I taught in public schools, and it's tougher as far as classroom management is concerned...but many kids want more and are willing to put forth the effort. Sad thing is most of their parents have no motivation, and have set them on a path to failure. I'm not sure many of those kids would benefit from voucher programs.
For those that feel healthcare is a right...at what point in our country's
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
Parents who make the choice of Private education over Public schools answer your assertion that Public schools offer a superior product.
Students who come through Private education answer your charge that Public schools produce students who perform academically at higher levels.
Both are virtually 100% verified by any studies you care to cite.
I simply do not blame the Parents or the students boom. You send your kids to school to learn, and pay a decent price for that. If they're not learning, the problem is inside those classrooms.
Do Parents matter? Yes. But ultimately it comes down to who they hire to educate their kids. That's your job (and other Teachers)
Liberals want to give poor people money for everything besides their education. Somehow they can't handle that on their own?
This is one area where I think blatant racism still exists in society. I've talked to parents who look at the diversity statistics when choosing a school. As I've said all along, I'm good with minorities, I just don't like poor people! Hahaha
Dodge, duck, and weave!
Again, you said that successful public schools are the "exception"........ummm, PROVEN WRONG! Then you come back with the "blah blah" statements saying that the whopping 25% of students attending private schools shows that public schools are not good. What?!?!?! [laughing][laughing][laughing]
And scores at private schools vs. public schools.......that's not my point and never has been. Are the scores higher? Yes. Why? Well.....that's very much debatable. The number of students with IEP's are enormous in public schools vs. private. And the US is one of the few nations that test EVERYONE.
You can think or say what you want, but it's easily understood how the statistics can be skewed. Does private schools offer a great education? Yes. But so do public schools. And it's not the "exception" that you claim......
You are aware those stats are considerably skewed. Private education costs tuition, and parents willing to pay for tuition are more likely to be involved in their children's education. That means these students have parents (and in many cases tutors) helping them hone their academic skills throughout their development. This is a major factor in student success in the classroom.
In addition, private school students usually come from more stable home environments, meaning they are well fed, provided proper emotional support, and more often than not have socially developed considerably well. All are contributing factors to student achievement in the classroom.
Also, the classrooms in private schools are considerably easier to manage. Due to parents being more involved in punishment of students that act out in class, and due to the ability of the school to expel and suspend students with more disgression. This helps the classrooms become easier to control, which always leads to greater academic achievement.
I'm saying boom Government control, rules, restrictions, inflexibility, inefficiency, lack of innovation, competition, and bureaucratic dead weight all contribute to the lack of quality education for the vast majority of students and Teachers trapped in a poorly designed and administered system.
The system isn't designed to fail, but it is designed so poorly it cannot succeed. blaming the Parents excuses the people entrusted to produce the results, and doesn't hold them accountable for their performances.
It's like going to a Supermarket to select your produce, and blaming the customers for poor choices.
Competition is the key. I believe Public schools can work in certain areas provided competition, incentives, and quality results are demanded as part of the paradigm.
I'm not in favor of closing them down, but I am in favor of stimulating better performance out of them through aggressive results oriented competition which usually produces a better product for everyone if they are allowed to fairly compete.
Last edited:
Parents play as big a part as the educators teaching. However, enter the fvcked up beauracracy of the public school system that doesn't allow for differing methods of instruction to accommodate diverse (I don't mean race, I mean more upbringing and experience which impacts information processing and learning styles) classrooms.
Private vs Public, most kids in Private schools were raised a certain way so if you have the outlier who was raised differently, they're in the minority and forced to conform lest they be an outcast. In which case, they fail anyway. In public school, you take kids all of similar upbringing and experience. The outlier might be the kid who moved to the city from the county. Doesn't matter, their all being required to learn a specific way with a specific curriculum unable to be tailored to suit the diversity of upbringing. This was my main opposition to Common Core. I liked the ideas they were trying to incorporate. Critical thinking skills, alternate methods. Everyone flipped out over the math and I was like, uh, that's how I do it my head as well which is why I can fire off math problems without even thinking about it. My wife is over there fumblefvxking with her phone or counting on her fingers.
