Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Education - Public vs PrivateFollow

#52 Feb 09 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
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.


Where on earth did anyone say that? And what do you think the alternative does? Do you think a child is going to be more or less likely to expend effort to do well in school if they're attending a school where 50% of the kids drop out and drugs and gangs are rampant, or if that same child is offered the opportunity to attend a good quality private school? Everything else being the same, he'll do better in the private school.


That not every child (or parent) will make that choice, or thrive as a result is no reason to deny it to all children and their parents. What you're doing is the ultimate of spite. So if one child wont succeed, you ensure that no children do? That's pretty horrible, isn't it? How about we make available the maximum possibilities for success and let the individuals take advantage of those possibilities as they see fit. Some will do well, others will not do so well. We can't control that. But if we deliberately deny them opportunities, then we *are* hurting their outcomes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Feb 09 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I went to a public school that was actually fairly rigorous, so I sincerely doubt private schools are inherently better. How many of you had to sit through 25 valedictorians and 11 salutatorians during your graduation ceremony? Yes, they all tied.

It wasn't a charter school or a magnet school or anything. Half of the students going there could have easily afforded a private school tuition. I hung out with the son of the Egyptian consul, who liked to ***** about his personal driver and chef. The kid of a major league baseball player went here (and got his dad's Hummer stolen.)

The main difference was that these kids had an environment at home which was conducive to learning. Properly supported public schools can easily offer an excellent education.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 7:16pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#54 Feb 09 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
9/10 times (if not way more), it will go to the student from the better-funded school system.
Last I checked public libraries don't charge admission. If the kid wants a better education, then they can easily go to one of these magically book caves and study on their own. And it's the guardian's responsibility to instill that drive to want a better education. The schools might be crap, but they're at best only a third of the problem. If the parents don't push the kids, and the kids don't push themselves, then the level of funding the school has doesn't matter because chances are that kid won't bother.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Feb 09 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sweetums wrote:
It wasn't a charter school or a magnet school or anything. Half of the students going there could have easily afforded a private school tuition. I hung out with the son of the Egyptian consul, who liked to ***** about his personal driver and chef. The kid of a major league baseball player went here (and got his dad's Hummer stolen.)


You went to public school in a relatively well to do area though. If half of the students could easily have afforded private school, then this must be the case.

No one's arguing that public schools in well-to-do neighborhoods don't perform well. The question is how to deal with failing schools in poor neighborhoods where the students don't have the choice to go to private schools because they can't afford them.

Quote:
The main difference was that these kids had an environment at home which was conducive to learning.


Correct. But the problem is that not every kid in a poor school lives in an environment at home which isn't conducive to learning, but he attends a school where many of the kids do. Thus, he could achieve more, but can't because he's surrounded by others who don't or can't.

Quote:
Properly supported public schools can easily offer an excellent education.


Half true. Properly supported by parent involvement is correct. Properly supported in terms of funding really isn't. It's one of the arguments you hear all the time. And to be fair, it's true that in well-off areas, the parents do contribute not just time, but money to school functions and this does affect the quality of the education. But this does not mean that if you provide the same number of dollars that wealthy public school parents and alumni might chip in to a school in a poorer area that this will achieve the same result.

It's been tried many many times, and to my knowledge has never come close to the same results. Obviously, if you throw enough cash at a problem, you'll get something back. But the results compared to the cost is prohibitive in this case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Feb 09 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
9/10 times (if not way more), it will go to the student from the better-funded school system.
Last I checked public libraries don't charge admission. If the kid wants a better education, then they can easily go to one of these magically book caves and study on their own. And it's the guardian's responsibility to instill that drive to want a better education. The schools might be crap, but they're at best only a third of the problem. If the parents don't push the kids, and the kids don't push themselves, then the level of funding the school has doesn't matter because chances are that kid won't bother.



This doesn't apply to kids that live in areas without public trans. I grew up 30 mins away from the nearest public libraries by car(there are 2 with in that range 3 if you count the one in GA). My parants work 6 days a week just to keep food in me and roof over our heads. They provided the drive but couldn't do anything else.

