The Brooklyn preschool exposé
I’m not sure why I initially clicked on this article in New York Magazine entitled “The Battle of Grace Church What happened when Brooklyn’s oldest nursery school decided to become less old-fashioned? A riot among the one percent.”
Maybe because I’m interested in education, or my native New York, or just how a preschool becomes “less old-fashioned” (does it have to do with pronouns, for example?), or how the one-percent might have rioted without the event making headlines in the newspapers.
But click I did. And I was about a third of the way through what turned out to be a mega-long piece when I realized that it was likely that the sole reason the article was published was to stir up anger against a bunch of rich white women in Brooklyn.
Oh, I suppose that may not have been the sole reason. Another reason was to get clicks.
But I kept reading it anyway, hoping to get to something other than cattiness and pettiness and the stoking of bitterness, envy, and contempt in equal measure. If there was some higher purpose for writing the article I fail to see it.
The piece doesn’t ever describe anything that could remotely be defined as a “riot,” either, although it certainly describes turmoil of the type that so often happens in small fiefdoms when someone comes in and stirs the pot without really learning much about the prevailing culture and what might be best to preserve about it, and how to tactfully go about changing some of the rest.
Reading many of the comments after the article, I was struck by how many of the readers seemed to fall right in line with what I see as the propagandist aims of the piece. Many of the comments express rage at how entitled and white-privileged these parents—both nouveau riche and old money rich—are, as well as at the lack of racial diversity among the students at the school, which is a very expensive private operation.
I live in a very different sort of community than the one described in the article. Very. But what I see there is that parents worry about their kids and want the best for them, that the rich can pay for things the poor can’t, that private for-profit institutions can make their own decisions about these things, that people (both rich and poor) are often superficial and shallow and petty, and that it’s easy (and perhaps profitable) to stir up rage at those who have far more money than average.
There’s a reason why the sixth deadly sin is envy.
As all here should know, the Left is using envy to instill deeper division into American society.
Fomenting lust, sloth, wrath and pride are also on the hit parade of the Left’s tactics.
Diversity or color judgment, including racism, by another euphemism.
I agree with Geoffrey about the sin of envy being one underlying subtext of the article, but I had a different reaction from the rage expressed by many of the commenters (full disclosure: I read the entire article but not the comments)– and that is pity for the kids placed in the college admissions pressure cooker at the tender ages of three and four. I can only imagine how intensely these poor children are coached or pushed or otherwise dragooned to make the “right” impression on the nursery school admissions staff. And is anyone who read even part of the article really surprised by the recent college admissions scandal (as well as the widespread reaction to it)?
I sent my kids to private school but that was long ago. My younger son’s high school graduating class was 25 and most of them are lifelong friends at the age of 50. My two younger daughters did the same but at at different private schools. Now, I cannot afford to send my grandchildren to the school their father attended.
Furthermore, the school now has tuition over $25,000 per year per child and the tone seems to have changed. My DIL’s OB told her that she and her husband had sent their child to that school but soon pulled him/her out. When my son went there, the kids were mostly doctor’s kids. Now, doctor’s kids are looked at as peasants.
Fortunately, they found a good charter school.
I read that article, got all the way to the end and asked myself, “Why did I read that?” Such a lot of pettiness.
I had started to read it a couple of days ago; saw that the first paragraph didn’t seem to go anywhere; saw that skipping ahead several paragraph still didn’t tell me any more about what it was about — except for the above-mentioned cattiness and envy-rousing, I could glimpse that; saw that the piece was very long; decided it wasn’t worth my time.
In Edinburgh, Scotland 45% of the kids go to private school. Given the numbers, one obviously gets kids from from almost all walks of life. Even the local French polisher who worked on my furniture had his kids enrolled in private school. The schools also make it easier by providing monthly payment options. A good non-boarding will set you back about $10,000/year so you really don’t see instances where “doctor’s kids are looked at as peasants”, as Mike put it.
All I could think reading that was that they were a bunch of Eloi.
I don’t think anybody who isn’t from that particular ultra-rich culture is going to read that article and think anything other than “what a bunch of ********”.
THANK YOU NEO. And thanks Geoffrey. I would suggest that it is deadlier than mere envy — it is envy weaponized. Its one of the Left’s oldest gambits. The French Revolution dripped with it. The Commies thrived on it in Russia and China. The Politics of Resentment.
Dwaz:
But that’s what the author wants you to think.
To me, the article attempts to manipulate the reader into hating these people. But why does the author write it? I think that’s her purpose—to stir up anger, envy, and/or contempt. And you know what? I doubt the article is the truth of who and what these people are. Certainly not the whole of what they are.
It’s some sort of perverted race/class guilt/manipulation. Recently I was with one of my oldest friends on a rare visit when he exclaimed, sort of out of nowhere, “I am so sick of these rich white men and their privilege.”
He is, of course, the scion of a very (once) wealthy banking family and was raised on a huge range with a mansion and a thoroughbred stable and a large house in SF. He is, of course, more white than I am and I am very white indeed.
He said this without a hint of irony and with great conviction. I just stayed mum.
It’s a mental disease and it is being transmitted by the word virus.
Coincidentally, I read the article a day or two ago,but I didn’t read the comments. A cousin and her husband raised a daughter in SoHo, so I already have some knowledge of the issue of private versus public schools in NYC. I would not put down any parents in NYC who wanted to pay whatever amount to put their children into a private school. When my cousin’ s daughter didn’t get into the public school her parents wanted, she went to private school. (My brother was in the DC public schools for two weeks before there was an opening at Sidwell Friends.)
