Private education

[Ansar]

Not necessarily, and you generally get a better education, especially in certain areas where the public schools are really bad. (Like Hawaii)

Yeah, I know what you mean. In Colombia, only the very poor people go to the public schools since they are, well...very bad (as you put it).

Though, here in the US, the public schools dont seem bad. And from the people I've known that are in private schools here in the US, they seem like they haven't opened their eyes to the world. (I told a dirty joke, and a 13 year-old (he goes to the private school) looks at me and says "whats a period?" My reaction: )

 

[puglover]

I really think the choice that private education gives is very valuable to parents. That's why I favor cuts in my government's education budget, and more support for a state-funded voucher program. That would give us the best of both worlds, state-funded education, and the choice of a good private school.

 

[soul_warrior]

There is no difference in students that come from either streams, once they reach University.

Strike that, that's not entirely true. There is a difference: an awful lot of students from the private stream erronously believe they are better than their public brethren, but their grades don't support that conclusion.

hear here!

 

[classical_hero]

Yeah, I know what you mean. In Colombia, only the very poor people go to the public schools since they are, well...very bad (as you put it).

Though, here in the US, the public schools dont seem bad. And from the people I've known that are in private schools here in the US, they seem like they haven't opened their eyes to the world. (I told a dirty joke, and a 13 year-old (he goes to the private school) looks at me and says "whats a period?" My reaction: )

I went to a "Christian" (I use the term loosely) private school and it seems that the vast majority of jokes that were told were of the dirty variety. The main problem that I had with my private school was that it was not a very good school, plus I wasn't very motivated student. The name of the school was called Kingsway Christian College. Our name that we students called it, was Kingsway Concentration Camp. We thought it was that bad, but obviously it wasn't. To be perfectly honest this school was basically a public school that you paid for. I would have done better at a public school I would say. Although there was a chance for me and my brother to go to a fancy private school, but we both did not want to go to it and thus we didn't.

 

[Brighteye]

I dont understand what you dont understand. If you remove the privilidged students from a system it places that system under greater strain as the remaining students are more likley to require greater resorces. The privilidged students are more likley to have help from educated parents or whatever. They are less likley to have behaviour issues.

If you remove any subset of students from a system but keep funding constant then the system is under less strain.

In short they are more likley to be an asset to the school and less likley to be one of the difficult students that consume disproportunate resorces.

But disproportionate or not, they are no longer consuming any resources, whilst their parents still pay tax that goes to the state education system.

We all know that having good students in a class improves that class and that having problem students in a class can drag it down.

This is false. Good students don't improve a class. They are reduced to the level of the rest. The influence of bad over good is far, far greater than vice versa. It's not a level exchange. Even if it was, I don't really see why bad students should be allowed to reduce the level of education good students get just so that their education is improved.

Basically private schools are bad for a nation as a whole, but often good for the individual concerned. Kind of like the prisioners dilemma on a vast scale.

Private schools allow talented individuals to get a better education. The fact that those talented individuals must have rich parents does not make it wrong. What is wrong is that talented children in areas with bad schools, and who have poor parents, get a bad education.

Read the thread and my comments before posting. I said private schools shouldnt be banned. I said they were a distasteful necessity.

Calling them a distasteful necessity implies that you find some fault with them such that you would rather do without them, but find no alternative. We both fail to see that fault at all.

You dont understand the term meritocratic. Again you expensive school is remiss in it's duties. It refers to the merit of th individual, not their parents.

But parents are individuals too. Why should they not be allowed to take advantage of what their merit has achieved?

Again, I didnt say this. Straw man nonsensical drivel. I said that many of the best teachers leaving the state system was bad for the state system.

Would there be as many good teachers at all if they didn't have the hope that after working in the state sector for a while they could find a good (private) school?

Everyone has the right to fredom of association. I said social devision is a bad thing for society.

And there's the problem: in order to limit this particular cause of social division one must violate the right to freedom of association, amongst others. The other solution being, of course, trying to improve state schools until they provide a sufficient education without interfering with private schools.

 

[Kool Keith]

I have seen some sentiment in this thread that private schools somehow pay better and lure away top teaching talent from the public school system.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Sombody has seen hollywood flicks like Dead Poets Society and Scent of a Woman a few too many times.

Maybe there are a few prestigious schools that are able to top dollar for top teaching talent. And I stress the word FEW.

But I went to a prestigious Catholic high school in Michigan and guess what. The teachers made LESS money than the local public school teachers.

A close friend's wife teaches for a Catholic middle school. She gets paid jack squat and wants to find a public school job that pays better.

A series of catholic schools in Detroit have recently shut down because they weren't financially healthy.

I would admit that my high-priced high school education was probably no better than the education I could have received at the local public high school. However, the sense of community the school has made my high school experience worth the money.

Oh, and one more thing. There were a fair amount of kids from Detroit attending the school. Maybe we should ask their parents, who were bending over backwards to give their kids a chance to succeed rather than sending them to crappy, violent, unsafe Detroit Public Schools if they thought of private schools.

 

[bathsheba666]

I don't see anything "morally wrong" with private schools. Why would there be? Choice is a good thing

..perhaps..

and by having private schools to compete with the public sector, both will benefit by having to remain competitive. This would be made better, however, with a school voucher system.

Interesting theory, but nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Swedishguy]

I'm in a private school n' used to be in a public school. Choice is always good!

 

[ComradeDavo]

Free state education for all. Lets make all the schools top class. There should be no need for parents to send their kids to public (note: public is the UK term for whatAmericans call priavte schools ) schools because the state ones should all be top class.

