Wealthy public school advocates have a tendency to send their kids to private schools

[Codewiz]

That's not the issue. The issue is would you preclude other people from putting their children in the best possible school and then put your own in the best possible school.

This is what Obama did in DC as one of his first tasks. A big thank-you to the teachers union. He denied poor children in DC the opportunity to remain at the charter schools they had been attending and then put his own little darlings into private school.

What is the name for this kind of "leadership". I'll give you a hint, it's not been seen here in America before.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-vouchers-and-hypocritical-just-like-congress

Did you read the thread title? Sending kids to PRIVATE schools. Charter and Magnet schools are not private school......they are public school.

Again, Obama doesn't believe Charter schools are the right approach. Charter schools are about raising the quality of schools for the select few that go to them. Not about raising the quality of ALL schools. It is leaving behind a vast majority of students in shitty public schools.

And why do you think those schools are soo much better than public schools? If you answer "money" than you answered poorly since we spend more per student than any other country on the planet.

Of course not all private schools are better than public. Heck, in my area, there are only two secular coed private schools. The rest of the private schools are religious nutjob schools.

I judged my son's private school by looking at their results. Talking to the teachers, and finding out their overall strategy for teaching. *Hint, it isn't about passing tests* It is about problem solving skills and understanding the subject matter.

 

[Matt1970]

I judged my son's private school by looking at their results. Talking to the teachers, and finding out their overall strategy for teaching. *Hint, it isn't about passing tests* It is about problem solving skills and understanding the subject matter.

And how do you determine someone's problem solving skill level and if they are understanding the subject matter without tests?

 

[Codewiz]

And how do you determine someone's problem solving skill level and if they are understanding the subject matter without tests?

There is a huge difference between teaching the material that is on the test and teaching the skills needed to pass a test.

Seriously, go look into the Finland school system's approach. It has been proven to work as they have one of the best systems in the world and it is almost entirely public.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

 

[Matt1970]

There is a huge difference between teaching the material that is on the test and teaching the skills needed to pass a test.

Seriously, go look into the Finland school system's approach. It has been proven to work as they have one of the best systems in the world and it is almost entirely public.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

So you don't like tests, but it was a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues that revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. After 30 years of thier major transformations they were clueless of their results untill a test result showed their progress.

The transformation of the Finns’ education system began some 40 years ago as the key propellent of the country’s economic recovery plan. Educators had little idea it was so successful until 2000, when the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide. “I’m still surprised,” said Arjariita Heikkinen, principal of a Helsinki comprehensive school. “I didn’t realize we were that good.”

Sounds more like dumb luck that anything else.

 

[Codewiz]

So you don't like tests, but it was a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues that revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. After 30 years of thier major transformations they were clueless of their results untill a test result showed their progress.



Sounds more like dumb luck that anything else.

What you seem to missing is that our method of using testing, testing, and more testing does NOTHING to improve outcomes.

Having teachers worry about making sure their class pass tests every year or risk your school losing funding, does the EXACT opposite of what you want. What happens is that teachers drive toward teaching what is on the test. Focus on how to take tests and does nothing to improve problem solving skills.

I am just dumbfounded by your inability to understand that teaching to the test does NOTHING to prepare children except to try to prepare them to take that test.

You can say whatever you want about it being luck but it has been shown to work, year after year. Proof is in the pudding but you can keep sticking your head in the sand.

 

[bozack]

My wife and I both went to private schools from pre k through high school (neither of us went to "secular nut-job schools") and we both agree that it isn't what we want for our child as neither of us felt like we benefitted in any way from it, especially not professionally, if anything it was more of a social hindrance.

Personally if you have the money to truly take advantage of all that private schooling has to offer and can sustain a lifestyle in accordance with others that attend and can also assist your children beyond school through networking connections and what not it is absolutely worth it.

But for those who have to sacrifice to send their kids to private school, or who can just about afford it I feel it might be a waste unless your public schools are an absolute disaster which thankfully ours are not...if your kid is an academic superstar or has real drive then it might be worth it, but then again those types excel in any environment.

Seeing how much my child loves school now, and thinking back to how much I hated every second of it makes me wonder what I missed and both happy for the excitement and sad that I missed out on that.

 

[waggy]

It is EXTREMELY simple. All parents want to provide the best for their children. If there is a private school that provides a better overall education AND you can afford it, you are being a good parent by sending your child to the best school you can.

I fully support public schools but I see what "No Child Left Behind" has done to the school system. Our public schools are about passing tests, not learning.

Therefore, while I want public schools to improve and I think Finland has shown how to make them successful. The USA however continues to put its head in the sand.

So yes, I send my son to a private school because I want to give him the best opportunities possible. That is what every good parent should strive for.

i agree.

the US looks for New ways to teach. they come up with insane and confusing ways to teach math. then find out after making kids do it for years that way does not work.

now they have common core.


It's getting to the point even I have been thinking of private schooling and my kids school has been good (up until recently. now a new super and shitty books/style of teaching)/

 

[Anarchist420]

And how do you determine someone's problem solving skill level and if they are understanding the subject matter without tests?

An IQ test.

Grades often don't tell how smart someone is. I was the dumbest kid in the class in High school, but my grades were better than the majority of my class.

