Should private schools exist?/Should public schools exist?

[dazzleman]

Yes/yes.

Haven't we already had this discussion?  Is this another one of those "I Hate Suburbs/I Hate Private Schools/I Want to Boink a Dominatrix with a Hammer & Sickle Tattoo on Her Breasts" series of polls?

BRTD - you have the maturity of a 10-year-old.  Grow up, man.  You didn't even go to private school, so what do you care?

I support public schools that are locally controlled, with a voucher system for private schools in areas where the public schools are failing.

[dazzleman]

Yes/yes.

Haven't we already had this discussion?  Is this another one of those "I Hate Suburbs/I Hate Private Schools/I Want to Boink a Dominatrix with a Hammer & Sickle Tattoo on Her Breasts" series of polls?

BRTD - you have the maturity of a 10-year-old.  Grow up, man.  You didn't even go to private school, so what do you care?

Haha! dazzleman, you are great!

Thanks, man.

[dazzleman]

yes/yes

no on vouchers- the academic prep schools wouldn't allow enough kids in on vouchers to make it a truly broad based govt program. Government programs shouldn't serve the few. And I can't support public funding of religious education. If communities want some kids from their neighborhoods  to attend private school, they can pool resources and offer scholarships. That would be an admirable plan, but should not mix this money in with the public budget.

I agree they should be locally controlled, with accreditation associations possibly regional rather than local, as they now are.

Regarding vouchers, I'd be willing to support them as long as no money was taken away from the public schools in the process (as it is now, if a public school loses a student to a private school via a voucher, they lose funding, since funding is on a per pupil basis; I'd support changing this to allow the same funding for the school even after losing the student, which would be likely to help improve the public school in the process, as they'd have more money to spend per pupil). I also strongly feel that the church/state seperation needs to be maintained.

The reality of vouchers, I think, is that government money would be more efficiently spent on improving public schools rather than spent on vouchers. Private schools are very expensive, and thus any comprehensive voucher plan would be extremely costly in order to give any great number of students a quality education.

So while they sound good in theory, in actual practice I can't see them being a really good idea unless one believes that public schools are irrevocably broken beyond repair, and can never succeed under any conditions, which seems preposterous to me.

Eric, I think you have it backwards.  When I say private schools, I am not talking about elite prep schools.  Since kids going to elite prep schools generally don't come from areas with failing public schools, they would not be covered by vouchers.

I am talking about less expensive private/parochial schools that operate at far lower cost than public schools, and do a better job.  The reason they are able to do a better job, in general, is that their students have parents who are interested in their children's education while in failing public schools, many of the parents of not interested in their children's education (which, rather than lack of adequate funding, is the main reason the schools are failing in the first place).

You say that it is more efficient to improve public schools than provide vouchers for private schools.  You are failing to recognize that it is impossible to improve certain public schools with any amount of money, given the types of parents and students involved with those schools, and the only humane solution is to allow parents and students, who would otherwise have to attend these concrete jungles, to escape.  That is the reality.

The liberal view is effectively that in order to save anybody, you have to save everybody.  If everybody cannot be saved, or does not want to be saved, then even those willing to be saved cannot be.  Picture a sinking ship, with enough room in the life boats, but a number of people who refuse to get off the ship because they don't want to go back to land, for whatever reason.  Would it be a humane policy to tell those clamoring to get to the safety of the lifeboat that they had to go down with this ship, because not everybody on the ship was interested in being saved?  Therefore, everybody has to die?  That is the reality of inner city education today. 

Those who are not interested in education, whose family life is too deficient to allow them to get an education, whose parents aren't interested in education or taking any responsibility for their behavior, and who come to school only to disrupt things and prevent others from getting an education, are being allowed to destroy the educational hopes of those who don't have enough money to move away from such people.  Blanket liberal emphasis on "rights" has largely led to this situation, and no amount of money can fix it.  Is it right that we allow it to continue, whatever high-minded but unworkable theory we use to justify it?

[dazzleman]

I see what you are saying, and I do mostly agree. I did say that I supported vouchers under certain conditions, remember.

If the private schools in question are indeed cheap and high quality, then vouchers make a lot more sense in those cases, for sure. It obviously depends on the local area, which is why I support more localized education, with more power in the hands of local school boards, which can be more directly influenced by those in the community through local elections, and in which the people will be more likely to be heard at local school board meetings.

