Stay at TT or Retire to Suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

if your kids are old enough to honestly know that they don't prefer the suburban lifestyle - then honestly you shouldn't even be considering the move.

and that's not meaning like a 5 year old saying they want to live in nyc because that's where their friends are or all that they know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

if your kids are old enough to honestly know that they don't prefer the suburban lifestyle - then honestly you shouldn't even be considering the move.

and that's not meaning like a 5 year old saying they want to live in nyc because that's where their friends are or all that they know.

The kids are still young so it's coming from leaving friends and NYC being all that they know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

if your kids are old enough to honestly know that they don't prefer the suburban lifestyle - then honestly you shouldn't even be considering the move.

and that's not meaning like a 5 year old saying they want to live in nyc because that's where their friends are or all that they know.

The kids are still young so it's coming from leaving friends and NYC being all that they know.

okay, so the decision really shouldn't be theirs.

i guess if you need the space for another child, then princeton is the right answer.

i don't think you should be expecting great things from the LS TT. i think it really ramps up in middle school and then high school.

are your kids sporty? that leans to suburbs.

i don't think you can go wrong with Princeton. I don't like the burbs (i grew up there) but Princeton is a handful of places that I would consider moving to. It's nice town.

The schools are really good there compared to lots of suburban publics. But it's going to be very competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

I don't know where this notion that Mamdani is abandoning tracking is coming from; he's said nothing about it recently, nor has his schools chancellor, and he is himself a happy Bronx Science graduate and has explicitly disavowed the idea of eliminating the SHSAT. Even if he showed any inclination to do this, unlike BDB he's clearly smart enough to pick his battles - leaving Jessica Tisch to her own devices, e.g., and only backing a handful of primary challenges this year, and nipping and tucking his way around budget cuts to avoid making the state legislature vote for a tax increase in an election year - and I doubt he'd waste political capital on some naive attempt to slightly democratize schools when there are so many easier targets like housing and transit and bike lanes and the damn grocery stores.

It comes from the fact that Mamdani has announced the phase out of gifted programs for K to second grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

I don't know where this notion that Mamdani is abandoning tracking is coming from; he's said nothing about it recently, nor has his schools chancellor, and he is himself a happy Bronx Science graduate and has explicitly disavowed the idea of eliminating the SHSAT. Even if he showed any inclination to do this, unlike BDB he's clearly smart enough to pick his battles - leaving Jessica Tisch to her own devices, e.g., and only backing a handful of primary challenges this year, and nipping and tucking his way around budget cuts to avoid making the state legislature vote for a tax increase in an election year - and I doubt he'd waste political capital on some naive attempt to slightly democratize schools when there are so many easier targets like housing and transit and bike lanes and the damn grocery stores.

It comes from the fact that Mamdani has announced the phase out of gifted programs for K to second grade.

This is not a bad idea. At that age, gifted assessments are useless. My child took two - one for Hunter and the G&T. Completely opposite scores. And I know this happens for many people (in both directions). I am much more concerned about older ages. And elementary school G&T classes should be targeted for worse neighborhoods where the Gen Ed schools stink. Parents from PS6 and 87 who think their kids poop doesn't stink don't need it.

I really don't like Mamdani. But don't manufacture reasons to hate him - there are enough good ones already. And don't let the NY Post do it for you either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

if your kids are old enough to honestly know that they don't prefer the suburban lifestyle - then honestly you shouldn't even be considering the move.

and that's not meaning like a 5 year old saying they want to live in nyc because that's where their friends are or all that they know.

The kids are still young so it's coming from leaving friends and NYC being all that they know.

okay, so the decision really shouldn't be theirs.

i guess if you need the space for another child, then princeton is the right answer.

i don't think you should be expecting great things from the LS TT. i think it really ramps up in middle school and then high school.

are your kids sporty? that leans to suburbs.

i don't think you can go wrong with Princeton. I don't like the burbs (i grew up there) but Princeton is a handful of places that I would consider moving to. It's nice town.

The schools are really good there compared to lots of suburban publics. But it's going to be very competitive.

