What’s written is interesting — but missed two important points! And I believe they’re key points with the public park / country club analogy. First, the country clubs each have particular characteristics that attempt to make them (a) more attractive than public parks; and (b) set them apart from each other — seeking to grow their membership while narrowing the people seeking memberships. My words: This is the approach that private schools have as well. Public schools are required to accommodate every student at the appropriate grade level as long as they reside in the assigned geographical area.
Second, if available funds went to the country clubs, the funds going to the parks has to be reduced I’m sure. As a result, the public parks are faced with a lower operating budget; these public parks therefore have a harder time in comparison with the country clubs. More will switch from park use to country clubs, reducing the parks operating budget further, … You get the message I’m sure. Same obviously for private schools compared with public schools. There is certainly no way the public schools can compete.
When our kids reached high school age, the public school was simply too small. There was not enough course options. Additionally, the budget primarily went to the very best students and the very worst; our kids were just below the very best… we CHOSE to send them to a parochial school that challenged every student to improve (no ‘worst’ students) and had many more course options. BUT we paid the necessary fees and tuition; the local public school lost no funds!!!
That’s the way it should be for public parks and country clubs. AND that’s the way it should be for public schools and private schools. That makes the analogy a very good one!!!!!