Consider in addition what the current NYC poobahs are trying to do with the crown jewels of NYC public education- the high schools whose students are admitted by exam. All the more reason to go to private school.
Several of the commenters brought up some interesting points. For instance, Amy was at a disadvantage replacing a long-term director. Some recommended that the school should have hired a interim director.
It was amusing to read feedback from one of Amy’s former schools. A parent disparaged her; a teacher defended her.
About 19% of NYC K-12 students attend nonpublic schools. Nonpublic schools are about 63% white, while public schools are about 15% white. Currently enrollment in private Jewish schools is greater than in private Roman Catholic schools. Roman Catholic schools used to have greater enrollment.
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/printnycbtn27.pdf
Dwaz:
But that’s what the author wants you to think.
To me, the article attempts to manipulate the reader into hating these people. But why does the author write it? I think that’s her purpose—to stir up anger, envy, and/or contempt. And you know what? I doubt the article is the truth of who and what these people are. Certainly not the whole of what they are.
I agree that it is her purpose, but I think she’s only aiming at the new director and her supporters. She doesn’t realize that people will be disgusted by both sides.
Parents want the best for their children. It’s only natural:
https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/top-carranza-executives-ditched-their-residential-zones-for-whiter-schools/
What has also become “natural”, alas, is the need for all too many so-called to engage in the politics of destruction. The more they do it, the more they seem to enjoy it.
Gosh, it’s almost(!) as though the Democrats have forgotten all the important lessons of history….
https://nypost.com/2019/07/06/liberals-are-eating-their-friends-as-well-as-their-enemies/
Should be “so-called liberals”….
Gerard,
I understand your reluctance to ‘rock the boat’ with an old friend you rarely see, I have very much the same reaction in similar situations. And I refuse to let politics destroy friendships. But I am trying more and more to find ways to stand my ground – so to speak – without generating a conflict. Sometimes I’ll respond to a remark with; ‘Actually, I don’t agree with that.’ Neutral tone, full stop, change subject. Sometimes, I’ll joke and say; ‘You don’t REALLY want to know what I think about that – it’d set your hair on fire!’.
One reason I feel I must get comfortable doing this is basic honesty. Silence is acquiescence. And anyone who says something deliberately provocative (and make no mistake – your friend’s remark WAS deliberately provocative) needs to understand that people they value may have a completely different opinion. Living in an echo chamber is not doing them any favors.
I almost feel sorry for people like your friend – like a spouse who never sees it coming – when this country splits up they’ll be shocked it happened, and at who’s on the other side.
The kindest thing might be to give them a hint here and now.
I read the article, but not the comments. A little background: I lived in D.C. for a long time, where my kids attended charter schools and we mixed with families that attended public, charter, and private schools.
I wasn’t really upset or offended by the depiction of the parents, but I wasn’t impressed with Ms. Morgano, at least as far as she was portrayed.
We went through a few administration changes in our schools and inevitably the culture and traditions change. Most of the time it’s not so severe you can’t roll with it (and the “Met Gala” thing didn’t strike me as being super-crazy). Besides, the turnover (students, teachers, and administrators) in D.C. schools is probably a bit more frequent anyway so I think most families are used to it.
But Ms. Morgano, as far as I could tell, was violating one of the major rules regarding engaging families; an educator displaying shameless, public favoritism of certain families in front of the entire school community. I guess her preferring celebrity lent the story it’s “let hate rich folks” angle, but to me that was the real scandal.
Should be “so-called liberals”
Not at all. Liberalism is, in principle, a divergent ideology, which evokes a perception of tolerance. Principles matter.
Molly Brown on July 12, 2019 at 2:40 am said:
..I almost feel sorry for people like your friend – like a spouse who never sees it coming – when this country splits up they’ll be shocked it happened, and at who’s on the other side.
* * *
You are right about speaking up, I think, but it’s easier to advocate than practice.
This conclusion will probably hold up, and reminds me of the old joke about the guy who gets to heaven finally and is having an interview with St. Peter, who asks what he thinks.
“It’s great,” he replies, “but I was kind of surprised to see a couple of people that I never thought would be here.”
“Yeah,” says St. Peter, “but there were an awful lot of them who were surprised to see you!”
There are many private schools in L.A. that are hard to get into, and one of the hardest is the school operated by the College of Education at UCLA — UES-Seeds. It’s so selective that when you hear about a kid who got in, the first question is, “Which studio?”
I have known Sarah Lyall, the author, for nearly 40 years. I thought she did a marvelous job reporting on intense status anxiety among the new elite, especially as they compete with a newer and even more fashionable elite. It is probably hard to imagine that the rich and well-connected of Brooklyn Heights would fear that they aren’t rich and well-connected enough, and that their offspring might get crowded out, but the reality is that in the current environment, what they have is as nothing compared with the really rich or really fashionable. If Sarah had an agenda, I missed it.
Status anxiety might be the most basic driver of human behavior: everyone wants a little bit more than they have now, and everyone fears the loss of relative status as being almost unbearably painful. On the whole, this is a good thing, and if it weren’t a good thing, there would be nothing we could do about it anyway.
As a “person of color” the article only enforced stereotypes of the rich.
Pity that rich, historical playschools can do what most public schools no longer have time or stomach for: dress up like Pilgrims and play, play, play.
Status anxiety led to the college admissions pay-to-plan scandals.