There are good private schools around Princeton, New Jersey if you don't want to go to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

Yes, I feel that public school today is materially different than three decades ago. The biggest difference is teaching to the test, I went to school in the days before No Child Left Behind, so we didn’t “practice” or learn things for the yearly state assessments, and APs were not a big thing, so teachers could design the curriculum for advanced classes themselves. ESL has grown a ton in Princeton, there was always a very small low income population, but no real Hispanic population, now it is almost ten percent of the high school population, nearly all recent immigrants. Special needs were not mainstreamed, I really think, for better or worse, that handling kids with behavior problems, whether normal track or special needs, takes a lot of teacher time. It just isn’t possible to remove kids from the classroom anymore. Private schools are usually pretty quick to suspend kids or to counsel them out. There is a real grinder population at the high school level that didn’t exist when I was there — the larger area has become very popular with highly ambitious, highly educated immigrants because of the quality of the public schools. High school suicides are an issue, not necessarily limited to Princeton, but also at the West Windsor and other local highly regarded public schools

Who can say what makes a material difference in a kid’s life? I intended to keep my kids in public school through at least elementary, bought a house zoned for the highest regarded elementary in our area, and pulled my kids before the oldest finished. As I said before, Princeton has many local private schools, some of which are excellent, so you have that as a back up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

Yes, I feel that public school today is materially different than three decades ago. The biggest difference is teaching to the test, I went to school in the days before No Child Left Behind, so we didn’t “practice” or learn things for the yearly state assessments, and APs were not a big thing, so teachers could design the curriculum for advanced classes themselves. ESL has grown a ton in Princeton, there was always a very small low income population, but no real Hispanic population, now it is almost ten percent of the high school population, nearly all recent immigrants. Special needs were not mainstreamed, I really think, for better or worse, that handling kids with behavior problems, whether normal track or special needs, takes a lot of teacher time. It just isn’t possible to remove kids from the classroom anymore. Private schools are usually pretty quick to suspend kids or to counsel them out. There is a real grinder population at the high school level that didn’t exist when I was there — the larger area has become very popular with highly ambitious, highly educated immigrants because of the quality of the public schools. High school suicides are an issue, not necessarily limited to Princeton, but also at the West Windsor and other local highly regarded public schools

Who can say what makes a material difference in a kid’s life? I intended to keep my kids in public school through at least elementary, bought a house zoned for the highest regarded elementary in our area, and pulled my kids before the oldest finished. As I said before, Princeton has many local private schools, some of which are excellent, so you have that as a back up.

Okay so if we understand you ....you want to remove yourself and your kids from the special needs population, the immigrant population both spanish-speaking and non-spanish-speaking, the "grinder" population....I guess that leaves the affluent white folks? Isn't that already who you're currently hanging with I don't know late private school? So why are you going through the hassle of moving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

Yes, I feel that public school today is materially different than three decades ago. The biggest difference is teaching to the test, I went to school in the days before No Child Left Behind, so we didn’t “practice” or learn things for the yearly state assessments, and APs were not a big thing, so teachers could design the curriculum for advanced classes themselves. ESL has grown a ton in Princeton, there was always a very small low income population, but no real Hispanic population, now it is almost ten percent of the high school population, nearly all recent immigrants. Special needs were not mainstreamed, I really think, for better or worse, that handling kids with behavior problems, whether normal track or special needs, takes a lot of teacher time. It just isn’t possible to remove kids from the classroom anymore. Private schools are usually pretty quick to suspend kids or to counsel them out. There is a real grinder population at the high school level that didn’t exist when I was there — the larger area has become very popular with highly ambitious, highly educated immigrants because of the quality of the public schools. High school suicides are an issue, not necessarily limited to Princeton, but also at the West Windsor and other local highly regarded public schools

Who can say what makes a material difference in a kid’s life? I intended to keep my kids in public school through at least elementary, bought a house zoned for the highest regarded elementary in our area, and pulled my kids before the oldest finished. As I said before, Princeton has many local private schools, some of which are excellent, so you have that as a back up.

Thank you again. The fact that you pulled your kids out despite having already bought the house speaks to your commitment to your kids which is really really commendable. There's been a number of mentions about private schools in the area but I don't think really even Lawrenceville is really comparable to the top schools in NY.

