at $200 million, was the most costly
school in state history (McDonald,
2008). The most costly public high
school in U.S. history—$578 million—
recently opened in Los Angeles
(Wright,;2010).
What greatly exacerbates these disparities is the fact that affluent parents
are pouring money into activities and
tutors outside school that boost their
kids’ education prospects. I have heard
about parents obtaining SAT tutors
for their kids as early as 5th grade and
spending up to $35,000 a year on tutors
who help their children with courses
(Anderson, 2011). Expenses for extracurricular activities, including increasingly common arts and athletic coaches,
summer enrichment programs, and
programs abroad, are often exorbitant.
Guidance counselors, ridiculously
overstretched by large caseloads of
students, are losing their jobs in many
public schools, depriving many students
of college guidance. Yet an industry
of well-compensated private guidance
counselors has cropped up to cater to
affluent students; at least one college
counselor in New York rakes in $40,000
from parents to help shoehorn students
into high-status colleges (Berfield &
Tergesen, 2007).
The Damages of Privilege
I have heard these luxuries explained in
various ways. Some say that luxury and
status are inextricably tied together in
many parents’ heads and that independent schools are thus engaged in an
opulence arms race to attract the most
parents and donors. Some donors, it is
said, are also more interested in funding facilities carrying their name than
in funding things like curriculum or
professional development.
Many parents may, too, allow them-
selves to be driven by what attracts
their children. One study shows that
some parents start giving their children
a significant voice in their selection of
schools as early as 5th grade (Inde-
pendent School Management, 2010);
and it’s understandable that children
would lobby for the school with the
state-of-the-art gym or the sparkling
performing arts center, the largest,
shiniest piece of chocolate in Willy
Wonka’s chocolate factory.
Low-income schools
have been hit hard,
with deteriorating
facilities, and even more
students crammed into
already-overcrowded
classrooms.
What I have never heard is any
reasonable case rooted in child development—or even a shell of a theory—
about how this level of luxury actually
benefits children’s academic, emotional,
social, or moral development. To be
sure, growing up amid opulence can
make children feel important, just as
growing up amid crushing poverty can
constantly tear at children’s self-image.
But there is, of course, another side
to feeling important. In an era when
evidence points to growing narcissism
(Twenge, 2006) and adults routinely
decry entitlement among children, these
extravagant environments greatly risk
breeding arrogance and entitlement,
inducting children into an elite. And
making children feel important on the
basis of privilege is quite different from
equipping them with the capacities that
are fundamental to durable and robust
self-esteem. A certain degree of adversity
enables children to develop the coping
strategies that are key to long-term
self-confidence. Rather than enabling
children to learn how to do more with
less, though, these environments tend
to cater to every trivial need and scratch
every itch.
Opting to Reduce the Gaps
Some schools have intentionally opted
out of the facilities arms race, establishing a different identity. The headmasters
of both Beaver Country Day School
and the Rivers School outside Boston,
for example, have refused to spend
excessive sums on facilities, focusing
instead on high-quality teaching and on
cultivating students’ social and ethical
capacities. Beaver also focuses on accommodating students with diverse learning
styles and challenges. “We don’t sell the
campus,” says Peter Hutton, the head of
school, “We sell an educational philosophy.” Beaver just built a new science
building, and Hutton says that “the goal
was not to pay for the fanciest equipment but to design a science facility
that would enable us to teach emerging
convergent sciences in new ways that
will engage more students” (personal
communication, September 2011).
