Private schools

[Bandit3 the Worker]

and attended by children of racist white parents who didn't want their kids to go to school with black people.

Private schools around here are the same way.

[WalterMitty]

im assuming that BRTD also thinks that private colleges such as harvard, yale, duke etc. should also be outlawed.

so go ahead BRTD tell us how 'that is different...".

we know why you dislike private schools, because of their religious nature and conservative leanings.  you are very intolerant of other ideas.  come to think of it, it is ironic that oyu are fond of calling people 'fascists'.  take a look in the mirror my friend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I hate private schools (and I mean HATE them), banning would be very hard though.

From a U.K perspective I'd like the University of Durham to be closed down and replaced by a new University of Durham that isn't based on the ridiculous Oxbridge system, let's local people become students, doesn't leech of the surrounding area (one of the poorest in the U.K) doesn't flood the otherwise nice little city that is Durham with brattish middle class BASTARDS who detest the locals (and DON'T WATCH FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!) and then go on to really  up local politics and...

I better stop know...

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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.

[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.

[opebo]

I'm against *public* schools.

[TeePee4Prez]

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 should have got expelled then.  I find with mine some students were better off in public school no matter how dreadful they were.

[??????????]

I went to private school for 12 years. Its a good atmosphere and you can easily learn.

[Keystone Phil]

I went to private school for 12 years. Its a good atmosphere and you can easily learn.

Not just a good atmosphere but the BEST atmospere for any student.

[TeePee4Prez]

I went to private school for 12 years. Its a good atmosphere and you can easily learn.

Not just a good atmosphere but the BEST atmospere for any student.

Not always.  The suburban public schools SMOKE us academically.

[Keystone Phil]

I went to private school for 12 years. Its a good atmosphere and you can easily learn.

Not just a good atmosphere but the BEST atmospere for any student.

Not always.  The suburban public schools SMOKE us academically.

Ok, I'll admit some suburban schools are excellent and surpass some private schools. That's not to say our Catholic schools aren't great places to learn its just that some of the suburban PA public school districts really know how to run things.

[TeePee4Prez]

That is true.  When I went we only had 2 AP offerings.  Now there's 3, but still other schools have over 20!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

Also, children who are not old enough to make their own choices should not be limited in what they are taught by a private school ideology.  The public schools can teach children the values necessary to be good public citizens.  If parents want to enhance that in their own home, that's fine.  But no child should be completely isolated from the subjects and values taught in public schools.

So, in general, I think private high schools and colleges should be legal, but that all children should have to attend public elementary schools.

BTW, I attended public schools through high school, though I did attend a private university.

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

You should have got expelled then.

I did. I'm just sorry it didn't happen sooner.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

[AuH2O]

People serious think you should BAN private schools? Holy sh**t, what a bunch of communists.

I went to public HS btw.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

Nice version of freedom you have there. That's what scares me so much about the Dhimmicrats.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

Nice version of freedom you have there. That's what scares me so much about the Dhimmicrats.

Whose freedom...the parents' or the child's?  
I believe a child's freedom is enhanced by not having a parent's ideology imposed on them from birth.

[Lunar]

The parent will teach his or her child their religious views no matter what, I fail to see how it increases the freedom of the child as he will still have his parents' beliefs imposed on him from birth.

It would be amazingly expensive to ban private schools as well.  We'd have to pay for millions and millions more children, which would require raising taxes and hurting the economy (in addition to putting the thousands of private schools out of business).

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

Nice version of freedom you have there. That's what scares me so much about the Dhimmicrats.

Whose freedom...the parents' or the child's?  
I believe a child's freedom is enhanced by not having a parent's ideology imposed on them from birth.

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.