Should private schools exist?/Should public schools exist?

[Bono]

This asks about both private and public schools though, so it also fits wit the extreme libertarians who want to end public schools.

We're merely trying to defend ourselves, since public schools want to end with libertarianism.

[Nym90]

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

Well there'd be homeschooling, of course.

[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.

[TomC]

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?

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. At the crux of the error is broad based assumptions about liberalism and the purpose of public school systems (which are far from the same thing) 

Many private schools are elite prep schools and would be a part of this voucher formula. Surely you are not suggesting the voucher program should include religious schools and not schools unaffiliated with religion? Although that is what you seem to say with "I'm not talking about..." You say kids that go to prep schools don't come from areas where there are failing schools. A generalization that may tend to be true BUT the President and most pro-voucher people are selling vouchers and no child left behind to appeal to exactly those kids who couldn't otherwise go to an elite prep school. Give everyone the opportunity. This is exactly what that guy on TV (Williams?) was advocating after the feds gave him $200000. So do you disagree with the President's plan or are you revealing that this promise is actually a lie? You seem to be dangling a carrot of "escape" from "such people" in the "concrete jungle."

Your reference to the inner city as a concrete jungle, thus referring to poor people as somehow less than human is quite telling about your attitude about people different from you. I should have stopped reading the post right there.

As an educator, I do not see my job as saving anybody. I am a teacher, not a social engineer. I am sure many of my professionals agree. I help students meet the requirements for a diploma and be prepared, if they so choose to go, for college. Or at least to continue learning once they've graduated.

It's amazing that conservatives are sooo agsinst putting money into anything that serves people, yet if a business or church is getting our hard earned tax dollars, they are all ready to shovel it over. Borrow it from China and Saudi Arabia rather than pay for it up front? Even better.

I'll give you the point about parents, many are the reason children aren't succeeding more. But you over dramatize it. There are millions of families involved in their child's public school education, donate time and money to extra curricular activities in schools. Many, many public school students learn and succeed, go on to quite successful and happy lives. To listen to you, most publics school students are preparing for prisons or welfare. Your problem with schools seems to be a cultural problem.

[Jake]

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. At the crux of the error is broad based assumptions about liberalism and the purpose of public school systems (which are far from the same thing) 

Many private schools are elite prep schools and would be a part of this voucher formula. Surely you are not suggesting the voucher program should include religious schools and not schools unaffiliated with religion? Although that is what you seem to say with "I'm not talking about..." You say kids that go to prep schools don't come from areas where there are failing schools. A generalization that may tend to be true BUT the President and most pro-voucher people are selling vouchers and no child left behind to appeal to exactly those kids who couldn't otherwise go to an elite prep school. Give everyone the opportunity. This is exactly what that guy on TV (Williams?) was advocating after the feds gave him $200000. So do you disagree with the President's plan or are you revealing that this promise is actually a lie? You seem to be dangling a carrot of "escape" from "such people" in the "concrete jungle."

Your reference to the inner city as a concrete jungle, thus referring to poor people as somehow less than human is quite telling about your attitude about people different from you. I should have stopped reading the post right there.

As an educator, I do not see my job as saving anybody. I am a teacher, not a social engineer. I am sure many of my professionals agree. I help students meet the requirements for a diploma and be prepared, if they so choose to go, for college. Or at least to continue learning once they've graduated.

It's amazing that conservatives are sooo agsinst putting money into anything that serves people, yet if a business or church is getting our hard earned tax dollars, they are all ready to shovel it over. Borrow it from China and Saudi Arabia rather than pay for it up front? Even better.

I'll give you the point about parents, many are the reason children aren't succeeding more. But you over dramatize it. There are millions of families involved in their child's public school education, donate time and money to extra curricular activities in schools. Many, many public school students learn and succeed, go on to quite successful and happy lives. To listen to you, most publics school students are preparing for prisons or welfare. Your problem with schools seems to be a cultural problem.

There is much more wrong with this post though.

First, dazzleman never referred to inner city people as "less than human".

Second, no amount of money will convince 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", to come to school and learn.  That is why education is still failing, and will continue to fail. Parents are the most important thing in a child's life.  They WILL NOT learn if they don't have a support system that functions.

[TomC]

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. At the crux of the error is broad based assumptions about liberalism and the purpose of public school systems (which are far from the same thing) 

Many private schools are elite prep schools and would be a part of this voucher formula. Surely you are not suggesting the voucher program should include religious schools and not schools unaffiliated with religion? Although that is what you seem to say with "I'm not talking about..." You say kids that go to prep schools don't come from areas where there are failing schools. A generalization that may tend to be true BUT the President and most pro-voucher people are selling vouchers and no child left behind to appeal to exactly those kids who couldn't otherwise go to an elite prep school. Give everyone the opportunity. This is exactly what that guy on TV (Williams?) was advocating after the feds gave him $200000. So do you disagree with the President's plan or are you revealing that this promise is actually a lie? You seem to be dangling a carrot of "escape" from "such people" in the "concrete jungle."