I'm rambling
OK then fine boom...then reproduce that model with those attributes you mentioned as ingredients for success as the standard models for ALL schools.
Why do we need the Government running them if these are the things that make them run better?
What's preventing what you mention here in this post as being the standard for all of our schools?
We have the money, we're just wasting it on things that don't add to the overall quality of the product...educating kids.
The students I had the most trouble with were from homes in which parents didn't get along, or single parent homes in which the kids were practically left to fend for themselves. Usually an anger towards authority was brought into the classroom. Disruption and a desire to literally destroy the teacher's ability to even present the material is something that has wasted lots of time for me. It takes a while to cultivate a relationship with these students to end the issues. I discovered harsh punishment didn't help, like whiskey on a fire. Humor and trying to connect individually were the most effective remedies....indicating it was an emotional - social problem. Parent-teacher conferences often confirmed the suspicion.
Well said. About 9 weeks in, I begin to specifically tailor my lesson plans for specific students in the classroom, once I've learned their learning styles and likes. I seek to bring each student into the lesson individually, by appealing to things they consider important or stimulating. Sometimes (often) it's a sport or a different subject (some are connected more to literature or sciences), pop culture helps....point is, I've had problems with this approach in the standardized testing - common core approach.
So this is where Atl is right, and you are as well. But the fix, imo, isn't going private....it's giving administrators and teachers more autonomy--- and easing the test happy evaluation process.
I think the key in Private schools is expectations.
Expectations drive the results. Failure is not excused or accepted. All other factors involved, this is the bottom line where they excel over Public schools.
In Government run schools the objective is maintaining the jobs, and expanding their numbers. Educational excellence is a secondary objective because excellence in results is not what drives the decision making.
That is dictated by what makes things easiest to expand the jobs, and protect them. This is the rule with most Government activity.
The jobs become the most important element in what they do.
This must be changed and tied to performance results as they are in Private schools. If those teachers (in private schools) don't produce, they are fired.
If the schools don't succeed, they lose money. It is the exact opposite in Government run schools because they have no competitive pressure or incentives to produce or maintain excellent results.
They (teachers and administrators) get paid no matter how poorly they do, so their incentive to work harder is reduced if not diminished.
Last edited:
The things you mentioned here boom about the home upbringing is where we usually get into heated arguments about morality and responsibility and ethics with two Parent households etc.
I agree all of these things are important in terms of rounding out the environment students both come from and learn in, but how can Government offer the type of personal responsibility needed to foster and nurture the successful home environment you suggest is critical to the overall success of those students?
I'm arguing it can't.
But a standard of morality, decency, fidelity, respect, honor and personal responsibility can. Where do those attributes come from? You argue they are self made, and perhaps in some cases that is true. Usually however, they are taught and developed and appreciated through a loving and lasting relationship with principles found under a Godly prescription and formula which is the standard from which those qualities are derived, honed, nurtured and ultimately fully deployed.
Last edited:
Metrics and analytics are the only tool people have to push back against the teachers unions.
Everyone has a right to healthcare. It is there ripe for the picking to all regardless of race, creed, color or religion. There is a catch though -- having the right means nothing if you don't have the money to pay for it.
Last edited:
I'm not avoiding your claims about Public education. I'm refuting them.
https://www.cato.org/publications/c...public-schools-why-private-schools-are-better
And this from a Public school teacher.....
https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...l-teacher-but-a-private-school-parent/386797/
I thought the same thing about Common Core ... and even before common core when my son was in grade school they taught division the way we all learned it, but then taught it another way too. Like you with common core, that other way was basically formalizing the way I always did stuff like that in my head ... although I don't know that I'd have been able to articulate it in the way they taught it.
I'm not opposed to the vouchers as a general idea. But I think about potential 2nd and 3rd order effects. I'm not saying that these things would happen, but try to follow along.