Additionally, schools should never have a religious affliation.

 

[Eiba]

Nobody has a right to an education better than they can afford.

I just have to comment, as this is a particularly ridiculous statement.

No child can afford any education- they're dependants with no money of their own at all. You've basically said no one has a right to education...

I can only guess that what you actually mean to say is no child has the right to an education better than their parents can afford... And that too strikes me as a ridiculous statement, if one supports meritocracy.

 

[puglover]

No child can afford any education- they're dependants with no money of their own at all. You've basically said no one has a right to education...

Where did all this "right to education" come from? Seems more like a privilege to me.

 

[downtown]

Where did all this "right to education" come from? Seems more like a privilege to me.

Its not if you want a society where people advance based on merit.

 

[StarWorms]

I went to a state school, probably one of the best in the UK, and is bound to be better than the majority of private schools. I know people who went to private schools and didn't do any better than I did. Instead their parents just managed to throw away around £15k per year. I get university education for far less than that.

Give rich people the option to throw their money away if they like, but personally I wouldn't touch private education with a 10 foot barge pole.

 

[Elrohir]

1 - Anti-meritocratic. No level playing-field. Hinders social mobility.
2 - By removing many of the best teachers from the state system they hinder the state system.
3 - By removing many of the more privilidged students they hinder the state system.
4 - The social devide they create perpetuates a seperation of the haves and the have nots - to the detrement of both groups.

1. And it's your job to tell people what they can and can't do with their own money? It isn't your job to decide what is a "level playing field" and what isn't.

2. If the state schools sucked less, then they wouldn't have this problem.

3. This directly contradicts point 1 of your argument. Which is it? Are the bright students all taken out of the public school system into superior schools? Or are these private schools "anti-meritocratic"? You can't have it both ways.

4. The divide is state imposed. If the state gives parents the right to use that same amount of money that is used in the public school system, using a voucher system, to pay for private school or homeschool tuition, then everyone benefits. The best schools will thrive, and the poor schools will flounder and fail, as they should.

..perhaps..

Perhaps choice is a good thing? Perhaps you could tell me why it wouldn't be?

Interesting theory, but nothing to do with the real world.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why, instead of just stating it like it's a self-apparent fact? Simply stating your opinion as fact helps no one; explaining your argument so that we can compare and debate back and forth and learn helps everyone. Competition and contrast lead to improvement in quality - which, ironically enough, was what I was saying about the school system and vouchers in the first place.

 

[GinandTonic]

1. And it's your job to tell people what they can and can't do with their own money? It isn't your job to decide what is a "level playing field" and what isn't.

I didnt say private schools should be banned. I said they were unmeritocratic.

2. If the state schools sucked less, then they wouldn't have this problem.

Couldn't agree more. It's something of a positive feedback loop. If the schools are good then more advantaged children will be sent there, improving the school, meaning more advantaged children etc etc. Conversly when a school starts to fail the middle-class parents heading for the hills can create a snowball effect.

3. This directly contradicts point 1 of your argument. Which is it? Are the bright students all taken out of the public school system into superior schools? Or are these private schools "anti-meritocratic"? You can't have it both ways.

The bright students are not sent to private schools, the rich students are. Advantaged children tend to do better even in a state school. This does not mean they are brighter, but it does mean they have advantages and are less likley to have a range of disadvantages.

Two seperate issues.

4. The divide is state imposed. If the state gives parents the right to use that same amount of money that is used in the public school system, using a voucher system, to pay for private school or homeschool tuition, then everyone benefits. The best schools will thrive, and the poor schools will flounder and fail, as they should.

Perhaps choice is a good thing? Perhaps you could tell me why it wouldn't be?

I didn't say it wasn't. I said in a perfect world there would be no need for private education, but that we lived in an imperfect world. I've not looked into the ramifications of a voucher system so I couldn't really comment.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Do they have scholarship-type things for private schools?

 

[skywalker]

Typical leftist mentality.
Nobody has a right to an education better than they can afford.

That's absolute nonsense. You're even crazier here than on 'Poly. The right to a decent education is necessary in any non-backwards society.

I think we see why India has so many problems...

 

[skywalker]

I based my claim on that study and I didn't realize that it doesn't take the differences between US states into account. But at least on a whole USA is inferior.

Not a problem. Only smart students need good schools. It's not worthwhile educating someone who's just going to work at a cash register in WalMart, at least beyond basics literacy, civics, and arithmetic.

 

[Kennigit]

I've got nothing against private schools. If some people have religious beliefs and want their kids to go a religious school, so be it. If rich kids want their kids to go to the "prep" schools, thats fine. Besides, atleast in the U.S., majority of people go into business career anyway. I know that if I ever have kids and they start being real bad or failing, then off to military school.

In my area, public schools are just as good as private schools. My school offers a full range of AP courses and college-credited courses, so the opportunities are there for the better students, and the poorer students can just take regular classes. Maybe the teachers might not be as good in some classes and might not have prepared some kids as well as others, but that can happen anywhere.

Also, many private school people switch to public school at high school, since fees go up and other stuff like that. As far as I can tell, they are not in any of a better postion than I am.

@aimeeandbeatles: I'm not sure, but some private schools do have reduced payments if you do certain things. One of my friends went to a private school for his middle school, and he said some people got scholarship-ish stuff for excelling in certain academic or even athletic activities.

 

[De Lorimier]

I have nothing against private schools, but the amount of money that they receive from the government here, aka public funds, is ludicrous. Private schools should be just that, private.