The reason we have public education is that we're trying to give everyone an equal footing to start out in life. This goal is unachievable, but anything that further stretches the distance between the children of the poor and the children of the rich raises alarm bells for me.
I wish I had a good suggestion as to what to do about it.
...is to allow the economy to function more efficiently, through pervasive literacy, use of numbers, &c. It's in the interest of the wealthy if they can off load some of the organizational details to a large class of literate servants, but that's not the same as giving everyone a shot at wealth and power.
I think it's clear that these schools are using their endowments to pick up smart, but (relatively) poor kids. To a lot of people, that's no comfort, as a cognitive aristocracy is no better than a financial aristocracy. The strategy at the ivies has been to filter for both the very smart and the very rich. This gives aptitude access to capital.
If this article was about a high-end public school that got its budget from seized money (eg property taxes), then rest assured that the private-school-educated NYTs editors would have suggested some forceful "fixes" for the "problem".
"You guys have it real easy. I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich.
But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you." - Herman Blume, speech to Rushmore Academy
(EDIT: I guess I sound like a jerk. I'm just wondering actually...)
>This goal is unachievable
I completely disagree with you. It is achieveble, not easily, but neither is it so difficult. Hint: it's completely incongruent with "No Child Left Behind". Leave the important stuff to tehnocrats, not politicians.
Asian countries in general, and I know about Japan in particular, are very very harsh to students. Test scores up, freedom down. If our children don't put up with that kind of thing, maybe that speaks well of us.
I can't really agree with your position on language learning, but I'm a little biased. I've studied Ancient Greek, German, Chinese and Middle English.
Also, I've heard (don't remember where...) that not all languages are equal when conveying an idea: for example eskimos have a lot of words for snow and white. Some concepts would be very hard to express in any other language.
My point of view is clearly viased: I speak Catalan and Spanish (mother tongues) and I'm more or less fluent in English (hoping to take the CPE this june).
one way to try to observe obedience is to look at how harsh conditions people will accept when told to, without complaining and trying to do something about it. everything i know about japanese schools points to a lot more pressure on students to be studious and that kind of thing, and a lot less complaining about any decisions by authorities.
Before McCallie, I had always gone to public school in a tiny Georgia town(Hiawassee), so switching to McCallie was a big deal, and a big change. There were definitely some of the things the NYTimes article describes: lots of money went toward athletics and athletic facilities(the US women Olympics crew team trained there), there were children from families of the ridiculously wealthy(most of whom were very nice, polite, and never snobbish), and by the time I was graduating there was a huge new dining hall/conference facility that had been finished, and plans for a state-of-the-art dorm building underway.
But I don't think McCallie misspent their money on those things, at least not in relation to how they spent on other things. Athletics never over-shadowed academics. Most of the teachers I had at McCallie were better than most I've had in college, and I don't know of any public school where I would have been able to receive 5 semesters worth of credit for English classes my senior year. McCallie had a great music program, and didn't skimp on funding for art classes either.
While I was a student, I never thought about the size of McCallie's endowment or how it was used, possibly because I never saw any indication it was being misspent. Now, Wikipedia tells me McCallie's endowment is ~$60 million, and that 85.7% of their expenditures in 2007 went toward program expenses. That sounds pretty good to me.
More importantly, the stats on McCallie's own site confirm what I saw among the student body: http://mccallie.org/Internet/Default.aspx?pid=336 Almost 20% of students receive financial aid, and there are 55 students receiving merit scholarships this year. At a school where the total enrollment is just over 900, that's a lot of kids who would find their abilities wasted in public schools being given great opportunities.
Sure, "never let schooling get in the way of your education," and other Mark Twain wisdom. But not all prep schools are just comfy surroundings and a well-known name for rich kids to pad their college applications with. Some of them are really great tools that give, and encourage seeking out, a great education.