First, rural areas ... if they don't even have private schools in the nearby area, how do kids there benefit from vouchers? If the closest private school is 1/2 hour away, are we going to fund the bussing to those schools too? So, does this become a benefit that only those in urban communities can benefit from?
Then if that's the case ... what happens with funding? If a kid leaves public school A to go to private school, where does the money for that voucher come from? Is it subtracted from the funding from that public school?
Is this going to be available for everybody that wants to go to private school? If so, are there standards that those private/charter schools have to meet? Are there standards that the kids attending those private schools on the vouchers have to meet?
What if there simply aren't enough private schools for everybody that wants on the voucher program? How do you choose who goes?
If the overall funding gets subtracted from public schools to pay for all of the vouchers, what happens with the schools in rural areas that don't have the option for the private schools? It seems they would get worse and worse because the funding would get sucked away from them without the option of any benefit for the kids/families that wanted it.
As more and more kids go to private schools ... it seems as though there will be a natural matriculation of scrutiny of standards that they'd have to meet ... and if that happens, at what point do they really cease to be private in the first place?
Maybe there is a great plan to address all of those issues ... but there are any number of other 2nd and 3rd order effects that I'm not even thinking of as possibilities.
These are the kinds of issues I originally was mentioning ... in general you aren't going to have much of this in private schools, which in itself allows for more instructional time and less "discipline" time for lack of a better word. The time you spent having to deal with those kids is time that was taken away from the kids that were there to learn. Time that isn't as much of an issue in private schools.
I went to public schools, my mom taught in public schools ... so I'm not bashing public schools. This is one inherent advantage to private schools though.
All legitimate and probable issues that would arise. But once they did actually arise, the problem would be too large to remedy quickly.
To me ... I honestly don't see how this is that much different than Bernie wanting free tuition for public colleges ... unless the money from the vouchers is sucked from the public schools, in which case the kids with no private school option lose out big time with no benefit from the program. Vouchers for private school K-12 is good, but "vouchers" for public universities is a socialism evil that can't be tolerated?
What am I missing?
It is substantially. Also, when tuition is paid, it spurs most parents paying the cost to give extra attention to the students progress.
However, a major drawback for private schools is the lack of social diversity. No, not just race, but socioeconomic status. Vouchers would help to aliviate that issue, but it would still persist.
I do feel there is a certain advantage to having to deal with all types of people growing up. You'll have to learn to deal with all types when you're an adult, so you may as well learn early that some people are just ********.
A cheap labor force. IMO, many that see a free college tuition program as a social evil believe it dilutes the pool of domestic labor in the US. Although that might be a reach.
I think for many it also resembles European socialism standards, and simply raises a fear that the US would fall victim to the same problems some European nations are facing economically.
But the two main reasons, imo, are the practical: tuition costs would increase to levels that would make paying for the program problematic. --- or the quality of education would fall, as tuition ceilings were put in place to prevent rising costs.
And the impractical: it would signify a move into a socialist form of government, and would be a mechanism for "leftist" economic redistribution that would endanger the essence of America.
Truth to that statement. I did a term paper during my Masters on how prep schools have become a type of power building incubator. Students from elite families make friendships and connections that serve purposes in later life. Most of these students move onto elite Univeristies, then onto key positions in business and politics. The friendships and connections formed throughout their schooling provide avenues for deal making and "insider" politics to be common place.I do feel there is a certain advantage to having to deal with all types of people growing up. You'll have to learn to deal with all types when you're an adult, so you may as well learn early that some people are just ********.
In addition, these students begin to form a type of "fraternity" where they begin to feel (with substantial social reinforcement) that they are a part of a "chosen" group. They are special and therefore warrant special privileges that average Americans do not receive. A kind of "financial royalty" of capitalist society.
All great questions, and I appreciate the respectful nature in which they were asked. It's OK to disagree, but there is no need to nasty about it.
All great questions, and I appreciate the respectful nature in which they were asked. It's OK to disagree, but there is no need to be nasty about it.
