Private schools

[John Dibble]

Private schools are better at educating students for a reason - competition. Since their money comes from consumers rather than the government, they have to do better than public schools and other private schools in order to stay in business. Without a superior product, they would fail on their own.

God I love capitalism.

[John Dibble]

Well, it's my opinion that first we need to return school control to local(county?) government - the higher up the control is the less connected it is to the needs of the community. I also think people should be allowed to select what schools their kids go to, so schools will be competing for funding and will be frugal with their funds, keeping costs down. They county I went to school in devotes most of its time and resources to the schools, and for that reason they have some of the best in the state.

[John Dibble]

Private schools are better at educating students for a reason - competition.

Where's the proof that private schools are better at educating students?

I'm quite familiar with public and private schools. Most of the public schools provided a far better education than what private schools spewed out.

Ok, if you're going to demand proof from me, I'll demand proof from you.

Here's mine - these are a bit old, but I doubt the results would be much different today: http://www.heartland.org/archives/education/feb97/minn.htm
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

This is also a good comparison of public and private schools with a good conclusion on what type of school you should send your kids to: http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/CA/197/improve

Now, to correct the meaning behind my original statement - private schools are not ALWAYS better than public schools, but in many cases they are. Sometimes public schools are better. The county where I attended school realized that by having a better education system they could increase their economic output - more people moving in for the schools means more businesses opening(and over the last 17 years business has been booming). By creating higher quality schools, they effectively compete with other counties for business and residents. The particular high school I went to is in the top 10% in the nation if I'm not mistaken(not sure if that includes private schools or not). Judge schools on an individual basis. Generalizations make discussions on general policy a bit easier, but when making an actual choice you need to consider your options individually.

[John Dibble]

Ok, if you're going to demand proof from me, I'll demand proof from you.

Here's mine - these are a bit old, but I doubt the results would be much different today: http://www.heartland.org/archives/education/feb97/minn.htm

This looks like it's based on reports by right-wing think tanks.

It's funny that students were expelled from the private high school I went to were more likely to go to college than those who actually graduated.

You demanded proof, I gave it. If it's not sufficient, that's too bad. Once again - where's your proof(which will likely be compiled by 'left-wing' think-tanks).

You provide your own school as the standard. That's not proof. You let your own personal experience get in the way of the bigger picture - which is a big no-no if you are a critical thinker. If I only presented evidence based on my personal experience, what I say would be completely different and likely unfounded. The studies I presented were representative of many schools. When I used my school as an example, it was merely to say that 'there are exceptions to the rule'. Present some real evidence to back your view.

[John Dibble]

I voted "no,"  but I'm on the fence.  I think that if a child is of a certain age and freely chooses to attend a private high school or college, they should be allowed to do that.  But I don't think children who are not old enough to make their own educational choice should be placed at an undue advantage or disadvantage based on the whim and/or wealth of their parents.

Well, there's a few problems with that.

1. A child, even a teenager, would be hard pressed to afford private school unless they receive some sort of outside assistance, parents being the most likely. And how would the kid really know what's best - he/she is young, immature, and inexperienced.

2. Sorry, but you can't stop parents from putting their child in an advantaged position. If there's only one school choice in an area and it sucks, the parents could just move to a place with better choices to advantage their kids, unless of course they can't afford to do that. Unless you could magically make the quality of all schools the same, it's an impossible ideal to enforce.

[John Dibble]

I voted "no,"  but I'm on the fence.  I think that if a child is of a certain age and freely chooses to attend a private high school or college, they should be allowed to do that.  But I don't think children who are not old enough to make their own educational choice should be placed at an undue advantage or disadvantage based on the whim and/or wealth of their parents.

Well, there's a few problems with that.

1. A child, even a teenager, would be hard pressed to afford private school unless they receive some sort of outside assistance, parents being the most likely. And how would the kid really know what's best - he/she is young, immature, and inexperienced.

2. Sorry, but you can't stop parents from putting their child in an advantaged position. If there's only one school choice in an area and it sucks, the parents could just move to a place with better choices to advantage their kids, unless of course they can't afford to do that. Unless you could magically make the quality of all schools the same, it's an impossible ideal to enforce.

Certainly it is an ideal that all public schools be of equal quality.   But I believe that if an ideal is unrealized, we should be trying to figure out how to make slow but steady progress toward that ideal rather than dismissing the entire idea as unattainable.  

I think abolishing private schools is much further down the road toward this ideal than many other more realistic steps we could take.  At this point, many private schools are a force for good in society because so many public schools are so dysfunctional.  We definitely need to repair our public schools before getting rid of private ones.

Sorry, but it is unattainable, unless we start teaching our kids with machines. There's three main factors that determine education:

1. The parent's involvement and interest in the education process.
2. The student's involvement and interest in the education process.
3. The quality and interest of the teachers.

The only one that schools can really have any control over is the third, but each school wants the best teachers it can afford. Since there's a limited number of teachers and each one varies in quality, and each one is an individual that determines what schools they are willing to work at, it is impossible to evenly distribute teachers of quality. So, as I said, unless you want kids taught by machines(who knows, maybe one day it will be possible, but not today), then you can't have equal schools.

[John Dibble]

Yes! Of course, letting society decide what is right is the answer! We know that MOB RULE is just and effective! If society came to the consensus that we should teach our kids to hate gays, you would change your tune on that idea.

[John Dibble]

It is the parents RIGHT[/i][/u] to teach their children their views of the world. I see nothing at all wrong w/that. If the child wishes to see otherwise when they get older that is their right. However their is no problem with parents teaching thier children as they wish.

I guess I just don't see it that way.  A child should not be treated like property of their parents to be used for whatever ends the parents wish.  Children are entrusted to parents on the condition that they look out for the best interests of the child.   They should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children in a way that will be harmful to the child's moral and intellectual development.