You are correct that bad parenting is mostly to blame for bad schools rather than the schools themselves. Obviously if the parents have no desire to improve a school, it isn't going to improve. I just don't believe that there are large percentages of parents who don't truly want a good education for their kids; I think that most of them just simply never learned the skills themselves in the first place. It's a vicious cycle, to be sure, but I think that ensuring high-quality teachers, a high-quality facility, and administrators and educators that take pride in their job can turn around these areas, albeit slowly. The schools can be a force for changing the attitude of the community, rather than having to be strictly responsive to it. It can help instill pride and a sense of hope into the area, the lack of which is responsible for a lot of the problems of the area.

I think that the liberal attitude is more that no one is completely beyond hope for redemption, no matter how hopeless their situation. An enduring faith in the ability of all people to overcome adversity, basically, and as a result, a conviction that we as a society have a responsibility to try to help the downtrodden in their quest to turn their lives around.

I personally believe that this is true, though in many cases individuals must reform on their own, as it would be too expensive for society to give them the help that they would need. If helping some people would drag down the vast majority of others to a lower standard of living in the process, it's not going to be a good idea for the nation as a whole to do it.

So regarding the schools you consider unsaveable, I favor a compromise approach; allow those to escape who want to, yes (as I strongly favor choice, and not forcing anyone into an educational system that isn't working for them personally) but also continue to work strongly to improve the school, rather than simply abandoning it, as vouchers often do in their current form. I agree that money itself isn't the answer, the money has to be used in a constructive way to change people's opinions and attitudes about life, but I think it can be done. If we spend money smartly and attract the right people, it can and will work, and the long-term positive repurcussions will be well worth it.

You're more optimistic than I am about our ability to change people's attitudes within the current system.  I actually think that we stand a better chance of doing that by allowing people to escape failing public schools, and create some positive momentum in that way.  If people see good results, they may lose some of the hopelessness that blankets their existence.  I think that being trapped in failing public schools, with no way out, would cause anybody to lose interest in education.  There is almost no hope in trying in such a situation.

It sounds great to say that you will attract top-notch staff to public schools in bad areas, that are failing.  The reality is that this is nearly impossible.  Top quality people in any field need to know that they are making a difference, and need to have work conditions at a certain level.  If their main concern is getting through the day alive, they are unable to really teach anything, and they get no support from the parents or the administration, how long do you think they are going to stay?  Would you stay in such a situation?  I sure wouldn't.

I also think you are being overly generous to many of the parents involved.  Many of these parents have no life skills, period.  It is impossible to start from the ground up giving them basic life skills, when they already have children that they are not capable of raising.  Assuming that they're even interested in gaining these skills, which many are not, their kids will be practically grown before they can even function as adults.  It's a losing battle.

I don't believe anybody is beyond redemption, but people cannot redeem themselves without some of their own effort, which is not forthcoming for many of these people.  They want other people to do the whole job.  And we cannot hold other people down because of the deficiencies of these people.  That is what we are effectively doing with the education system as it stands now.

[dazzleman]

No/no would result in there not being any schools...

Well there'd be homeschooling, of course.

Yeah, that would work really well for most people
My mom would have thrown herself out the window if she'd had to homeschool, not to mention that she wasn't really competent to teach some of the subjects as they got more advanced.

Don't get me wrong.  I think homeschooling should be an option for parents who can handle it, but it will only appeal to a very small percentage of people.  I would probably do it if I lived in an inner city area and couldn't afford private schools.

[dazzleman]

TCash101, what you have failed to understand is that the relatively small percentage of people that you have described have been allowed to destroy the educational opportunities for many more people who are forced by economic circumstances to go to school with them.

Liberals have put the rights of those types of people over everybody else, by insisting that they have a right to stay in school, even though the only reason they are there is to cause problems.  The solution liberals propose is more money, while they continue to prevent the establishment of any order in urban schools.

You need to get your head out of the stand, and stop playing the PC card with anybody who doesn't agree with you.  When I talk about supporting vouchers, I mean them to help "people who are not like me" as you described inner city children who may want an education, but are being robbed of the opportunity.  I don't live in a district with failing schools, so I wouldn't propose for the "people like me" who live in my district to benefit from vouchers, in case you're wondering. 

And for your information, I find human commonality with any person who acts like a decent human being, whatever their economic circumstances or ethnic background.  As far as the ones who belong to gangs and go around selling drugs and shooting people, you better believe I hope they're not like me.  So don't dare play your stupid race card with me because I recognize the truth about urban schools and am not afraid to say so.

And as far as calling inner city schools "concrete jungles" that's exactly what many of them are, and I'll defend that characterization of them to the death.  That doesn't mean that everybody who goes there is less than human, but it does mean that an inhuman element has been allowed to take over, terrorize those schools, and run them into the ground.  I know people who have gone to such schools, and I have heard the stories.  Maybe you don't, or are too busy denying reality to see what really goes on in those schools.  And don't suggest that I apply this to all public schools; I didn't and you know it full well.

