The Educational Equity Dilemma: Part 1

I come from a family of public school teachers. My mother taught, as did her sister. So did one of my sisters and one of my sons. I believe deeply in the mission of public education, which is why a recent essay by The Atlantic’s Michael Godsey, “Why I’m a Public-School Teacher but a Private-School Parent,” unsettles me.

His argument—that public schools struggle to create a culture of academic commitment—raises an uncomfortable question: Is the structure of public education, especially in high-poverty neighborhoods, discouraging the intellectual engagement it seeks to promote?

Godsey describes two different classrooms and two radically different experiences. In the “classical education” private school his daughter attends, students show up early, prepared and eager to learn. They take notes happily, engage in lively discussion and celebrate each other’s insights. In the public school where he teaches, students arrive late, shuffle through class distracted and view academic enthusiasm as uncool.

What if the problem in his public school isn’t funding, policy or even teaching quality—but culture? Godsey’s essay challenges us to consider whether compulsory K-12 education, by its very nature, discourages student investment. In charter and private schools, students and families make a conscious choice to be there; in public schools, attendance is required. Does this difference create the very disengagement so many teachers struggle to combat?

If public schools are to fulfill their democratic mission, they must do more than provide access—they must cultivate a culture where academic engagement is the norm, not the exception. That means rethinking not just curricula and funding, but also the social and psychological incentives that shape student motivation.

Whatever the weaknesses of his argument, Godsey is certainly right about one thing: Engagement cannot be taken for granted. If public schools are to compete with private education, they must find ways to foster buy-in—so that learning becomes a choice, not an obligation.

Godsey’s essay has profound implications for higher education. I’ve been fortunate over the course of a very long career to teach at a wide variety of institutions, from a broad-access urban public and an extension school to a state flagship, a private liberal arts college and two Ivies. Not only is there a pronounced difference in campus resources and amenities, but a stark difference in student preparation, academic polish, motivation and engagement. There’s no doubt that the more selective, richly resourced institutions not only have smaller classes, but a more richly intellectual culture, with profound implications for equity, accessibility and outcomes.

Does a School’s Culture Matter More Than Resources?

Despite his deep commitment to public education, Godsey ultimately argues that private schools—where students, parents and teachers actively choose to participate—cultivate a stronger culture of intellectual engagement. While some critics view his decision as hypocritical, he defends it as a pragmatic and necessary response to the realities of the public school system.

Godsey’s argument is built on several key premises:

• Engagement and culture matter more than resources. While private schools often benefit from greater financial resources, Godsey contends that the real differentiator is student engagement. He argues that private school students, parents and faculty demonstrate a stronger commitment to education, creating an atmosphere where learning is valued, discipline is intrinsic and distractions are minimized.
• Compulsory education undermines investment. Public schools, by their nature, struggle to foster a culture of engagement because attendance is mandatory. Without a personal stake in their education beyond legal obligation, many students adopt a disengaged, “too cool for school” mentality. Without the ability to enforce buy-in, public schools find it difficult to replicate the academic environment of selective private institutions.
• Structural challenges constrain public schools. Godsey acknowledges that public schools must abide by laws that prohibit requiring financial contributions from families. As a result, schools rely on voluntary fundraisers rather than direct financial investment from students and parents. In his view, this weakens students’ sense of personal responsibility and commitment to their education, in contrast to private school students, who may feel more accountable for their academic experience.
• Peer influence shapes learning attitudes. Godsey underscores the importance of the social environment, arguing that students’ attitudes toward learning are shaped by their peers. At his daughter’s private school, academic enthusiasm is the norm, reinforced by the broader school culture. In contrast, in many public schools, disengagement is widespread and students who care about learning risk social isolation and even ostracism. He suggests that transforming school culture from within is extraordinarily difficult.