Your reference to the inner city as a concrete jungle, thus referring to poor people as somehow less than human is quite telling about your attitude about people different from you. I should have stopped reading the post right there.

As an educator, I do not see my job as saving anybody. I am a teacher, not a social engineer. I am sure many of my professionals agree. I help students meet the requirements for a diploma and be prepared, if they so choose to go, for college. Or at least to continue learning once they've graduated.

It's amazing that conservatives are sooo agsinst putting money into anything that serves people, yet if a business or church is getting our hard earned tax dollars, they are all ready to shovel it over. Borrow it from China and Saudi Arabia rather than pay for it up front? Even better.

I'll give you the point about parents, many are the reason children aren't succeeding more. But you over dramatize it. There are millions of families involved in their child's public school education, donate time and money to extra curricular activities in schools. Many, many public school students learn and succeed, go on to quite successful and happy lives. To listen to you, most publics school students are preparing for prisons or welfare. Your problem with schools seems to be a cultural problem.

There is much more wrong with this post though.

First, dazzleman never referred to inner city people as "less than human".

Second, no amount of money will convince 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", to come to school and learn.  That is why education is still failing, and will continue to fail. Parents are the most important thing in a child's life.  They WILL NOT learn if they don't have a support system that functions.

And you've done the same thing. You talk about funding public schools (or not) and bring up all this imagery of gangs and rapes and whores and rappers. As if every public school is essentially a scene from a Spike Lee movie. You are describing a small percentage of people, and doing so with the most discriminatory symbols you can. And your statement that "They will not learn if they don't have a support system that functions" is exactly the reason "No Child Left Behind" and "Soft bigotry of low expectations" is clearly lip service in order to send tax money to elite prep schools and evangelical churches.

[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.

[TomC]

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.

[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.

[patrick1]

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. 

[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.

[patrick1]

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.     

[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.

[TomC]

There is a big difference between a school in Tennessee and New York City.   

Which is exactly why education policy shouldn't be mandated by the federal government.

[TomC]

The sad part is that the overwhelmingly majority of the students are great kids

This is exactly what my point was.

[patrick1]

They have an entrenched bureaucracy.  There are so many b.s. administrative positions it is a joke.  You have like 25 people doing what 2 priests/brothers in Parochial schools. but people are making $$$ and no one wants to upset the applecart.  Another problem that you need so many administaters is that there is so much ppwrk to go around-  In the age of lawsuits etc everyone wants to cover their rear.  On a small part of the pie goes to actually educating the students.

[patrick1]

There is a big difference between a school in Tennessee and New York City.   

Which is exactly why education policy shouldn't be mandated by the federal government.

No argument here. 

[TomC]

They have an entrenched bureaucracy.  There are so many b.s. administrative positions it is a joke.  You have like 25 people doing what 2 priests/brothers in Parochial schools. but people are making $$$ and no one wants to upset the applecart.  Another problem that you need so many administaters is that there is so much ppwrk to go around-  In the age of lawsuits etc everyone wants to cover their rear.  On a small part of the pie goes to actually educating the students.

Yes, I agree, although there are not that many administrators actually in the school- they could use a little more help. Administrators need more time to be a part of the instruction in a school. Suspending students takes too much time from engendering a quality school. If principals (incl assistant) had more time helping teachers be better (by advice or by pressure), the problems that cause disruptions and "office visits" would decrease. The need for curriculum administrators (like system-wide- which is where that wasteful money is- it's not being wasted in the schools much) would also abate. Have principals as strong leaders including instructional leaders- and there's little need for administrators who push paper. Some actually save the system money (pool resources like for busing, payroll) but you are right too many are spearheading specialized programs like reading intervention, while the mandated reading classes (for all- not just special needs) climb in size and reduce the amount of time each student gets assistance from the teacher.

[DanielX]

Yes on private schools / Jury is still out on public schools.

If public schools can teach and teach well, then they're fine. Else, they're just a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Hitchabrut]

Yws/Yes

[nclib]

Yes/Yes.

[No more McShame]

Yes/No

It's time to stop throwing money down the tube of the public school system and rethink this whole thing.  Gov't is the problem not the solution.

[opebo]

Yes/No

It's time to stop throwing money down the tube of the public school system and rethink this whole thing.  Gov't is the problem not the solution.

No, the problem is poverty.  Every aspect of a childs future can be predicted with a startling degree of accuracy from his parent's socioeconomic level - income level, income source, type of housing, etc.

[Ebowed]

Yes/Yes.  People should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.  They should also have the option not to send them to school at all.

[No more McShame]

Yes/No

It's time to stop throwing money down the tube of the public school system and rethink this whole thing.  Gov't is the problem not the solution.

No, the problem is poverty.  Every aspect of a childs future can be predicted with a startling degree of accuracy from his parent's socioeconomic level - income level, income source, type of housing, etc.

I don't buy into this whole Marxist rant about class struggle determining everything.  Too many people have started on the lower rungs of the economic ladder and climbed to the top for me to buy that cop-out excuse.