Public school Vs private school.

[Perfection]

My public school is awesome, I'm a sophmore and am already taking AP calculus, by the time I graduate I'll have a year of college out of my way, thanks Public School!

 

[Furry Spatula]

Becka you sure like smilies dont you .

But as it comes to accepting only the smart kids. Definatly not true. Dumbasses are accepted. And also, if you get in the school you are essentially accepted for life aslong as you don't violate the rules numerous times. If you get in for kindergarten, how can they tell if you're going to be dumb or not? There isn't realy a test they can give you at that age.

The argument of banning private schools is a dumb one though. Private schools can be run completely independant of the state. They aren't doing anything unconstitutional as they are completely private if they don't get any gov funding. What if parents or students want religion as part of their education? The public system isn't allowed to mention religion thanks to all the lawsuit happy PC thugs out there. And as Becka said. How do you make sure that money that would be spent on private schools go to funding public schools. Maybe it would go into an RRSP or stock instead as it isn't taxed money to begin with. And if you do raise taxes then you are also raising the taxes of those who didn't send their children to private schools.

But this comes down to the two tier question. If i have money why on earth shouldn't i be alllowed to spend it how i want aslong as its done in a legal manner. That means why can't i get surgery done at a private hospital instead of waiting at a public one if i have the money laying around, I'm still paying taxes for public hospitals. Its the same as with public schools. Why must i be forced to be equallized down in education instead of using my resourses to get the best education for my children or myself? It isn't illegal to go pay for private schools, I'm still paying for public schools, so no funding to public schools is lost and there are less children in the classroom.

An intersting tidbit. In BC the teachers union once tried to get private schools banned. Needless to say, intelligence prevailed and it we still have private schools.

 

[Ethics]

You have GOT to be kidding about the raising salaries. Teachers in Long Island make upwards of 100 thousand dollars a year. I say that should be cut in HALF because obviously the high salaries don't do anything. What the schools need to do is:

1. Fire all "assistants", "coordinators" and "deputies". They are just filler.
2. Use the money to buy better programs.
3. Centralize the school system. This way there can be additional programs for learning.
4. Teacher Teaching. Schools should give teachers outlines of how NOT to teach.
5. Only hire the best of the best.
6. Lower wages
7. Let the teachers smack around the disruptive students like they used to. That would shut those ****ers up.

1) Perhaps you would do better to fire the mindboggling numbers of Administrators that "enforce" the PC programs mandated by the goofball Superintendants and Assistants. The same ones who have(exleast in Texas) gotten legislation passed to protect themselves from lawsuit and could care less about being anymore then School Politicians.

2) How about they stop wasting money on goofy programs like DARE and "ID Badges"(yes, I know they block bullets like the Man of Steel). I got a kick out of the fact after the first few weeks that they crammed that DARE program down our throats in 5th grade several kids had formed gangs and started doing drugs to emulate what they had heard...

3) I dont see the behemoth sized school systems in Houston doing any better then the localized ones in Corinth, Mississippi.

4) Perhaps then the government needs to commission a "Teaching for Dummys" book since obviously the horrendous amount of requirements to actually be allowed to get in the classroom aren't weeding enough of those "bad" teachers out

5) Theres teacher shortages already

6) Read above, how are you suppost to attract the "best of the best" when teachers make nothing? For example, a 14yr teacher(with a masters) on the pay ladder for HISD(Rod Page's old district) in Houston(which incidentally pays better then the other districts in the city) makes 43,000. Then figure that the government is taking around 10k from that for tax. I won't add in other costs like poor HMO plans that cost more and are offering less and less each year. Thats for someone whos been working the job for 14yrs, think of how little you get paid for starting out!

7) I agree, discipline is lacking in the public school system. Especially when you look at where some of these kids are coming from(ie broken family/drugs/disfunction). These kids attack other children and are out of control. You attempt to remove them from your classroom and those worthless administrators bring them back and throw them in undermining your authority. These kids corrupt other kids left unchecked. Someone in this thread made a suggestion we need to eliminate private schools so the public schools can improve. I won't allow my future children to be put in an environment that will allow bad eggs to ruin them.