The best thing that happen to me was my high school had a culinary program that put me in touch with Chefs from my area and gave me the needed exp to get hired at the local resort. Still that program was funded mostly by the teacher then the school system even though some of the best jobs in the area was in Culinary.
____________________________
.
#57 Feb 09 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I went to a public school that was actually fairly rigorous, so I sincerely doubt private schools are inherently better. How many of you had to sit through 25 valedictorians and 11 salutatorians during your graduation ceremony? Yes, they all tied.

It wasn't a charter school or a magnet school or anything. Half of the students going there could have easily afforded a private school tuition. I hung out with the son of the Egyptian consul, who liked to ***** about his personal driver and chef. The kid of a major league baseball player went here (and got his dad's Hummer stolen.)

The main difference was that these kids had an environment at home which was conducive to learning. Properly supported public schools can easily offer an excellent education.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 7:16pm by Sweetums

My son went to Oak Ridge public schools from Kindergarten through a few weeks of fourth grade. Then we moved to Knoxville. He's FAR beyond anyone in his class now. Knoxville public schools are average at best. Oak Ridge schools are ranked around the 4th best in the nation, or something like that.

Public school can work, like Sweetums said. But it has to have the tools.

And I hope to god we can move back to Oak Ridge some day.
#58 Feb 09 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
It wasn't a charter school or a magnet school or anything. Half of the students going there could have easily afforded a private school tuition. I hung out with the son of the Egyptian consul, who liked to ***** about his personal driver and chef. The kid of a major league baseball player went here (and got his dad's Hummer stolen.)


You went to public school in a relatively well to do area though. If half of the students could easily have afforded private school, then this must be the case.

No one's arguing that public schools in well-to-do neighborhoods don't perform well.

That's not always the case. Oak Ridge is 1/4 scientists that make a ****-load of money and 3/4 average Joe's.

The school system there can just beat up your school system.
#59 Feb 09 2012 at 9:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
It wasn't a charter school or a magnet school or anything. Half of the students going there could have easily afforded a private school tuition. I hung out with the son of the Egyptian consul, who liked to ***** about his personal driver and chef. The kid of a major league baseball player went here (and got his dad's Hummer stolen.)


You went to public school in a relatively well to do area though. If half of the students could easily have afforded private school, then this must be the case.

No one's arguing that public schools in well-to-do neighborhoods don't perform well.

That's not always the case. Oak Ridge is 1/4 scientists that make a ****-load of money and 3/4 average Joe's.


She said that half of the students could have "easily afforded private school tuition". So at least a third of those average Joe's must also be making decent amounts of money.

The point is that this is not even remotely like the kinds of failed inner city schools that are the focus when we speak of the need for some kind of public funding for private school tuition.

Quote:
The school system there can just beat up your school system.


Sure. Friend of mine teaches at Poway High School, here in San Diego. His father taught for 30 years at Montgomery High School. I'm well aware of the differences in public schools based on what neighborhoods they're in. And the general rule is that the higher the incomes in the area, the better the school.

Here's a school ranking map for San Diego. Want to guess where the high rent areas are, and where the low rent ones are? There's nothing remarkable about this pattern either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Feb 09 2012 at 11:07 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
About 11% of the school was considered "economically disadvantaged." Lower than average? Undoubtedly. But not absent. These would mainly be people on the edge of the zone.

Houston's notorious lack of zoning laws often leads to high-dollar housing being about a block away from decrepit bungalows. ****, there used to be a strip club neighboring my apartment complex, and not the classy kind. I was only a few blocks from multi-million dollar homes.



I still don't see how private schools would solve an unstable home life. Vouchers don't sit at the table and help you with your homework after school.

Edited, Feb 9th 2012 11:21pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#61 Feb 10 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 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.


I just have to say as someone that grew up in a crummy home (was taken into government care - so that level of crappy) - I would like to emphasize that it doesn't make sense to toss every kid who has a crappy home life/unsupportive parents under the bus because the statistics are against them. And if you do toss them under the bus - they are getting screwed by their parents AND society.

Here in my province the rate of graduation for kids in care is 20 per cent. I not only graduated, I went on to post-secondary. However I was never able to complete my degree because the loans got so big I realized I was better off working than finishing my education.

There are kids that beat the odds. But, if you undermine the public education system - their odds just get that much lower. Kids with unsupportive parents are less likely to succeed, yes, but I see that as an argument for better and stronger public supports, not fewer.