[Anonymous]

Just stay in the private school. It sounds like you don't really think you can replicate what you have education wise in a suburban location. I think you're going to regret pulling your kids out of the elite private school. Nothing else is going to measure up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be smart classmates and good teachers at both. Downsides to public will be rote curriculum (current philosophy is to ensure consistency through control), teaching to the standardized test, larger class sizes, many of eliminated tracking/gifted programs at elementary and middle school levels, bureaucracy, populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources, worse overall college matriculation, grade inflation which makes it diffiuclt to stand out. Downsides to private are cost, more legacy/donor families, less economic diversity, usually no tracking at lower school level.

Hoo boy.

"Rote curriculum": no, the broad pedagogy is the same at both places, nobody's having you spend half of your time memorizing crap anymore.

"Teaching to the test": not really, though we did find that when we moved to NYC the teachers spent a lot more time teaching writing in general because that's a major component of the NY state exam. (but all year, and not specifically directed to state exam questions)

"Larger class sizes": suburbs barely have any gap with privates now - like 18 versus 22 - and the city is in the process of matching suburbs.

"Eliminated tracking/gifted programs": public schools do lots of tracking, if anything this more of a problem in private schools.

"Bureaucracy": seriously? how many associate deans of blahdeblah does your private school have?

"populations like ESL and special needs which take up a lot of resources": yeah, heaven forbid our kids are exposed to any of those people.

"worse overall college matriculation": sure, because the private schools have most of the rich kids.

"grade inflation": the modal GPA at Horace Mann is an A-.

Most suburban publics no longer track at elementary and sometimes middle it's an equity thing. Mamdani has already indicated that he plans to do this for the very youngest grades in NYC publics.

My private is entirely run by less about six people on campus and its a K-12. Every town has its own board of education with oversight of all schools within its boundaries. In contrast.the NYC public school employ 2254 people in central administration, that is, people who don't work at any partiuclar school and are just bureaucracy.

My kids have 10 to 12 kids in this classes at private, and never more than 15. Our local suburban school has 20 to 30 kids at a class, my kid's experience was on the higher end in elementary, which was when they attended.

AP classes in public schools are very geared towards the test. My kids spent considerable time in public elementary preparing for the state standardized tests. These tests were given at every grade level in the spring.

Nearly all suburban publics standardize their curriculum throughout the district so every class is reading the same books, and even doing the same worksheets, etc. . . again, I know this because my kids attended a suburban public and this is something that the teachers complained about a lot. The private my kids attend allows the teachers to develop their own curriculum each year as a grade level each year at the elemtary and middle school level, with some differences between classes.

The smartest, most successful people on the planet (rich New Yorkers) send their kids to private. Are they dumb or delusional for doing so? If you have the means, do likewise. And public can be fine, but please don't tell us it is known for less bureaucracy, smaller classes, more advanced material, and better networking than the TTs.

Again, people are making these ridiculous, very absolute statements. The world is not so black and white. Each has its pros and cons. Private has smaller classes, great resources, and usually more flexibility. And the resources of NYC. Some publics because of their size can offer more classes, more exposure to the real world, plenty of academic rigor, etc. They also have more government bureaucracy and less flexibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but often is)

I grew up in a very nice NJ suburb (but not Summit or Millburn, which are the two people like to cite). I went to high school with the children of several PhD Bell Labs researchers (look it up if you don't know it), multiple Columbia and NYU professors, and partners at top law firms. I did not grow up in Princeton but there are lots of incredibly smart Princeton professors and IAS researchers who send their kids to public schools in the area. There are plenty of very bright, successful (not sure how you define that) people who choose to live in the suburbs for whatever reasons. So these absolutist statements that all the smart people are in NYC are ignorant.

And looking at medians or means or whatever else for these schools is useless. Academically I lived in a bubble with the other kids who were at the top of my class. And those kids were just as smart and have accomplished just as much as the NYC private TT alums of my generation. But there were plenty of kids who were not as bright or motivated. And in HS these kids were not in my academic classes. And being exposed to them in homeroom, gym, activities, sports teams, etc. was a great life experience for me. And it has led me to learn to not be as narrow minded and judgy as some of the posters here who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the suburbs. Things have definitely changed at schools like this since then, probably more for the worse than the better (see how I can admit that my side is not without holes - try it sometime). But they still have a lot to offer for a highly motivated student and they will still do well, get into excellent schools and achieve there.