 

[Richard III]

To repeat, of course dumbasses are accepted, usually because of family connections or $$$$. But they do not make up the same proportion of the student body, because the schools select them that way. Why bother to test applicants otherwise?

In one class I was in, the school - which prided itself on winning endless numbers of maths contests - had collected the first and second ranked math students in the country. Several of the remainder in the class were in the top 20, as measured by national math competitions, where we routinely were forced to compete grade levels above our real grade to keep up with the geniuses.

Sure, we also had a couple of dumbasses, and in math, I was arguably one of them. But it takes a lot of stupidity to lower the average to the average level in society with even a small number of handpicked students in the mix, so our lowest ranked kids in those contests rarely fell below the "honorable mention category." And it's pretty hard not to learn math more easily in class of 20 where the brightest kids in the country in that subject made up 10% of the class.

It was like this in virtually every class I was in. In debating, our top four included a world champion, a provincial individual champion, and a provincial champion team of two (led by ). So what if we also had one or two who weren't up to snuff as well?

The running rule of thumb was that 70% of any given grad class had to be a superb trophy winner at something. Beleive me, in that sort of environment, even an illiterate dork can stand at the head of a class and produce better students at the end.

R.III

 

[Skullbones]

edit: nevermind

 

[MontyPythonRule]

The argument of banning private schools is a dumb one though.

Since when has that been an obstacle in politics?

How do you make sure that money that would be spent on private schools go to funding public schools.

There wouldn't been any "making sure". If a parent is prepared to spend thousands on their kids education by sending them to a private school why wouldn't they spend at least some of that money of their local public school if their kid went there instead? Even if they didn't spend any money they would surely help out or otherwise be involved in the running of the school. More parent participation in education would only be a good thing.

If i have money why on earth shouldn't i be alllowed to spend it how i want aslong as its done in a legal manner.

Private school would be illegal.

Why must i be forced to be equallized down in education instead of using my resourses to get the best education for my children or myself?

My argument for this very good point is that it would benefit the nation more if every child got a good education rather than most having a poor education and a select few having a very good education. And a more educated nation would benefit everyone living in that nation. People would get higher paying jobs meaning they spent more in the economy and hence the multiplier effect.

Maybe you live in England

I prefer to think of it as God's country.

If they have money, they natually can't have it just laying around collecting dust, so they must use it. They dropped a couple million on a gigantic football stadium.

Yes but if private school parents were involved in the running of the school (as stated above) then the spending of the public schools would surely be better.

There are many well-off people, so they get a good deal in taxes from them for school.

They get a good deal in taxes but whether this means the public schools get a good deal is another matter.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by MontyPythonRule
There wouldn't been any "making sure". If a parent is prepared to spend thousands on their kids education by sending them to a private school why wouldn't they spend at least some of that money of their local public school if their kid went there instead?

Why should they? Because all their options were taken away? And I don't know about other schools, but my parents pay a tuition and aren't forced or obligated to make any donations. Public school taxes for us are roughly the amount of one semester at my school.

Even if they didn't spend any money they would surely help out or otherwise be involved in the running of the school.

Heh. I think you might overestimate people. Just a bit. Just a little bit.

More parent participation in education would only be a good thing.

Now THAT'S something I can definitely agree with you on. However, I don't think you're going to attain the the goal you state below until you get ALL the parents involved in helping their children in school. Not just helping the school itself, but helping the kids. Also, kids don't need more time in school, they need less, not soaking up the values of the school or the other people, but the values of their family.

My argument for this very good point is that it would benefit the nation more if every child got a good education rather than most having a poor education and a select few having a very good education. And a more educated nation would benefit everyone living in that nation. People would get higher paying jobs meaning they spent more in the economy and hence the multiplier effect.

I think it's just going to lower everybody to the lowest common denomenator.

Yes but if private school parents were involved in the running of the school (as stated above) then the spending of the public schools would surely be better.

I can't imagine all the PTA's the world changing government spending habits. Maybe they need a bigger lobby.

They get a good deal in taxes but whether this means the public schools get a good deal is another matter.

