Private schools

[cwelsch]

I highly doubt your private high school was truly authoritarian in the same way.

Regardless, my public high school had all sorts of rules and such, and tons of public schools have metal detectors, cameras and security badges.

[Platypus]

Here almost half the high school students go to Private Schools. And, shock horrow, all but three or so schools have uniforms. And, shock horror, our education system is the best in the nation, and outrr nations' education system is one of the best in the world. Beforer america. We're there are less private schools and no unifors.

Maybe i'm inferring something that doesn't exist, but just maybe private schools make a good contribution to our system, and just maybe uniforms do too.

And, coincidentally, I go to a public school.

[JohnFKennedy]

That's only because of the Restraining Order though...

That's only because I'm smarter than that jerk of a principal.

You are both arrogant and deluded it seems to me.

I personally go to a private school here in England.

Anyone who thinks that private schools do worse than state ones (here for some reason public means private in the education system) should take Britain as a case study. We have league tables for our exam results published every year, they do them separately for private schools and state schools.

Comparing  the private schools to the state ones it is a huge divide in quality from some to others.

Private schools generally have their pass rate of A* to C at over 90% whereas far fewer state schools do.

The private schools educate better as they are generally better funded through the fees students pay them and investment they receive from their owners.

Private schools can afford better teachers which also helps and as they only take the brightest students, they invariably do well so to claim they don't is fallacious.

I am perfectly happy with the British education system.

We have private schools, grammar schools and state schools (commonly known as comprehensives).

Private Schools are fee-paying schools who select by examination and interview.

Grammar Schools are a form of state school who also select by examination and interviews.

State Schools are the bog-standard schools.

I like this system as it means intelligent children who cannot afford to go to Private school can go to a grammar school.

The Economist recently ran a piece regarding private schools.

The option with them is to get rid of them and have everyone on a same standard or keep them and allow some to progress better than others.

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

I would rather have a small elite created by the Private system than no elite because the best students aren't being nurtured well enough at state schools.

Of cours, I cannot really comment on the US system so much as I do not know as much about it.

[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.

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

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.

He's barely a Democrat. He's one of our Europeans whos a conservative and hates to admit it. (Much like Gustaf and Likader)

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

He's barely a Democrat. He's one of our Europeans whos a conservative and hates to admit it. (Much like Gustaf and Likader)

Actually I am a Labour supporter, not a Conservative . (Yes I know you mean ideologically)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I personally go to a private school here in England.

Anyone who thinks that private schools do worse than state ones (here for some reason public means private in the education system) should take Britain as a case study. We have league tables for our exam results published every year, they do them separately for private schools and state schools.

IIRC, the reason they are called public schools in England, is that they are open to the children of anyone who will pay the fees, instead of being restricted to attendence by certain groups.  Hence they are public in the sense that you don't have to belong to a private group to send your chlid there.

[JohnFKennedy]

I personally go to a private school here in England.

Anyone who thinks that private schools do worse than state ones (here for some reason public means private in the education system) should take Britain as a case study. We have league tables for our exam results published every year, they do them separately for private schools and state schools.

IIRC, the reason they are called public schools in England, is that they are open to the children of anyone who will pay the fees, instead of being restricted to attendence by certain groups.  Hence they are public in the sense that you don't have to belong to a private group to send your chlid there.

Interesting, thank you Ernest, I did not know that .

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I highly doubt your private high school was truly authoritarian in the same way.

It wasn't authoritarian in the same way. It was authoritarian in a WORSE[/i] way!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only fascist ones.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Beforer america. We're there are less private schools and no unifors.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Since the mid-'90s, a considerable percentage of American public schools have adopted uniforms.

[Gustaf]

I attend a privately run school. I see no problem with them, they offer us more alternatives and give us greater choice. Voucher schools are especially good.  

[Platypus]

Beforer america. We're there are less private schools and no unifors.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Since the mid-'90s, a considerable percentage of American public schools have adopted uniforms.

The extra r was a typo

a considerable percanentage isnot all but a handful of schools.

It does make sense. We do better, because our edcuation system is better. And our education system includes Private schools. And also, it includes uniforms.

[Nym90]

No, private schools should absolutely not be banned.

Again, I find it interesting that Republicans take random statements from people on this board and say "that's why I don't like Democrats.". As if anyone here is a spokesman for the Democratic party. Once again, it seem that Republicans like to paint all Democrats with a broad brush of generalization to fit their simplistic black and white, good and evil view of the world. Most Democrats on this board view the world with more complexity, and would not attribute statements made by one extreme Republican to the entire party.

Private schools definitely have a positive contribution to make, but they should not take away any money from the public schools. First and foremost, we must assure high quality, free education for all. High quality free education should be a fundamental right, not a privledge, and it will be for the betterment of all of us if we educate our people properly. Lower crime, higher quality workforce, etc.

We need to spend more money on increasing teacher salaries to make them competitive with other jobs that require similar education levels, and also to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes. When public schools fail, I would support vouchers as a temporary solution, provided that NO money is taken away from the public schools in the process at all for having lost a student. However, as a long term solution, the taxpayers' money would be much better spent in improving the public schools than in vouchers, which would be quite expensive if implemented on a wide scale.

[Bono]

Of course private schools should not be banned.
On the other hand, public schools should be banned, and the sooner the better. They are just instruments of statis indoctrination.
Beeing educated in publicn schools, it's no wonder that children grow believeing that:

• That government is the fair and impartial arbiter, as opposed to private businessmen who act from self-interest;

• That government programs actually do what they promise to do;

• That Franklin Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression;

• That without government health care, education, and welfare, we'd all die young from sickness, we wouldn't know how to read or write, and people would die from starvation in the streets; and

• That the U.S. government is America — that it's their patriotic duty to support whatever idiotic policies the government decides to embark on.

They are merily at the disposal of whoever controls the public schools system at that time to shove whatever idiotic education policies they think of, and are ruled by politicians and bureaucrats who are never going to face the consequences of their actions, no matter whatever harm they do the the childrens education.

I go to a private school(not religious), and I have been to a private school all my life. I'm very happy with this, and I prefer any private school to the government-sponsored brothels that are public schools.
Public schools are one of the reasons the moral standarts are so low this days.

And why should someone who has no kids be paying for the education of others' children?

And why should I be forced to go to school with people that I would prefer to see in missing people lists?

And why should Godless, moraless, publicn schools that look like crime-school be permited to exist and beeing payd for by taxpayers money?

[Gustaf]

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.

[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.

[Gustaf]

I don't see your point, Dibble...Communism got nothing to do with it. My point was, if we accept the concept of a society with some sort of common interest, then the argument for publicly financed schools is pretty obvious to spot.

I do know that many libertarians do not beleive in this, but that's a philosophical difference that is hard to reason about.

For the record, I favour private schools and voucher schools as well, I think they're great. But I also agree with a publicly financed education for everyone.

[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.

[Gustaf]

OK, I can see how it could be interpreted that way...but I can assure you I'm very far from a Communist.

I know the differences between communist and capitalist societies. But I kind of sense the libertarian detest for a moderate position here...I believe in both individual rights and shared interests, though more in the former.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

OK, then we're probably not all that far from each other...though probably still somewhat far.

[cwelsch]

I highly doubt your private high school was truly authoritarian in the same way.

It wasn't authoritarian in the same way. It was authoritarian in a WORSE[/i] way!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only fascist ones.

Then most are fascist.  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.  After I left they developed the IDs even further.

Regardless, it's truly authoritarian to ban private schools.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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!

[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?

[Akno21]

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!

After Columbine security got a lot tougher. Kids don't have as many freedoms as they should.