If you want to break the cycle of bad parenting and poor outcomes you need to not only grow the percentage of "at risk" kids who beat the odds, but ensure that when they do beat the odds that they are given the supports they need to break out of the poverty trap. The way it is now, with poor people having to pay more for post-secondary education than rich people (because tuition + interest from loans is more $$$ than just tuition, not to mention the tuition tax breaks ppl get) makes it so hard that I would be shocked if even 2% of total kids coming from government care end up with jobs and careers where they make enough money to be positive contributors to the tax system.

It doesn't even save money, really, because so many of these kids that don't graduate etc. end up being on welfare anyway. It doesn't make sense to pay the same amount or more money to keep people in poverty than to invest in these people so they can lead happy and fulfilling lives.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#62 Feb 10 2012 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
That's really the thing--education is a long haul battle. Always was, always will be. Money you spend now on early education isn't even going to show any results for another decade.

Thing is, just increasing graduation rates by 10% (with the assumption that you aren't just graduating 10% more for the sake of it) is a huge success. Not because you'll see immediate benefits of it, but because the results of that 10% are only going to grow with time.

It's correct that the two major issues plaguing poor districts are culture and parenting. But the only way to address that is to slowly change those parents into people who DO care about education, and see the value of it.

There really isn't any way to change "those" parents, specifically referring to the current ones. The only thing you can do is hope to reduce their population for the future.

And that's exactly the trend we are seeing. Care about education has only increased in low-income families in the past fifty years.

But if you abandon the schools, simply because of the current culture in which they are being raised, you doom all future generations to the exact same issues.

I mentioned earlier that my brother works for a charter school in which kids are enrolled by parents and guardians that care. Guess what? Almost none of them actually give a crap about education, because they honestly don't believe that education can help their kids out of their circumstances. And the depressing thing is that, honestly, they are largely correct. Even if these kids work their asses off, chances are they are never going to go to college, which pretty much crushes their job prospects (especially in this economy, where positions that in no way require a college degree are using it to cut the number of applications).

They enrolled their kids there purely because it gave them the option to attend a different high school. See, any kids that go to my brother's school can elect to attend any of the high schools in the districts it serves.

At first glance, you think that would be because they see value in their schools. In reality, it's because their parents or grandparents are afraid that they'll end up getting killed if they go to the schools in their districts (most of these kids would end up in an Atlantic City high school, where they have significant gang-related issues). They are trying to save their kids lives, not teach them the value of education.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#63 Feb 10 2012 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Olorinus wrote:
It doesn't even save money, really, because so many of these kids that don't graduate etc. end up being on welfare anyway. It doesn't make sense to pay the same amount or more money to keep people in poverty than to invest in these people so they can lead happy and fulfilling lives.
I agree completely. Let's scrap welfare. Smiley: thumbsup


____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#64 Feb 10 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The schools that are crappy need to be improved.


How much money do we spend on this?


Speaking personally, I'll go with 20% of my tax dollars, to start with.

Buy books, not bombs... or something like that.

If we can prevent the world from the affliction of a single additional Gbaji/Varus/Alma through more government spending on education services, I'm down.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#65 Feb 10 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
****, my graduate school tuition is only $10K/year. And that's only state subsidized by a few hundred dollars since our program is "self funded."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#66 Feb 10 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Maybe we should reinstitute truant officers....with lazers.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#67 Feb 10 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I still don't see how private schools would solve an unstable home life. Vouchers don't sit at the table and help you with your homework after school.


Because that's not the intent? How many times do I have to say that everyone is trying to solve the wrong problem? The intention of school vouchers is so that those kids who are interested in education and who have parents who are engaged but who are poor, can get out of the schools that are currently their only choice but which are chock full of kids who aren't interested in education and who's parents are *not* engaged and where the learning environment is so bad that these kids are hindered no matter how hard they try.


That's the point. Not to try to save everyone. But to give those who are willing to work hard to break the cycle of poverty the best chance to do so possible. I keep trying to explain this, but it's like it's just not getting through. We're trying to solve the big social problem of bad parenting while failing to provide those with good parents and good goals a means to succeed. If the goal here is to reduce the number of kids growing up in those bad households, how does denying anyone the option to get out of those schools help? So now, instead of half the kids failing (and likely becoming bad parents for their kids and repeating the cycle), we condemn half of the other kids to the same fate. Why not save those kids first? Give the the best opportunity for success possible and let as many of them that can move upwards and out.