If they can't work with the money they have without wasting it, I don't think that is any excuse to give them MORE.

 

[philippe]

come on america take a example at Belgium school from 08-10 to 16-45 with relatively good paid teachers who have to work until they are 58...

 

[allan2]

I've attended both (public high school, and a small Christian high school), and I must say that my experience at the Christian high school was superior, even though I was rebelling against religion itself at the time.

A few observations:

1) The teachers at the public high school. Now a FEW were very good, and dedicated--mostly they were the older teachers, who had some "old school" approaches, and came from a less cynical time. But I found that, for the most part, the teachers in the public school were inclined to follow the path of least resistance--they did what they HAD to (which wasn't a whole lot), and volunteered little if anything more. The teachers at the private school seemed to go more out of their way to help their students--and thus they really seemed in the profession for the RIGHT reasons.

2) Safety. I was bullied in school frequently. However in the private school, there was more discipline against the bullies, and indeed a real effort was made to ensure the safety of students (not just from guns, but fists), so I wasn't harrassed or physically hurt nearly as much in the private school as in the previous public one I attended. (However, my senior year, when my family moved and I reentered a public school in a small town, I was able to "start over" and deter a lot of harassment myself--I'd learned a few things--so it actually decreased. But there was also more discipline in that small-town public school than at the big-city equivalent.) This I think goes back to the "path of least resistance" thing--teachers in public schools often look the other way because they CAN, and it's easier to do so and let the poor kid fend for himself. Too bad this teaches the bullies that they can get things from people via violence, without fear of justice catching up to them--ain't THAT a lesson we should be teaching our kids enroute to adulthood .

3) Academic rigor. I was challenged far more in the private school than in the public one, there wasn't the same peer pressure to not appear "too smart"--indeed the kids there for the most part RESPECTED cleverness and intellect, since they too aspired to more of it. I remember debating politics intensely with my fellow students, even the jocks! (In those debates I was in the minority opinion often, being a liberal then amongst mostly conservatives, but the arguments were friendly enough.) This NEVER happened in public school--there, I was too afraid to come out of my shell, and besides, most people didn't care enough about anything to have a good debate. The class standards were definitely higher, as they were truly a "College Prep" school--their mission was to actually PREPARE people for college, not warehouse them by public mandate until at least age 16. And well over 90% from that school (I forget the exact percentage, but I think it was even the high 90s) DID go on to college.

Now the DISADVANTAGES of the private school I went to were basically that I was from a working-class family (on a scholarship through our church), and most of the kids were upper-middle to upper-class, and at first I DID get a lot of razzing for my plain clothes (there were no uniforms at this school, and sometimes I thought there should've been, for this reason), and had some trouble fitting in. But over time, that too ended as we all got more mature, and people started seeing that I had a lot to offer as a person and potential friend.

The other, being one who at the time was strongly questioning religion, was the religious emphasis--but really, even that wasn't so bad. There was one teacher of religion classes in particular who really pushed the philosophical/theological envelope on the subject, often challenging some of the ASSUMPTIONS people of our church often made within the faith. I learned a lot from him, and indeed in my return to religion of late (through Deism), I've drawn from some of those points he made long ago. Of course, NO philosophy remotely related to religion can even be discussed in public school (well, who knows where the legal line really IS there, and so "the path of least resistance" would dictate caution rather than envelope-pushing in this regard), so such potentially life-enriching discussions are missed there too.

But this is my experience. I WILL say that I will probably send my kids to the same Christian school (even if I'm not practicing myself at that point), if I can. Especially if they turn out to be the type vulnerable to bullying, and especially if their minds need a REAL challenge.

 

[MontyPythonRule]

Heh. I think you might overestimate people. Just a bit. Just a little bit.

I don't overestimate I misunderestimate but having said that I do speak from a little bit of experience. If a parent is prepared to spend thousands to ensure their kid has a good education in a private school why wouldn't they do something similar if their kid was forced to go to a public school?

you get ALL the parents involved in helping their children in school

Impossible.

Also, kids don't need more time in school, they need less, not soaking up the values of the school or the other people, but the values of their family.

