Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Education - Public vs PrivateFollow

#27 Feb 09 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Even with the best schools and teachers, if the parent is disengaged, the probability of the kid actually applying themselves is a lot lower.


Exactly. We're not ******** over the kids. Their parents are doing that. Schools spend a huge amount of time and resources on those screwed over kids and see very very little improvement. I just think that the idea that we should hold back education resources for the kids who aren't screwed over because those things aren't likely to help the screwed over kids is pretty darn silly.

I mean, isn't that the argument here? That the engaged parents with the kids who pass entrance exams or whatever, will be able to send their kids to better schools, while rest will be "stuck" in the crappy public schools. And that's bad? So the better solution is to trap the kids who could do very well if only they weren't stuck in those same schools. All in the name of ensuring that those school receive more money?

Isn't that backwards? I think so.

Quote:
That's not an argument to stop funding education though. I don't really have a good solution for people who aren't good parents.


That's the point. There isn't a good solution for that. So let's not hold up funding education for those who will benefit from it because not everyone will take advantage of it to the same degree.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Feb 09 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Even with the best schools and teachers, if the parent is disengaged, the probability of the kid actually applying themselves is a lot lower.


Exactly. We're not ******** over the kids. Their parents are doing that. Schools spend a huge amount of time and resources on those screwed over kids and see very very little improvement. I just think that the idea that we should hold back education resources for the kids who aren't screwed over because those things aren't likely to help the screwed over kids is pretty darn silly.

I mean, isn't that the argument here? That the engaged parents with the kids who pass entrance exams or whatever, will be able to send their kids to better schools, while rest will be "stuck" in the crappy public schools. And that's bad? So the better solution is to trap the kids who could do very well if only they weren't stuck in those same schools. All in the name of ensuring that those school receive more money?

Isn't that backwards? I think so.

No. The point is to have public schools good enough for everyone, and let those that wish to push for a little more or who can afford it send their child to private schools.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 3:25pm by LeWoVoc
#29 Feb 09 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
gbaji - Can you honestly tell me that the glaring flaws of a completely private school system would be better than a public school system which accounted for the varying potentials of different children?


You're going to need to frame that question better. How do you define a "completely private school system"? And can you list off the glaring flaws that it would have? Because it's quite probable that we aren't going to agree on those, so it's somewhat meaningless for us to argue which is better.

Quote:
The answer to a problem is not to introduce a system which not only does not fix much of anything, but introduces problems of its own.


We'd need to determine that first though. And then compare lists. If you define a completely private school system and provide your list of glaring flaws. I will gladly provide a counter point, including my own list of the flaws of our current public school system.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Feb 09 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I mean, isn't that the argument here? That the engaged parents with the kids who pass entrance exams or whatever, will be able to send their kids to better schools, while rest will be "stuck" in the crappy public schools. And that's bad? So the better solution is to trap the kids who could do very well if only they weren't stuck in those same schools. All in the name of ensuring that those school receive more money?

Isn't that backwards? I think so.
There shouldn't be crappy schools. The schools that are crappy need to be improved. The idea that there are better schools and that some schools won't give as good an education is the problem. You should set up every school so that the motivated kids that go there get a good education. If a school won't give a good education to a motivated kid, then it is failing.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#31 Feb 09 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
So the children don't deserve a quality chance at all, because the chance that they'll have the wisdom to take advantage of it is low?

You're a terrifying human being.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#32 Feb 09 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
No. The point is to have public schools good enough for everyone, and let those that wish to push for a little more or who can afford it send their child to private schools.


And what do you do when a school has 50% or more of its students who are uninterested in learning (regardless of reason), many of whom are in gangs, dealing/using drugs, and will skip class without thinking about it. What do you do for the other 50% who might actually want to learn, but are in an environment where it's nearly impossible to do so. What do those 50% do when the rules of the school require that the other half be put into the same classrooms, and sit in their chairs (else the school might lose funding for not teaching the students), resulting in constant disruption.

Is the solution to keep them all in the same school, where the kids who might have succeeded now are less likely to do so because of the environment in the school? Or do we let those kids go to a different school where 100% of the kids want to learn? The argument I'm replying to is one where people focus on the plight of the kids left behind and insist it's unfair to force them to remain in those schools while the other kids move out.

But that's pretty dumb, isn't it? It's those kids who are making those schools so bad. We can debate why or how, or who's to blame, but that's the reality. You can't move them to another school and get rid of the problem. They are the problem. And no one is proposing a solution to that problem here. We're asking whether it's right to let the rest of the kids go somewhere else where they can learn, or to we keep them there and drag them down with the others?