Then, we can focus on how to deal with that bigger social problem. And you know what? Heaven forbid that those kids serve as an example and perhaps inspire others to do the same and perhaps reduce that problem as well. Doesn't it make more sense to do everything we can to encourage success in this situation? Isn't the biggest problem for these kids that they look around at the world they live in and don't see any chance for them? They lose hope. How can you not see that by blocking any means by which they can improve their own lives you kill that hope?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Feb 10 2012 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's correct that the two major issues plaguing poor districts are culture and parenting. But the only way to address that is to slowly change those parents into people who DO care about education, and see the value of it.

There really isn't any way to change "those" parents, specifically referring to the current ones. The only thing you can do is hope to reduce their population for the future.


Yes. And by giving no one the opportunity to escape that environment, you are increasing that population, not reducing it. Can't you see this? You're trying to fix the ghetto. But what you should be doing is helping people leave it.

Quote:
And that's exactly the trend we are seeing. Care about education has only increased in low-income families in the past fifty years.


OMG! No, it hasn't. Social planners talk about the importance of caring about education. And parents nod their heads enthusiastically and repeat this talk back to them. But the number of parents who are not engaged in their children's education has increased over time, not decreased. You're confusing awareness of a problem with solving the problem. People talk about this more. They don't actually act on it more though.

Quote:
But if you abandon the schools, simply because of the current culture in which they are being raised, you doom all future generations to the exact same issues.


You're trying to protect the school at the expense of the kids in it. I think that's backwards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Feb 10 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:


You're trying to protect the school at the expense of the kids in it. I think that's backwards.


I see.... if we just got rid of schools, the kids would be better off. Makes perfect sense.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#70 Feb 10 2012 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:


You're trying to protect the school at the expense of the kids in it. I think that's backwards.


I see.... if we just got rid of schools, the kids would be better off. Makes perfect sense.


It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with. Really? I'm not saying to get rid of the schools. I'm saying to give kids the option to pick the schools they attend.


The counter argument is that those kids who are interested in education and who have engaged parents will utilize that option to move to better schools. This leaves the schools they left with just the uninterested kids with the unengaged parents. Those schools wont get as much funding and will become worse (to what degree that's possible). And that's "bad" and must be fought at all costs.


I don't agree with that counter argument. It only makes sense if there is some alternative proposal on the table that can reliably turn around those bad schools and make them places where education isn't hampered. And forgive me for being blunt, but our public school system has been trying to figure that one out for upwards of 40 years and hasn't succeeded yet. And in the meantime, the schools have gotten worse. So until they figure out some magical means to fix those homes, and those neighborhoods, and the schools that result, I think it's a pretty reasonable idea to let those who can take advantage of the opportunity of some program to let them attend school elsewhere do so and maximize their chances of making something of themselves.


You're trying to save everyone, but the result is that you save no one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Feb 10 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with


Isn't it?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 Feb 11 2012 at 2:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts

.
____________________________
.
#73 Feb 11 2012 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Here's a suggestion. Take half of the money you 'Merikans spend on your military, and spend it on the public school system.

That's, what? $340 billion? I'm sure that'll whip your school system into shape. Might be detrimental to your militaristic society. What with kids actually getting their qualifications and not joining up. C'est la vie.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#74 Feb 11 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Might be better for our military, with better-qualified people joining.

Infantry is slowly going the way of the cavalry, anyway. Engineering and R&D is the future.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#75 Feb 11 2012 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with
Isn't it?

I haven't bothered with this thread primarily because I figured Gbaji's views were appalling enough on their own without me needing to point it out.

Edit: I was disappointed in the gray-shirted girl who couldn't answer "Revolutionary War". My own 12 yr old kid named off Ukraine (and took a stab with United Kingdom), Joe Biden, 50 stars for 50 states, Mexico & Canada, Revolutionary War and only got stuck on the Democratic candidate question. I think that one was more a mental disconnect since you keep hearing about "Republican candidates" versus "Barack Obama".

Edited, Feb 11th 2012 10:41am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Feb 11 2012 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I can even forgive them not knowing Joe Biden, because his job is a lot more abstract than Obama's, particularly in the mind of a high school student.

But 52-54 states wtf?

I liked how the big kid kept face palming every time his friend got one wrong.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)