Peace
- Thread starter Brin22
- Start date
In little over ten years, we went from 5 all girl high schools in the southland to 1. Which all boys school is next? Leo, MC and SR all have a huge alumnae base with deep pockets. The archdiocese has denied Leo's exploratory idea of building a new campus in the southwest suburbs. Less than 200 left in the entire school, my money is on them.
STL has increased enrollment the last few years and with a potential switch to co-ed, I can't see them closing.
However, fellow Crusaders involved with the Board of Trustees have told me, we could close in the next 15 years if we don't make certain changes in key positions. Seems like an on going power struggle has not played out as of yet. With over 800 hundred students at Rice and several fund raising programs in place, I can't see it happening that soon.
STL has increased enrollment the last few years and with a potential switch to co-ed, I can't see them closing.
However, fellow Crusaders involved with the Board of Trustees have told me, we could close in the next 15 years if we don't make certain changes in key positions. Seems like an on going power struggle has not played out as of yet. With over 800 hundred students at Rice and several fund raising programs in place, I can't see it happening that soon.
What's going on with Hales? The story was that they were temporarily closing for this year to reorganize and reopen for the 2017-18 school year. Are they still on target for that? Did they have a test day earlier this month for an incoming freshman class?
Depends on the amounts per child and whether their are minimum standards for continuing to receive the assistance re proficiency levels and disciplinary record as a student ages into upper grades. It might prop up some struggling schools and resuscitate recently closed ones - or the potential students may get swayed into enrolling into shadier operations i.e. a school with a given pricetag but goes minimal on equipment, teacher pay to feed its main administrator (not that doesnt happen at many public schools and districts..but.
I
I would be shocked if Rice is anywhere close to closing in the next 15 years. But if the trend of the last 15 years with enrollment continues no doubt there will be a few that are no longer standing. Even McAuley being the last all girls school remaining has numbers that are way down. They used to be pushing 2,000 students in their heyday, now they are hovering a little over 1,000. I don't foresee MC, SR or BR going anywhere over the next 15 years but the rest of them I would say there is a good chance they may not be around. Marist going co-ed when they did was probably the best decision they ever made because they would potentially be in that danger zone in the near future as well.
I would be shocked if Rice is anywhere close to closing in the next 15 years. But if the trend of the last 15 years with enrollment continues no doubt there will be a few that are no longer standing. Even McAuley being the last all girls school remaining has numbers that are way down. They used to be pushing 2,000 students in their heyday, now they are hovering a little over 1,000. I don't foresee MC, SR or BR going anywhere over the next 15 years but the rest of them I would say there is a good chance they may not be around. Marist going co-ed when they did was probably the best decision they ever made because they would potentially be in that danger zone in the near future as well.
I am in favor of vouchers as long as they come with no additional strings attached related to the minimum that a private school must do to remain certified by the state.
If made available, I don't see any downside for Catholic schools. If vouchers had been in place, I think you wouldn't see Catholic high schools like Seton, Queen of Peace, St. Gregory, Driscoll, etc. closing their doors.
Only works if you can ignore federal rules and can still toss kids out for behavior. Test scores would definitely drop.
Parents paying tuition have a vested interest in the school. Once you introduce vouchers, that might not be the case. For example, if the government is giving a major subsidy to your kid, are you as likely to volunteer for all that fundraising? Then, too, the feds and the state aren't going to give out vouchers without multiple conditions ... likely on admissions, retention, curriculum, even lunch.
Personally, I am opposed to vouchers for these and other reasons, most importantly that they undermine public education. In keeping with Edgy's very recent comments on political remarks, I will leave it at that.
Personally, I am opposed to vouchers for these and other reasons, most importantly that they undermine public education. In keeping with Edgy's very recent comments on political remarks, I will leave it at that.
When I was in HS and riding a CTA bus to school one morning, I heard these girls from another nearby CPS school brag that they won some grant or scholarship to attend a Catholic HS and that they cashed the check...but of course they never enrolled.
silly me....I thought this thread was going to be a request to end all political commentary on this site.
While I'm sure you heard the conversation, I doubt very much that anyone connected with the archdiocese sent money directly to a student or her parents. Any funds would be in the form of a grant to the school she would've attended. Lots of people, especially non-Catholics, have all sorts of misconceptions about the church.
Last edited:
i try and stay a-political aboard edgy, but it seems to me vouchers are a tool to help kids.
it's not a one sided affair for me either. I love when public schools get money and improve as well.
DC has recently been a fantastic example of how school vouchers can work. Meanwhile, the public schools in DC, while still struggling (a hard battle to turn around), have received major and awesome infrastructure upgrades that make the community at least feel proud about seeing the schools. It's a start.
Not sure how anyone can be against vouchers or against public funding of schools. These are not the problem. It's corrupt individuals that use them incompetently that is the problem.
If you are against vouchers, and you are in the middle class, I have a challenge for you. Take your family of 4, wife, husband, partners, whatever; move to Washington, DC because your job transferred here, and choose sending your kid who used to go to LWE etc...and go to a DC public school. Trust me, the private schools here are no choice for you, they cost 20k a year....now tell me vouchers are not a good thing.
it's not a one sided affair for me either. I love when public schools get money and improve as well.