1. Teaching children your values is not treating them like property - it's preparing them to function in society based on the principles by which you live. What's wrong with that?

2. And who determines what's in the child's best interests? Society? I think not. Society can be wrong you know. No, I'll look out for the best interest of my children by teaching them the values I think are important.

[John Dibble]

My god...think about this statement for a second...

"CHILDREN ARE ENTRUSTED TO THEIR PARENTS"

If that doesn't sound like Communism to me...wow

NickG, my man, you are scaring the living sh*t out of me. I never pictured you in the same category as guys like BetterRedThanDead and some of the other true marxists, but you may be in that category based on some of the things you've said tonight.

Taking care of children is a privilege and not a right in our society.  If you abuse your children, or use drugs, or do other things that are harmful to them, the state can take you them away.  

I just see certainly types of ideological and religious indoctrination as emotional abuse, especially when ones does not permit their children to experience the world of choices around them.

Care to be more specific? Because it seems to me you are comparing abuse and neglect to teaching kids religion. I have no problem at all with people teaching their kids their religion(and this is coming from a guy who tells fundamentalists their God is evil!).

[John Dibble]

As it put it, you can either have a tiny elite who succeed and bring about new successes or you can have no elite.

OH THANK YOU! A Democrat who gets how the world works.

[John Dibble]

Well, if we agree that we are a society with some kind of common destiny and interest who should work together for mutual benefit, then the arguments for public schools are fairly obvious. If you reject that, there isn't really much to be said I guess.

Sounds like an argument used for Communism. Sorry, but it does. There's nothing wrong with self-interest, as self-interest often does benefit others(you've read Faith of the Fallen no doubt) if it is economic self-interest. And let's face it, if public schools didn't benefit parent's and their children, their self-interest would make it so they probably don't like public schools, or are at least apathetic. Self-interest fuels the desire for public schools, because most everyone wants their children to be educated, and since most everyone shares this desire, public schools become possible. It really has little to do with mutual benefit.

What must be realized is that neither public nor private schools will go away anytime this century. Private schools should be allowed to regulate themselves for the most part, and the bad ones will for the most part be weeded out by the free market in eventuality. The problem is what to do with public schools. Undoubtedly, they have been a great benefit to society to an extent, but unfortunately that benefit seems somewhat on the decline. It is my belief that we should return the schools completely to local government control for the following reasons:

1. When school quality is low, local officials can be held accountable(state and federal officials are higher up and harder to hold accountable for your local schools), so they will act in their self-interest of being re-elected and do their best to keep school quality high as possible, and since there is little state and no federal intervention, they can not pass the blame to higher up officials. There's also a greater chance these officials will use the local school system for their kids, thus fueling their self-interest of making the schools better even more.

2. Local governments have a much greater spending limit. Thusly, they are more likely to try to get the most bang for their bucks. This would hopefully drive quality up while driving spending down, much like many private schools do due to their own limited funds.

[John Dibble]

It was how you phrased it I think, it just rang of communism to me. I knew you weren't talking about communism, I was trying to remind you to be careful how you phrase things(especially on this board, there's been some whackos lately).

A communist society is a society that works for the group, the whole, for everyone's common interest, no self-interest - the individual doesn't matter. In such a society a common interest is an interest to benefit the group, the individual is supposed to sacrifice his own interests for the benefit of the whole. Now, the whole shouldn't sacrifice to the individual either, but the individual by no means should be a slave to the group.

A capitalist society is a society where everyone essentially works for their own interests, and those interests vary from person to person. Common interest in such a society is usually collective individual self-interests, and since these self-interests coincide things like public school become possible. Unfortunately, sometimes individuals do have to sacrifice to these common interest groups too, but the reasoning behind the common interest is essentially different. We're probably arguing the same thing, just from different perspectives.

[John Dibble]

Well, as I said, shared interests are one thing, common interests are another. I prefer the former. I just lean more towards individual rights than shared interests. We need both of course, but how much of each is needed is the question. Government is a necessary evil for ensuring shared interests, where necessary and agreed upon, are enforced.

[John Dibble]

Most schools have mandatory student IDs the kids have to carry at all times.  Mine had mandatory IDs that were also lunch cards, and the school had cameras.

I never attended a public school that had any of this. I'm sure they have it now, but 20 years ago we had a lot more freedom. A LOT[/i] more!

My school had cameras in the hallways and lunchrooms only, and ID cards were used only to check out books from the library(you could trash them if you didn't want to checkout books), no metal detectors though. The cameras weren't ever used to spy on us either, the only time they were really used was when someone started a fight. I'd hardly say we were oppressed - and did you have the freedom to use vending machines in the lunchroom?

[John Dibble]

I think we were allowed using the vending machines in the lunchroom, but not at lunchtime.

Ok, now you were oppressed, lol. The most oppressive thing about my school was the dress code - standard fair, except you couldn't have any piercings(except ears for girls) or dye your hair an unnatural color, not that I used these things but I still think the rules were dumb.

[John Dibble]

I think we were allowed using the vending machines in the lunchroom, but not at lunchtime.

Ok, now you were oppressed, lol. The most oppressive thing about my school was the dress code - standard fair, except you couldn't have any piercings(except ears for girls) or dye your hair an unnatural color, not that I used these things but I still think the rules were dumb.

We have those same rules, I wonder what they would actually do if I turned up with pink hair with blue polka-dots *wanders off muttering* now there's a thought. .

At my school they'd just send you home.

[John Dibble]

The Constitution doesn't say the Bill of Rights doesn't apply if you're under 18.

America needs to stop treating children like property.

So, you are saying that a five year old has the right to bear arms then? The right to own a gun and form militias?