Back to the first sentence of this post... I personally think that public schooling, as it is now, "around the curriculum" should generally not be done anymore because people with high IQs don't need public schooling and people with low IQs often don't care to learn and even if they did they couldn't do much with what they were taught. So a practical solution would be to have public schools (but run at the State and/or local level with abolition of the U.S. Dept. of Ed) in which you learn a trade and getting rid of public high schools is a good start. But then even that's not personalized enough, so fuck organized education altogether as we have the internet and school doesn't really teach people how to read anyway.

I mean, there is nothing that my niece is going to gain other than maybe a few friends from going to a public school.

 

[Codewiz]

An IQ test.

Grades often don't tell how smart someone is. I was the dumbest kid in the class in High school, but my grades were better than the majority of my class.

Back to the first sentence of this post... I personally think that public schooling, as it is now, "around the curriculum" should generally not be done anymore because people with high IQs don't need public schooling and people with low IQs often don't care to learn and even if they did they couldn't do much with what they were taught. So a practical solution would be to have public schools (but run at the State and/or local level with abolition of the U.S. Dept. of Ed) in which you learn a trade and getting rid of public high schools is a good start. But then even that's not personalized enough, so fuck organized education altogether as we have the internet and school doesn't really teach people how to read anyway.

I mean, there is nothing that my niece is going to gain other than maybe a few friends from going to a public school.

An IQ test means jack shit. Contributing to society has NOTHING to do with IQ. Have you looked at what Finland has done? The gap between their lowest achieving student and highest achieving is the smallest in the world.

Kids with lower IQ can more than make up for that by working hard and learning via different methods. The problem is that in the US, we want to teach everyone the exact same way. Not everyone learns in the same way.

Look at how many "genius" level IQ people never contributed anything to society.

 

[Exterous]

In my experience people at private/religious schools aren't there for the religion. When I was student I was expelled from every single public school in my county. I had to go to a private school run by Baptists. I wasn't a Baptist and neither were any of the other kids, excepting the few who were children of teachers (the teachers were required to be members of the church, so I assume their kids went too).

I like the idea of vouchers and think them a damn good idea for the county/city school under certain circumstances. If you've got a bit of an overcrowding problem it's a whole heck of a lot less expensive to let a few go to private school on a voucher than build a new school or shuttle them off to trailers. When the population grows sufficiently high enough then you build your new school.

Fern

How to you avoid the Establishment Clause when you are using state and federal funding to provide education at religious schools? And certainly many place a very heavy focus on religion as they include religion classes, prayer and numerous religious paraphernalia. If a simple picture of Jesus is enough to warrant a $95k settlement at a school that receives public funding how do you think prayers, crosses and the like will go over?

Also - IMO one of the biggest reasons private schools are effective are the parents. The parents care enough and are spending money on the kids. If the kids fuck up the parents will almost certainly fix the problem. You don't get that in public schools. In many the parents don't even care if the kids shows up for class. Giving that kid a voucher to go to a private school isn't going to magically make that kid a good student.

 

[Codewiz]

Also - I can't seem to find the article anymore but, as most private schools can't pay as well and the benefits are typically worse than public, the teachers actually tend to be worse than in well run public schools.

Depends on the school. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, in my area there are probably 20 private schools. All but 3 total are religious schools. And yes, I would say that most of those religious schools have worse quality teachers when compared to most public schools.

However, where my son goes, I would say that most of the teachers are more qualified than public schools. I am not sure about their pay but given the cost of the school, I wouldn't be shocked.

Additionally, due to having high quality students, life is much easier for the teachers at my son's school.

I mean hell, my son (4 years old) had to pass an admissions exam to get accepted. The exam was simple and any parent who reads to their child and doesn't let the kid veg on TV all day could pass but I am certain that many people do let their children watch tv all day.

So my argument is that on average, public schools likely do have more qualified teachers than private schools. But I believe in my area, it is likely due to religious schools being so prevalent.

EDIT: just found my son's schools has the most number of teachers with a masters degree in the state.

 

[Exterous]

Additionally, due to having high quality students, life is much easier for the teachers at my son's school.

My wife went form one of the worst schools in the Metro Detroit Area to a private school. Night and day doesn't even come close to describing the difference

So my argument is that on average, public schools likely do have more qualified teachers than private schools. But I believe in my area, it is likely due to religious schools being so prevalent.

Its not just your area. There is only one school that I know of that is private that pays more in the area but their retirement is worse. All the others pay less than similarly performing public schools (And we looked at a lot of them)

 

[Anarchist420]

An IQ test means jack shit. Contributing to society has NOTHING to do with IQ. Have you looked at what Finland has done? The gap between their lowest achieving student and highest achieving is the smallest in the world. Kids with lower IQ can more than make up for that by working hard and learning via different methods. The problem is that in the US, we want to teach everyone the exact same way. Not everyone learns in the same way. Look at how many "genius" level IQ people never contributed anything to society.

Well, I can't and won't contribute anything to society, so that should tell you something.

IQ measures potential, and potential is very limited with low IQ. All in all, high IQ people contribute much, much more to society than low IQ people do.

OTOH, you're right about work ethic not having anything to do with IQ.

And I agree that not everyone should be taught the same way, but the question is... how do we personalize without getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education?

 

[Codewiz]

Well, I can't and won't contribute anything to society, so that should tell you something.

IQ measures potential, and potential is very limited with low IQ. All in all, high IQ people contribute much, much more to society than low IQ people do.

OTOH, you're right about work ethic not having anything to do with IQ.

And I agree that not everyone should be taught the same way, but the question is... how do we personalize without getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education?

Starting to feel like a broken record here. Have you read anything about Finland and their horrible socialist country's education system?