This massively depends on where you are located and on the school itself. A 5 km difference can be a completely different world. When we moved in 2018 one of my kids could not immediately go to the school we favored. But the other one could and then in the next year the fact that he already had a brother in that school would give him preferred access. Those two schools could not have been different. The one was an endless list of tragedies, fights and other crap, the other was on a completely different level, never a problem and this seemed to hold true for different classes in that same school as well. I think the cumulative effect of that one year was such that he ended up going to a different level of secondary education, even though cognitively the two brothers are not all that different.

So that's n=2, not quite n=1, still anecdata but maybe it will help someone who thinks that all schools are equal and good.

I’m awed that you can be so sanguine when speaking about the abuse your son suffered and the lifelong consequences.

I’d be livid and frothing with vitriol.

I am not sanguine about it, I just want to make sure that the idea that all schools are beds of roses today does not take hold because I've seen first hand that this is not the case. And if that can happen in a wealthy part of a wealthy country it can happen just about everywhere. In the meantime I've done what I could to offset the difference and am still working hard to make sure my kids get all of the chances in life that they deserve. But detours can and do happen, you won't be able to fix it by head-on confrontation so you have to fix it through other means, which usually translate into spending time and money.

First off: thanks for sharing how you experience your protective instincts. I can feel your love for your kid

With that said --

Wha... your and my reads are so different... I hear that as: One lived in the real world that most normal unchosen people experience, and the other had means to avoid said world?

"Abuse" feels strong, bc putting the select (usually wealthy) kids in the safest place and not choosing responsibility/stake in remediating the larger shared experience, that feels like the larger "condemnation to abuse" to me.

I'm a pretty hardcore collectivist though, and I understand that's not everyone's value system *shrug*

yes. one should raise one's kids in only the toughest most unrelenting environment. arctic tundra, perhaps, or federal prison. anything else is unfair and abusive to others.