DC has recently been a fantastic example of how school vouchers can work. Meanwhile, the public schools in DC, while still struggling (a hard battle to turn around), have received major and awesome infrastructure upgrades that make the community at least feel proud about seeing the schools. It's a start.
Not sure how anyone can be against vouchers or against public funding of schools. These are not the problem. It's corrupt individuals that use them incompetently that is the problem.
If you are against vouchers, and you are in the middle class, I have a challenge for you. Take your family of 4, wife, husband, partners, whatever; move to Washington, DC because your job transferred here, and choose sending your kid who used to go to LWE etc...and go to a DC public school. Trust me, the private schools here are no choice for you, they cost 20k a year....now tell me vouchers are not a good thing.
I don't want to get into any kind of contest with you, but the GI Bill, Pell Grants and federally backed student loans do not undermine our system of local public schools. Vouchers suck critical dollars from our local educational systems. Furthermore, they promote, in many cases, a particular religion or culture. Even in this age, there are private schools that ignore evolution. I'm not interested in paying to share someone's else's religious views and I don't think they should have to pay for mine.If you support private education, which I do, then pay for it yourself, which I did.
I hope this post isn't considered "political." That wasn't my intent. Vouchers can affect where boys go to play football.
Last edited:
I think a voucher system would cause the catholic schools tuition to rise and then allow them to pay faculty properly and upgrade facilities accordingly.
Rita can change $18K - parent gets voucher for say $8K and family pays another $10K then you should see educational increases where your money really matters.
Rita can change $18K - parent gets voucher for say $8K and family pays another $10K then you should see educational increases where your money really matters.
Isn't that kinda like raising the retail price of an item - say a car for example from 29k to 39k and then offer a HUGE SALE of 10 Grand off using this voucher 39 down to 29 save 10K!! Hurry in " quantities limited to on hand stock only"
Pps. Also just as with retail items - there would be competition from other retailers (or in this case - private schools). If a couple schools are priced significantly outside "the normal range" people will shy away from that offerIng unless it brings significant value and differentiation.
Last edited:
Your objections to school choice reveal a staggering ignorance on the matter.
The funds are for public education, not public schools. Somewhere along the line, we've been sold this perverted idea that only public schools can serve as schools. Since our country's founding, private organizations have done excellent work at educating youth. There are many areas in the states that provide a student with a choice of where to attend school, and the funds are allotted accordingly. School choice merely seeks to allow this practice to extend more broadly - and in particular, areas where schools have proven to be failing.
Everyone on this board understands the reality of improving a child's opportunities by relocating to a particular school. So why is it that we would think it's an acceptable practice to deny a child the access to a decent education, merely because of the location of his residence?
Defending the status quo on this is not acceptable, particularly from those same individuals who have benefited from the same process.
How could you take for yourself what you would deny a child?
The funds are for public education, not public schools. Somewhere along the line, we've been sold this perverted idea that only public schools can serve as schools. Since our country's founding, private organizations have done excellent work at educating youth. There are many areas in the states that provide a student with a choice of where to attend school, and the funds are allotted accordingly. School choice merely seeks to allow this practice to extend more broadly - and in particular, areas where schools have proven to be failing.
Everyone on this board understands the reality of improving a child's opportunities by relocating to a particular school. So why is it that we would think it's an acceptable practice to deny a child the access to a decent education, merely because of the location of his residence?
Defending the status quo on this is not acceptable, particularly from those same individuals who have benefited from the same process.
How could you take for yourself what you would deny a child?
You are so full of yourself. Congratulations. You're close to being number one on this board.
I personally have not benefited from public education. I have not gone to public school at any level, nor do I have any dependents who did either. Yet, I've been paying school taxes since 1963.
I don't want any of my money going to private schools. I don't wish to promote anyone's religion, mine included, with my tax dollars. Nor am I willing to fund intolerance and bigotry, either. Public schools need more funding - not less. If I go any further, here, it will get political, and I've been warned to avoid that. I believe the warning extended to you, as well.
Not sure if this post is a general reply to various other posts or to mine - but I do not object at all.
My post was questioning the viability of private schools raising their prices if/when vouchers come into play. I am pointing out there will still be competition for those voucher dollars so I am doubting the ability of most privates to raise their tuition by 6K to 10k and have "the vouchers" cover the price increase as was theorized by another poster.
Ok sorry Gents - I got my answer. I will step aside. But regardless - I don't see private schools significantly raising their annual tuition in the world of vouchers if/when they become widespread.
No Pell Grants? No government-backed student loans? No GI Bill?
Or just nothing for poor kids from the hood trying to better themselves?
I thought you understood that I was talking about local grammar and high schools. That was the gist of my earlier comments.
As I said a few posts ago "the GI Bill, Pell Grants and federally backed student loans do not undermine our system of local public schools. Vouchers suck critical dollars from our local educational systems."
Public education is our public school system.
No, I understood you quite clearly. I also pointed out your hypocrisy quite clearly as well: money for failing school systems, not a penny for the kids who want to escape them. Got it.
I disagree with you, but I'm not wasting any more time going back and forth with you.
I never said they were. Perhaps I should have used an Oxford comma after the word Grants in both posts. Perhaps I thought that most readers would know that a grant is not a loan, so i didn't take that extra punctuation step that now looms so ominously.
Perhaps you might have something better to do?