I don't know about that, depends on how long the kid spends at school. Although I do agree with the sentiment that children should spend more time with their parents.

I think it's just going to lower everybody to the lowest common denomenator.

Maybe but I think that lowest common denomenator will be raised to a high level. If you know what I mean.

I can't imagine all the PTA's the world changing government spending habits.

I meant the decisions that the school takes on its spending. You said that public schools would spend their money on sports stadiums and I said that if private school parents were involved then it would be more likely that they spent their money on textbooks, computers etc.

If they can't work with the money they have without wasting it

Public schools (at least over here) don't get nearly enough money.

 

[Ethics]

I don't overestimate I misunderestimate but having said that I do speak from a little bit of experience. If a parent is prepared to spend thousands to ensure their kid has a good education in a private school why wouldn't they do something similar if their kid was forced to go to a public school?

I simply can't believe this. I believe you are underestimating the bueracracy in many of school districts, especially the larger ones. Their administrations are wasting ungodly amounts of money, and have the "I can do whatever I want with your kid until 3:30" attitude. I and many others wouldn't be interested in shelling those $1000s of dollars into the administrative offices refurnishing downtown, much less to an entity that can't balance their budge to begin with.

I don't know about that, depends on how long the kid spends at school. Although I do agree with the sentiment that children should spend more time with their parents.

I'll try to give you some examples of what Becka is trying to point out. My brother, A-B student ends up in the "Crypts-Bloods" classroom when he gets to Junior High. These kids introduced him to drugs and he runs into a girl that starts spreading herself eagle style if you know what I mean for him. The school blows my parents off when they tried to get him out of this environment even sicking the cops on my dad at one point. This girl's parent actually encouraged this behavior. What do I see the next year while my brother's life is being ruined, the teacher of this classroom espousing how great she is in getting the Bloods and Crypts to work together on the districts tv channel(more waste of the tax payers money but thats another rant).

I meant the decisions that the school takes on its spending. You said that public schools would spend their money on sports stadiums and I said that if private school parents were involved then it would be more likely that they spent their money on textbooks, computers etc.

I don't have the time to list all the examples, just in my experience, of the school spitting in the parent's faces. These schools aren't taking orders from the parents or PTAs, they're doing what they want. They aren't being held accountable and I don't see the private school parents changing this. One example, my freshman year of highschool we ended up with a new principal. He was nothing more then a politician(you should have seen this fool walking around in the morning). He stripped just about every tradition when the students started criticizing him and began to highly censor the school paper. His entire goal while I was in school was to suck butt enough to get to the Assistant Superintendant position. He instituted policies(such as namebadges) further wasting money. You're probably asking yourself, whats this jaded nut babbling on about these name badges, no? Our school instituted the name badge policy after some non-student came to our school to hang with his friends. Basically the idea was to catch the people not wearing them... not so easy in a school of 3600people where the halls were nothing more then rivers of cramped "sardines." I think I calculated the initial cost of the badges at 15,000 dollars and thats not assuming when a student lost them and all the temporary ones... the point is this policy couldn't be enforced and was ridiculous. It delayed books(my chemistry book took a whole semester before I got it for example... but I had that stupid badge!). It was nothing more then a political manuever for the Principal to get to his future position of power. The police were used when people like me challenged the badges among other things... Fortunately for me, the Superintendant of the district had no clue that these administrators of my school had turned this from an experiment(to see how the students would react) into a "do or "failure to comply" arrest and threats to ruin me).

Public schools (at least over here) don't get nearly enough money.

Well here they just waste it. Or in HISD's case, they can't afford their behemoth of a school district but it dosent stop them from attempting to abuse eminent domain to steal people's homes and land for schools they don't have the money to build.

Maybe now you'll understand me a little better if I tell you that I will kill anyone who tells me my future kids have only the option to goto public school by government decree.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by MontyPythonRule
I don't overestimate I misunderestimate but having said that I do speak from a little bit of experience. If a parent is prepared to spend thousands to ensure their kid has a good education in a private school why wouldn't they do something similar if their kid was forced to go to a public school?