Respectfully I don't think you've understood the concept behind vouchers in education funding or its effects in breaking up the Government controlled monopoly over it (it's designed purpose)
Vouchers simply reorient the way eduation dollars are allocated in our education system. Instead of a heavy top down bureaucracy spreading the money around, the dollars would go directly to Parents to choose those institutions doing the best job meeting their specific education demands for their Children.
This is how Private schools operate. There is no central planning in their models, and the programs of the varied institutions and the education products they offer are driven by the dollars Parents seeking those services demand. For as many Parents as there are seeking quality services, the schools meeting those preferences grow according to that market demand.
That model would be no different in rural or urban areas. In fact, the dynamic of competition for those education dollars would neccessitate the development of even more schools to meet incrased market demand, similar to how hi-speed internet services have been rolled out in those areas to meet increased market demand.
Standards would not be uniform, but would be high enough to attract dollars. No Parent will choose to send their kids to substandard schools, nor fund them. This dynamic ironically currenty does not happen in the poorly run Government schools. They remain open and acquire increased or sustained funding regardless of the quality of the education products they deliver. In many rural areas, there are no quality alternatives and the dollars have no where else to flow.
The entire concept of competition would radically alter the education landscape. In much the same way the arms race in College football improved athletic facilities for most major D1 institutions competing for student-athletes, the same dynamic would revolutionize education services for Parent's seeking quality schools for their kids.
Not all Colleges may be not be able to match Ohio State, Alabama, or Clemson in the posh esthetic attributes of their particular facilities. However that is not to suggest that improvements at places like Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia due to the competitive pressures for them to maintain an ability to attract student athletes has resulted in overall poor quality facilities for most institutions and fabulous facilities for only a few. In fact it is the exact opposite. WVU has very nice facilities, and we are not alone.
WVU's facilities don't have to match Michigan's, but what we ended up with as a result of the competition from them are better assets than we had before introduction of that competition.
I envision much the same dynamic as a result of vouchers driving the innovation, diversity, and overall quality of the schools that will develop from Parents and Teachers driving the education choices avaialble for their children.
Again, the objective is to remove the heavy hand of Government bureaucracy and it's "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to administration of Education. The dollars released as a result of breaking up the monopoly of funding from large central bureaucracies will in fact provide more funding, foster more diversity, require more innovation, create even more customized streamlined curriculums, and greater sensitivity to the specific needs of the Parents who desire excellence in their children's education above the preservation of the administrators or Teachers' salaried positions.
If Public schools can compete, they too will find increased funding in the form of Parent's armed with additional dollars to purchase their services. They will also be free from cumbersome bureaucracies to innovate and compete to meet those Parent's demands. If they cannot, they will be replaced by alternative schools. The point is, the same dollars will be used but through different funding mechanisms...namely the Parents.
We do not need a Deaprtment of Education. No Private schools currently in operation depend on such an arrangement to produce a superior education product responsive to the needs of the Parents.
We need to duplicate their business models in all of our schools, included the Public schools.
Last edited:
These types of arrangments are common in society. It happens in Colleges, and in business cubicles. The objective is not to prevent people of common likes from assembling, it is to develop excllence as the standard for our educational processes.
Private schools will be as diverse as their populations demand, or as homogenized as their students bodies assemble. The pre-requisite driving their populations will be quality either in diversity or common cultures. There is no danger in how people choose to congregate, as long as their focus is on respect in their behavior, attitudes, and interactions with others.
A form of "socialism" currently exists in many public funding models in higher education. Loans and grants are given to students with very limited ability to repay and the ease of acquiring that money not based on their financial ability to repay simply drives prices up for education far beyond what they would be if the costs were driven by student's actual ability to pay.
Tenure, and research grants also contribute to cost escalations, and these too are fueled in large part by Government redistributed dollars. The key to bringing education costs down is to remove massive Government intervention from the equation. Tuition can be market based, instead of funding based. Consumers should make their choices of education costs instead of bureaucrats.
Colleges educations would be more available and more affordable for a larger majority of students if these cost escalators were removed.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs
Last edited: