulsion were a legitimate option it would have given the administration bargaining power, but for anything which defending an expulsion is not a slam-dunk win in court, the only 3 "safe" options for teachers and administrators are:
1. Loss of playtime during recess/lunch
2. Detention
3. Suspension
I don't know how big of an actual problem torts are, but I see a lot of bad policies (in education and elsewhere) enacted due to fear of torts.