Maybe it's different where you come from, but in my formative years I speant in public school (K-3rd grade), I found out the hard truth that the adminstration couldn't care less about you except for the money that you represent.
Case in point- when I was in 3rd grade, I was in a bad car accident. They wanted me to go to school within days of it happening, whilst I had one or two broken ribs and was extremely car-shy.
The reason I presume this happened is because I was a truant before and had used up my alloted sick days. They even sent out their own police force (first time we found out the school disctrtict had its own police force ) to scare me into coming.

Great idea. Use police officers to scare a THIRD GRADER into coming to school. Then there will be no need to find out what was wrong with your frickin' awful school in the first place to make me dread stepping foot in the building every morning.
When that didn't work (the police apologized and left when we told them the accident is why I wasn't coming to school) they told my parents that as long as I stayed there half the day, then I would be counted as if I was there all day. Obviously all they cared about was checking me off on the attdendence sheet. Their funding depends on how many students come or something.

Impossible.

Let me repharse it then- enough to make a difference.

Maybe but I think that lowest common denomenator will be raised to a high level. If you know what I mean.

Maybe we should just accept the fact that some kids are going to get a crappy education no matter what and leave it at that. The rich will get it by birth and those smart enough will find their way through. The apethetic and lazy will fall through the cracks. Fair? No. But to quote you: " I never said it was fair."

I meant the decisions that the school takes on its spending. You said that public schools would spend their money on sports stadiums and I said that if private school parents were involved then it would be more likely that they spent their money on textbooks, computers etc.

Perhaps, perhaps. But why SHOULD anybody have to settle just because you said so? Maybe we should consolidate all religions into one so that we could have the money the Catholics would've spent on candles going to the Presbyterian night shelter.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by KaeptnOvi
I can't speak for other countries but here people usually hold public schools in higher esteem than the private ones. The common belief is that only rich kids who are too stupid/lazy to do public school go to private schools to "buy" their degree, I can't really tell wether this is true since I never was in a private school but judging by the ones I know who went there it certainly seems at least partially true.

Same for me.

The public school system is the right thing as long as it is ability-oriented. Not all pupils (hah, one of the first words to learn - almost never used) have the same abilities, putting them all together for their whole school career will inevitably disadvantage either the bad ones (they don't get anything because it's too hard) or the good ones (they are terribly bored and can't live up to their potential because it's too easy).

Originally posted by Greadius
There is this strange impression people have that kids actually go to school to get educated.

That's indeed true, and the older people get, the longer their school time is ago, the more they seem to get that impression.

But don't let us forget that there are kids who want to learn in school. If the others don't, that their problem (I was one of them, btw), but it must not mean that nobody learns anything anymore.

 

[MontyPythonRule]

began to highly censor the school paper.

Only in America...

I tell you that I will kill anyone who tells me my future kids have only the option to goto public school by government decree.

Democracy does work.

They wanted me to go to school within days of it happening, whilst I had one or two broken ribs and was extremely car-shy.

I cracked my head open at school (didn't sue) and I was allowed adequate recovery time.

The rich will get it by birth and those smart enough will find their way through. The apethetic and lazy will fall through the cracks. Fair? No

Actually that does sound fair to me. However I, as you said, don't think we should do what is fair when it comes to education. I think we should do what is best.

Not all pupils (hah, one of the first words to learn - almost never used) have the same abilities, putting them all together for their whole school career will inevitably disadvantage either the bad ones

Wouldn't you separate them for classes. So that the bright kids go into the advanced class and the not-so-bright kids go into the you're stupid class. And if over time a student develops quicker then they can be moved in a level. Simple.

 

[Cimbri]

Public School Rulz! I went to a public school in Copenhagen, quite a bully school that fitted me nicely (at the time… I have become a nicer person). We always looked down on anyone attending a private school, but never really knew any, it sort of a traditional class struggle thing. But in Denmark private schools aren’t reserved for anyone, there are all kinds of kids there whose parent’s thinks they deserve a better education than they get in public schools. I don’t care, I came out of public school with adequate grades for someone who spent most of his school time sleeping, puncturing bikes, drinking, making noise or being absent (Yeah I was an annoying little brat, so what).