I think we should let any student go to any school that will take them. Use vouchers, or whatever system to accomplish this. Yes. This will result in the bad students all being lumped together. But is that really "bad"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Feb 09 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

The reason that private schools are often viewed differently is because they are exclusive to upper classes, where these aren't issues.


Maybe it's just different out west here, but there are a number of good private schools that are affordable to middle income people. Sacrifices need to be made of course, but all but the most exclusive schools are pretty affordable.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#34 Feb 09 2012 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

The reason that private schools are often viewed differently is because they are exclusive to upper classes, where these aren't issues.


Maybe it's just different out west here, but there are a number of good private schools that are affordable to middle income people. Sacrifices need to be made of course, but all but the most exclusive schools are pretty affordable.


Define affordable?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#35 Feb 09 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
There shouldn't be crappy schools.


But there are. Yeah. Reality bites!

Quote:
The schools that are crappy need to be improved.


How much money do we spend on this?

Quote:
The idea that there are better schools and that some schools won't give as good an education is the problem.


No. The problem is that some people refuse to acknowledge that the reason some schools are crappy is because of the students who attend them. You can build the latest state of the art education facility in the wealthiest part of town and then bus all the kids from the worst school in the worst ghetto, and guess what will happen? It will be just as bad a school.

However, if you allow just the kids who want to learn to attend that new state of the art school, and leave the rest in their bad schools, you don't make the bad schools that much worse (if at all). But you vastly improve the quality of education and the opportunity for success for the kids who are able to attend that new school.


I see a lot of positives and very few negatives.


Quote:
You should set up every school so that the motivated kids that go there get a good education.


Nice pipe dream. In the real world, this is more or less impossible to accomplish. Not for every school. If the number of unmotivated kids in a school exceed a certain number, it will create a bad education environment for all the kids. And the only way to spend your way out of that is to create two different sets of classrooms. One for the "bad" kids, and one for the "good". And at that point, why not make two different schools instead?


Quote:
If a school won't give a good education to a motivated kid, then it is failing.


Yup. We have a lot of failing schools. I thought this was about discussing solutions to that rather than just standing around talking about how such things shouldn't happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Feb 09 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

The reason that private schools are often viewed differently is because they are exclusive to upper classes, where these aren't issues.


Maybe it's just different out west here, but there are a number of good private schools that are affordable to middle income people. Sacrifices need to be made of course, but all but the most exclusive schools are pretty affordable.


Define affordable?


$500 - $1000 a month for a full time program.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Feb 09 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
So the children don't deserve a quality chance at all, because the chance that they'll have the wisdom to take advantage of it is low?


I thought that providing the opportunity to attend a private school with tuition funding was about helping children get that quality chance (as you put it)? Isn't trapping kids in the crappy schools they're in doing far far more to limit their options?

Quote:
You're a terrifying human being.


Strange. I'm the one advocating for giving kids more options to obtain a quality education. How does that make me a terrifying human being?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Feb 09 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

The reason that private schools are often viewed differently is because they are exclusive to upper classes, where these aren't issues.


Maybe it's just different out west here, but there are a number of good private schools that are affordable to middle income people. Sacrifices need to be made of course, but all but the most exclusive schools are pretty affordable.


Define affordable?


$500 - $1000 a month for a full time program.


I definitely wouldn't call those affordable at all. Especially for any family with multiple children. Median household income in the USA is 50k. One kid would take 1/5th of your income just in tuition fees.

The cheapest I have found for NJ so far is 10k. For "good" programs. I know of some awful christian schools around here, so I didn't bother to check their costs.

Besides, one of the problems I was specifically citing was that Private Schools were inaccessible to anyone other than the upper-middle. Reducing that to the middle-middle doesn't really change my argument at all, and would only slightly temper the problem.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Feb 09 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
idiggory wrote:
The cheapest I have found for NJ so far is 10k.
The ****? St. Francis Prep is about $7,500 a year tuition. I somehow doubt that the cheapest private school in New Jersey is more expensive than one of the best in New York. You calculating full twelve months, or the average 180 day school year?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Feb 09 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
And how is "If your parents don't care, you're @#%^ed" a good way to run a society?


I didn't think the government's job was to "run a society" in the first place.


Well, that's sort of what laws do. Just sayin'.


There's a difference between drawing the lines on the road and actually driving the car. Just sayin'.


Makes for a nice bumper sticker, I guess, but that doesn't refute my point in the slightest. I was simply pointing out how silly the quoted phrase was, and not making a statement about the larger argument.