It's amazing how many people in education have their own form of the Stockholm Syndrome and find it necessary to defend that which makes their job the most difficult.  You're not the only person in the field I know who does this, and it accounts for the overwhelming liberalism of the educational establishment.

[dazzleman]

I never defended unruly students, not a word of it. Quite happy to tell them to go. As I said I'm not out to save but to educate. What I refuted was yours and Jake's characterizations of public schools. You said I  described them. No, I was responding to Jake's :

 a kid who's parents are in jail , who's older brother's in a gang, who's older sister was raped and murdered, who lives in a hell hole in Los Angeles with gangs, drugs, and violence all around him, and who has Ludacris and 50 Cent telling him to "screw some whores"

which plays the race card, it's his characterization, don't make it mine. I'm merely defending the kids not like that, as you say you are. The above  is an extreme exaggeration of the public schools. And if you don't live in a district with failing public schools or an inner city, I'm not quite sure how you are privvy to defend such a characterization. Heard it on the radio? No, you've "heard stories and  know teachers." You say "Don't suggest I apply this to all public schools," yet you are quite happy to characterize all (or an "overwhelming" number) schools and liberals as alike. You seem to paint broad strokes about schools and liberals, and then deny that you are generalizing. Which is it?

We agree on this point: the focus should be on the kids who want to learn. We're not going to make miracles out of people who do not care and shouldn't deplete endless resources trying to change it. They shouldn't destroy schools nor should they be the picture drawn when characterizing public schools.

I know a number of people who grew up in urban areas.  I am not getting my information simply from the radio, so don't suggest that I'm exaggerating when I talk about conditions in inner city schools.  As I said, I never implied that all public schools are concrete jungles, but many inner city schools are, whether you admit it or not.

And you attack me for wanting to offer better opportunities to children who are trapped in those awful schools.  Truly, I would rather slit my wrists than go to one of those schools or send a child to one of those schools.  I was just talking to a friend yesterday who grew up in the South Bronx, and she was absolutely adamant about never going back to living like that, under any circumstances.  She is an example of somebody who got out; many did not.  I truly resent your attacking my motives and suggesting that I regard all inner city people as less than human when I am deeply interested in helping those who want to escape the inhuman conditions in which they are forced to live.  Just because you don't agree with my ideas about how to do it does not mean my motives are bad, and in suggesting so, you are taking a classic liberal position that only you know best.  Well I have news for you - if liberals knew how to fix the inner city education problem, it would have been fixed a long time ago, because liberals control education.

[dazzleman]

There is a big difference between a school in Tennessee and New York City.  I've been to many and probably soon will be teaching in a "failing" New York City public school.  Many of the stereotypes and generalizations that you condemned are true.  Many stereotypes are there for a reason.  From my experience student teaching, observing etc. in NYC i would definitely send my child to a private school if I lived in most of these areas.  Private schools have the distinct advantage of being able to throw out the bad apples that spoil the bunch. 

Thanks for the support, man.  It's good to hear from a man who actually knows what he's talking about.

[dazzleman]

There is a big difference between a school in Tennessee and New York City.  I've been to many and probably soon will be teaching in a "failing" New York City public school.  Many of the stereotypes and generalizations that you condemned are true.  Many stereotypes are there for a reason.  From my experience student teaching, observing etc. in NYC i would definitely send my child to a private school if I lived in most of these areas.  Private schools have the distinct advantage of being able to throw out the bad apples that spoil the bunch. 

Thanks for the support, man.  It's good to hear from a man who actually knows what he's talking about.

The sad part is that the overwhelmingly majority of the students are great kids but there are some who can ruin the learning environment for everyone.  The parents make all the difference in the world.  Most of the kids who act up are almost exclusively left to their own devices at home.  They have no rules at home and act the same way in school.  It is more than possible and in some events likely to succeed in a low income urban school but it is a lot more difficult than in a private school.   A lesson learned early is that you can't reach everyone.  A sad truth is that some students are just biding their time until they drop out.     

Very true.  But even good kids turn off eventually when the atmosphere in which they are supposed to learn is so hostile to education, as it is in inner city schools.

There are only two solutions.  Remove the bad apples and put them in special schools, or provide an escape for the kids who are interested in education.  Either one is fine with me, and the one that works better depends on the relative ratios between the two groups of kids.

Liberals of course don't agree with doing either.  They effectively want to flush the inner city kids, many of whom are black, down the toilet.  And the best part is that they take such a high moral tone while advocating this policy.  It makes my blood boil.