Cimbri

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by MontyPythonRule

Only in America...

No, not only in America. Oliver Crommwell ring a bell....?

Democracy does work.

How are taking people's options way a democracy?

I cracked my head open at school (didn't sue) and I was allowed adequate recovery time.

Bully for you. My school took me to court.

Actually that does sound fair to me. However I, as you said, don't think we should do what is fair when it comes to education. I think we should do what is best.

Then why not just leave things the way they are?

 

[Janene]

There are always going to be differences between the private school system and the public school system. There have to be some similiarities (like curriculum), but it is the differences that set them apart.

I think the major difference is the willingness of the parent to assist their child. I was very fortunate to have two parents around to help with any homework. I was a terrible Math student (couldn't get fractions for the longest time), but fortunately for me, my Dad was able to sit down and go over and over and over the concept with me until I got it. He did this with me when I was in the public school system, the private school system, and back in the public school system again (high school). My Mom, on the other hand, would help always with English, essays, history and more of the social sciences.

I've noticed that people feel that teachers in the public system are not as willing to help as in the private system. I know of a few teachers in the public system that were more than willing to help, and that was in my high school. I know that for an entire semester, I would visit with my Math teacher before class for him to walk me through some problems that I had had the previous night. He always did. He never brushed me aside, and he always took the time to ensure that I understood what he was talking about. There were others that didn't give a damn, but I would venture to say that the majority of teachers did care, and did want to help. The thing is, the student had to ask for it.

Teachers in Ontario have to have a BA or a BSc. as well as a B.Ed. before they can teach. That means that, depending on how much university they want to attend, the minimium is 4 years and the max could be 5 years or more (if they went for the Honours). They are taught methodology and given some tips etc.

What I find interesting is that I talked to two of my friends who went for the B.Ed and asked them if what they learned was applicable. One was teaching English in Japan. The other was teaching native students in Northern Ontario. Both said that while it was good, they couldn't use fully what they had learned. The ESL teacher said that his students were mostly adults and very advanced, so it was easy. The native students teacher said that the children were not as advanced for the curriculum, and that she had to improvise and modify it so that the kids would not be discouraged or blown away by the info.

IMHO, I found that, having attended both systems, one complimented the other, and the private school system built upon what I had from the public school system and expanded upon it. When I reached high school, I was more prepared.

But I always wanted to go above and beyond, so I don't think that I was hindered in any way.... I was known as the brainiac, the one who worked hard, even in Math class.

The irony? I now use math every day in my calculations for commission payments to insurance agents.

Regards,
Janene

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MontyPythonRule
Wouldn't you separate them for classes. So that the bright kids go into the advanced class and the not-so-bright kids go into the you're stupid class. And if over time a student develops quicker then they can be moved in a level. Simple.

Sure, that was exactly the point I was making. Why didn't you quote the first sentence as well? Everything after it was an explanation why non-seperated classes are wrong.

 

[MontyPythonRule]

No, not only in America. Oliver Crommwell ring a bell....?

Oliver Cromwell ran a school paper?.

My school took me to court.

My school took me to Alton Towers (theme park).

How are taking people's options way a democracy?

What if they vote for those options to be taken away?

Then why not just leave things the way they are?

I said the same thing about allowing women to vote in the 1920s.

Why didn't you quote the first sentence as well?

Lazyness.

Teachers in Ontario have to have a BA or a BSc. as well as a B.Ed. before they can teach. That means that, depending on how much university they want to attend, the minimium is 4 years

I assumed that was the same for practically everywhere.

The irony? I now use math every day in my calculations for commission payments to insurance agents.

I would suggest using a calculator, much quicker.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by MontyPythonRule

Oliver Cromwell ran a school paper?.

No, but his Puratin friends sure did know how to censor.

My school took me to Alton Towers (theme park).

Who needs a paltry theme park when you could tour the wonders of a county judicial system in action?

What if they vote for those options to be taken away?

What if a majority of Americans voted for a woman's right to choose to be taken away?

I said the same thing about allowing women to vote in the 1920s.

And you KNOW all the trouble that stirred up.