The day you post the words "My bad, I misspoke" it'll be a cold day in ****.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 5:57pm by Eske
#41 Feb 09 2012 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

I definitely wouldn't call those affordable at all. Especially for any family with multiple children. Median household income in the USA is 50k. One kid would take 1/5th of your income just in tuition fees.


One more reason kids are expensive. Smiley: wink

Honestly though, we're comfortably under 50k and have budgeted for education expenses to take up about 20% of the income. Whether that comes through other programs or private school remains to be seen of course (we're actively debating the best way to spend that money). Again, I didn't say you wouldn't have to make sacrifices, but these are your kids, kind of important...

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Besides, one of the problems I was specifically citing was that Private Schools were inaccessible to anyone other than the upper-middle. Reducing that to the middle-middle doesn't really change my argument at all, and would only slightly temper the problem.


Fair enough, I suppose it's a bit of arguing semantics anyway.


Edited, Feb 9th 2012 3:02pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Feb 09 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory wrote:
The cheapest I have found for NJ so far is 10k.
The ****? St. Francis Prep is about $7,500 a year tuition. I somehow doubt that the cheapest private school in New Jersey is more expensive than one of the best in New York. You calculating full twelve months, or the average 180 day school year?


So far, I've only seen yearly tuitions. The tool I was using was showing schools in a 50 mile radius around my location. Saw 10k to 30k. Peddie (one of the best, not in that 50 mile radius) is 35k for day students (45k for boarding).

This says that the average tuition for schools that are members of the National Association of Independent schools is 17k. Those who aren't members have a median of 10k. Only parochial schools ever seem to approach cheap.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#43 Feb 09 2012 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Also, it's a joke to think that this can actually provide opportunities for a substantial number of impoverished students. NYC has a great program that lets students apply to enter any other school in the district. The end result is that the best ranked schools get thousands of applications every year--WAY more than they can keep. Most students end up in the same, crappy school they would have had anyway.

So it's pure lottery. And your parents can't do anything about it, because chances are they don't have the time or funding to address things. And, like I said, education has changed so immensely in just the past decade (let alone past 30 years), that parents cannot be relied upon to help children with their homework anymore, even if that was an option.

Our only choice for actually addressing the issues faced by income disparity is to address those issues directly. Take Teach for America. When they enter a classroom, they don't hide these issues from their students. They lay them out there, and work to create an environment that allows the kids to believe that they could possible believe in any future other than the only one they have known. The end result is that the students end up doing WAY better.

But it takes a LOT of energy on part of the instructor. And it's the kind of thing that only good teachers can or will do. Which is why you need to PAY for good teachers for those schools, because they'll not only need to create those environments, but they'll also need to play catch up with the kids.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#44 Feb 09 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Besides, one of the problems I was specifically citing was that Private Schools were inaccessible to anyone other than the upper-middle. Reducing that to the middle-middle doesn't really change my argument at all, and would only slightly temper the problem.


But wouldn't funding the tuition from the state education program solve this problem? Granted this is the Cato Institute, but their numbers are pretty similar to others I've read in the past:

Quote:
Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school.

Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.


Point being that it would cost significantly less money for the state to simply pay tuition costs and send kids to private schools than they currently spend providing the eduction in the state run schools. It would be so much of a savings, that they could probably throw in bus costs, free lunches, and uniforms for those schools that require them, and still save a bundle.

I'm not saying that this is a magic bullet solution, but if the argument against private schools is cost, then this should be a legitimate counter point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Feb 09 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
But wouldn't funding the tuition from the state education program solve this problem?


No.

Why? Because we don't have anywhere close to the number of private schools to accept even a small fraction of the number of potential applicants. Because, to screen these applicants, schools will either use tests (which skew heavily in favor of the middle class) or a lottery system to admit students (so it isn't based on need).

Because most people are living in situations where they can't drive their kids to private school every day.

My whole issue with the system is that it's a band-aid that does nothing to solve the actual problem, but takes a huge amount of money from the initiative to actually bring about change.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#46 Feb 09 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Granted this is the Cato Institute

If you have to excuse your source, it's time to find a different source.


Edited, Feb 9th 2012 5:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Feb 09 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
idiggory wrote:
Because, to screen these applicants, schools will either use tests
I have absolutely no problem with there being standards that require a moderate amount of effort on the children's and parents' part. Just letting kids coast from grade to grade is why our system has gone to **** to begin with.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 7:17pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Feb 09 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I don't have any clue why you would infer that from what I said. My issue is with placing entrance exams on private schools and then using those scores to select between potential students. 9/10 times (if not way more), it will go to the student from the better-funded school system.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#49 Feb 09 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Let's add the context back into that question:

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Besides, one of the problems I was specifically citing was that Private Schools were inaccessible to anyone other than the upper-middle. Reducing that to the middle-middle doesn't really change my argument at all, and would only slightly temper the problem.