Note that I write this as a parent of a NYC private school student, who chose this school over SHSAT schools after being in excellent NYC public lower schools. So I have seen it all. Have you?

Yes, I went through public school system in Princeton. I got a very good education. Even so, inferior to what my kids got in private school in every respect. I also sent my kids to a wealthy suburban public elementary (rated 10/10 on best schools). Saw first hand that they were abandoning tracking, which is also happening in DC area schools and discussed frequently on this board (and being implemented by Mamdani in NY). Heard teachers complaining about curriculum being scripted by central office that they could not deviate from. Saw my kids spend lots of classroom time preparing for yearly state proficiency tests, even doing mock questions on a regular basis. Neither my kids or I had a class size smaller than 25 kids.

OP here, thank you so much for sharing this. I believe your experience is probably the most instructive to the choice we're evaluating (Princeton public vs. NYC TT). I just have two questions: 1. Do you feel that the educational experience in Princeton publics would have materially changed since you had attended (e.g. less tracking, more ESL / special needs, etc.)? 2. Do you feel that the degree to which your children's experience in private school has been better than public (in learning environment, learned material, network benefits, etc.) is dramatic enough to lead to definitively different life outcomes?

We're really struggling with the decision. We (but not the kids) prefer the suburban lifestyle but it'd really kill us to know that we sacrificed something that could have been very positively significant for their life trajectory, especially since we can comfortable afford the tuition.

Yes, I feel that public school today is materially different than three decades ago. The biggest difference is teaching to the test, I went to school in the days before No Child Left Behind, so we didn’t “practice” or learn things for the yearly state assessments, and APs were not a big thing, so teachers could design the curriculum for advanced classes themselves. ESL has grown a ton in Princeton, there was always a very small low income population, but no real Hispanic population, now it is almost ten percent of the high school population, nearly all recent immigrants. Special needs were not mainstreamed, I really think, for better or worse, that handling kids with behavior problems, whether normal track or special needs, takes a lot of teacher time. It just isn’t possible to remove kids from the classroom anymore. Private schools are usually pretty quick to suspend kids or to counsel them out. There is a real grinder population at the high school level that didn’t exist when I was there — the larger area has become very popular with highly ambitious, highly educated immigrants because of the quality of the public schools. High school suicides are an issue, not necessarily limited to Princeton, but also at the West Windsor and other local highly regarded public schools

Who can say what makes a material difference in a kid’s life? I intended to keep my kids in public school through at least elementary, bought a house zoned for the highest regarded elementary in our area, and pulled my kids before the oldest finished. As I said before, Princeton has many local private schools, some of which are excellent, so you have that as a back up.

Okay so if we understand you ....you want to remove yourself and your kids from the special needs population, the immigrant population both spanish-speaking and non-spanish-speaking, the "grinder" population....I guess that leaves the affluent white folks? Isn't that already who you're currently hanging with I don't know late private school? So why are you going through the hassle of moving?

Not the PP, but wow do you really have to be this toxic?

For context, I'm both Asian and had a younger sibling with autism who I helped raise for much of my own childhood. I've actually never believed in integrating special needs kids wholesale and certainly would not want my own kids in a class where the teacher would be stretched between accommodating someone like my sibling and my kids at the same time. I literally would not know nor could I imagine how that could be done.

Secondly, as an Asian parent who 100% believes in setting high expectations the immigrant grinder mindset is great at achieving a high grades but not so much when it comes to actually learning or developing critical thinking. Take it from someone who have seen peers literally on IV drip in order to stay up and prep for the college entrance exam, you do not want this.

[Anonymous]

That person is so toxic.

[Anonymous]

Op, if you think you wouldn’t be satisfied with Lawrenceville Prep for your kids, you will definitely not be happy with public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, if you think you wouldn’t be satisfied with Lawrenceville Prep for your kids, you will definitely not be happy with public school.

So I've heard that Princeton High is actually pretty well resources if you're on AP track. There are also a lot of kids who can take classes at the University during their junior and senior years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, if you think you wouldn’t be satisfied with Lawrenceville Prep for your kids, you will definitely not be happy with public school.

So I've heard that Princeton High is actually pretty well resources if you're on AP track. There are also a lot of kids who can take classes at the University during their junior and senior years.

To add to this it's also about a culture of wanting to achieve something which from my experience in a very bad public was severely lacking.