Godsey’s argument raises broader questions about the purpose and challenges of public education. Does universal access to schooling weaken student motivation? Can public schools create a culture of engagement without the built-in selectivity of private institutions? His observations highlight a core dilemma: How can public schools foster an environment where learning is not just mandatory, but meaningful?

In addition, his essay speaks to a larger debate in education policy: Should schools prioritize individual academic achievement, or should they focus on equity and inclusion, ensuring that all students—regardless of background or motivation—have access to the same opportunities? His choice to send his daughter to a private school reflects a skepticism that public schools can successfully balance both goals.

Sympathy Combined With Uneasiness

My response to Godsey’s argument is shaped by a deep personal connection to public education, one that leaves me feeling both sympathetic to his concerns and uneasy with his conclusions. I attended public schools, but in a very different era—one where tracking was common, and I personally benefited from it.

I know firsthand that excellent public schools abound and I have seen the dedication and talent of public school teachers up close. At the same time, I cannot deny that disengagement, distractions and bureaucratic constraints are real challenges in many schools today.

A Personal and Generational Perspective on Public Education

Having grown up in a period when tracking was the norm, I experienced a public education system that, in some ways, resembled what Godsey admires about private schools. The higher tracks created an environment of academic seriousness, where students were expected to be engaged, well-prepared and focused. There was an implicit culture of buy-in—not because attendance was voluntary, but because students in advanced courses were surrounded by peers who took their studies seriously.

In that sense, my own experience suggests that public schools, under the right conditions, can foster the kind of academic culture that Godsey praises in private institutions.

Yet I am also aware that tracking, for all its benefits to students like me, came at a cost. It often reinforced social and racial inequalities, concentrating opportunities for academic excellence among those who were already advantaged while relegating other students to lower tracks with fewer resources and lower expectations. Over time, many school systems moved away from rigid tracking in the name of equity—a shift that I understand, even if I recognize that it has also contributed to some of the challenges Godsey describes.

Recognizing Challenges While Avoiding Simplistic Critiques

Godsey paints with a broad brush, and his portrayal of public schools risks obscuring their many successes. There are countless public schools where students are engaged, motivated and challenged—where learning is not just mandatory but meaningful. There are teachers who inspire, administrators who innovate and students who thrive. Public education remains one of the bedrocks of democracy, providing opportunities to millions of students regardless of their socioeconomic background.

At the same time, I cannot dismiss Godsey’s concerns outright. I have seen how student disengagement and discipline problems can damage classroom dynamics, how bureaucracy can stifle innovation and how public schools must serve an extraordinarily diverse student body with varying levels of academic preparedness and motivation and facility with English.

Godsey’s description of the private school classroom he observed—a place where students arrive on time, complete assignments without prodding and engage in lively discussion—captures something that many educators, including those in public schools, would love to see more often.

The question, then, is not whether public schools are failing but how they can foster a stronger culture of academic engagement. If selective private schools cultivate buy-in through voluntary enrollment and parental investment, what mechanisms can public schools use to create a similar sense of accountability and enthusiasm for learning?

Reframing the Conversation: How Public Schools Can Learn From Private Schools

Rather than accepting a binary choice between public and private education, we should ask what public schools can learn from the qualities that make some private schools successful. That does not mean replicating private school selectivity, but it does mean considering ways to strengthen engagement, accountability and academic culture.

• Creating Buy-In Without Exclusion: Public schools cannot selectively admit students who are predisposed to be engaged, but they can create structures that encourage investment in learning. Small learning communities, honors programs and specialized cohorts can help cultivate academic seriousness while remaining accessible to all students.
• Revisiting the Role of Tracking: While rigid tracking is problematic, differentiated learning environments remain important. Schools should explore ways to challenge high-achieving students while providing additional support to those who struggle, without rigidly sorting students into fixed academic paths.
• Strengthening School Culture: Godsey is right that student engagement is shaped by peer influence. Schools must be intentional in fostering a culture where academic enthusiasm is encouraged rather than marginalized. That means clear expectations for behavior, strong faculty mentorship and schoolwide initiatives that celebrate intellectual achievement.