But wouldn't funding the tuition from the state education program solve this problem?


No.

Why? Because we don't have anywhere close to the number of private schools to accept even a small fraction of the number of potential applicants.


Ok. But your earlier argument was one of cost, not open slots in schools. If we eliminate the cost (and let's assume transportation as well) problem so that a student in the ghetto has the same financial ability to attend a given school as a middle class kid, then what remains is the selection process of the school itself.

Quote:
Because, to screen these applicants, schools will either use tests (which skew heavily in favor of the middle class) or a lottery system to admit students (so it isn't based on need).


Most private schools use tests. Charter type schools tend to use lotteries. If we assume a test, how does that skew? It skews in favor of those capable of doing well on the test. Period. Doesn't matter where you live. You're looking at statistics across an entire population in a poor neighborhood versus a middle class one. But that's not the issue here, right? I thought the problem we're trying to solve is for smart, capable, motivated kids, who are stuck in poor schools because they can't afford to go to better ones. And this absolutely does take us a giant step towards solving that problem.


And let's not forget that if we did implement this solution, more private schools would be built to meet the need. ****. Some currently public schools might turn private and maybe we'd get improvement that way. You're assuming that the school market wont adjust to that change. It obviously would. Also, your assumption of skew might be present in the current crop of kids, but not in the next generation. If that kid from the poor family always attended a good private school from kindergarten on, then that kid's not going to have any issues continuing to qualify for each successive level of education.


You need to look a bit further down the line to see how this changes things.

Quote:
Because most people are living in situations where they can't drive their kids to private school every day.


Again though, the cost savings are so significant that we could toss in transportation and still save a boatload of money. And I disagree with that. Motivated parents will find means to transport their kids to school. I went to a private school in South Bay (pretty much spitting distance from Mexico). We had kids who traveled from Mexico every day to attend school there. And these were not all rich kids (some where of course). Some of them literally walked across the border crossing, and then took a bus to school (or walked, or got a friend to pick them up).

You can find ways to get transportation. My brother and I used to get a ride to school from some other people who lived a half mile or so away. It wasn't a carpool because my mom's work schedule didn't allow her to drive. They were just nice and gave us a lift. So every day, we walked to their house to get a ride to school. And when we stayed after for football or basketball practice? We took the bus. Or we walked (not often, because that was a long long long walk). Or, we waited until our mom could come get us.

You manage. It's not easy, but you do it.

Quote:
My whole issue with the system is that it's a band-aid that does nothing to solve the actual problem, but takes a huge amount of money from the initiative to actually bring about change.



I think that the problem is that too many people are trying to solve the wrong problem. We can't fix bad parenting (or at least that's outside the scope of education policy). But it seems like too many want to use the education system to fix exactly that, or offset the damage caused. That's noble and all, but the kids getting caught in the middle are those who's education resources are being consumed in that expensive and questionably successful goal, resulting in a poorer education result for them.


Do we try to "save" all the kids and turn our education system into a social services system? Or do we concentrate on educating those who want to be educated to the greatest ability we can and in the most efficient manner we can? Because right now, we're sacrificing a **** of a lot of kids who could have gotten better educations, gotten out of their poverty and made something of their lives and given better futures to their children, all on the altar of trying to save everyone.


I think that's absolutely a mistake, but that's been the driving principle for our public education system for the last 30-40 years.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 5:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Feb 09 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Personally, I think it's absurd to expect a CHILD to realize the value of education, and choose to give up on those who haven't done so.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#51 Feb 09 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I don't have any clue why you would infer that from what I said. My issue is with placing entrance exams on private schools and then using those scores to select between potential students. 9/10 times (if not way more), it will go to the student from the better-funded school system.


So... If we gave poor students the opportunity to attend those better schools (better funded has nothing to do with it in this case) from day one, they'd be just as competitive as the middle class kids. Right?


It's because they can't get into private schools early on, and are stuck in the crappy public schools in their neighborhoods that they receive a worse education and can't do as well on entrance exams. And let's be honest, doing worse on the exams is the least of the problems here. If they do worse on those, then they'll also do worse getting into college, and worse getting into a job, and therefore have a worse economic outcome down the line.

Don't you see how forcing these kids to stay in the local public schools is what prevents them from getting out of their poverty?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (65)