Equity, Access and the Future of Public Education

One of the greatest challenges in education today is balancing excellence with equity. Public schools must serve all students, not just the most motivated or well-supported. That is both their greatest strength and their greatest challenge. The solution is not to abandon public education but to refine it—to ensure that it remains a place where students from all backgrounds can receive a rigorous, meaningful and engaging education.

Godsey’s essay forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Not all students are equally motivated, and not all school cultures reinforce intellectual engagement. But the answer is not to retreat into private schools for the motivated few. It is to work toward a public education system that cultivates academic enthusiasm, fosters a love of learning and ensures that every student—regardless of background—has the opportunity to thrive.

Is It Hypocritical for Public School Teachers to Send Their Children to Private Schools?

The question of whether public school teachers who send their children to private schools are hypocritical—and whether parents who teach in public schools while sending their children to private schools are paternalistic—raises deeper issues about choice, equity and the role of public education in society.

At first glance, it may seem contradictory for a teacher to work within the public school system while choosing a private or parochial school for their own child. Critics argue that this signals a lack of faith in the very system that employs them and could be perceived as an implicit admission that public schools are not good enough. If public education is truly a public good, should its own employees not be its staunchest supporters?

However, this argument oversimplifies the issue. Teachers, like all parents, have personal obligations to their children, and their professional commitment to public education does not necessarily override their responsibility to secure the best possible learning environment for their kids. Public schools vary widely in quality, resources and culture, and a teacher’s decision to opt out is often based on specific concerns about their child’s needs rather than a wholesale rejection of the system.

Furthermore, teachers understand the strengths and limitations of public schools better than most. Their choice to send their child to a private school may reflect firsthand knowledge of local challenges—large class sizes, budget constraints, administrative issues or a curriculum that doesn’t align with their child’s learning style. In some cases, teachers may want their children to experience religious instruction, a specialized program or a particular pedagogical approach that public schools don’t offer. This is not necessarily hypocrisy—it may simply be pragmatism.

If anything, such decisions might highlight systemic problems that need addressing. Rather than condemning teachers for choosing private education, it might be more productive to ask why they feel compelled to do so and what improvements could be made in public education to better serve all students.

Is It Paternalistic for Private School Parents to Teach in Public Schools?

Conversely, one might ask whether parents who send their children to private schools while teaching in public schools are engaging in a form of paternalism—advocating for the benefits of public education while keeping their own children apart from it. There is an implied “do as I say, not as I do” contradiction in this arrangement, which could be seen as patronizing.

However, this argument also has weaknesses. Many public school teachers believe deeply in the mission of public education even if they make different choices for their families. Teaching is often a vocation, and many educators work in public schools precisely because they want to support students who face greater challenges. Their professional commitment to public education is not necessarily undermined by their personal choices.

In addition, private schooling is not always about rejecting public education—it can be about finding a better fit for a particular child. A public school teacher with a child who has special needs, religious commitments or a specific educational interest may see private schooling as the best option for their family while still believing in and working to improve public education for others.

A False Moral Dilemma?

Both of these perspectives rest on an underlying assumption: that individual choices about schooling reflect a moral judgment about the system as a whole. But education is complex and personal decisions are influenced by many factors, including location, finances, special needs, school culture and academic philosophy.

Rather than framing these decisions as hypocrisy or paternalism, it may be more useful to see them as symptoms of broader structural issues:

• If public school teachers feel compelled to send their children elsewhere, what does that say about public education, and what reforms are needed?
• If parents of private school students are committed to public education, should they have more opportunities to bring best practices from private education into public schools?

In short, personal choices in education often reflect pragmatism rather than ideology. The real question is not whether these decisions are hypocritical or paternalistic, but what they reveal about the strengths and weaknesses of our current educational system—and how we can work toward a future where all parents, regardless of background, feel equally confident in their public school options.