Public V. Private Schools

[Dreamchasa]

I'm not sure if anyone has had this debate here especially any of us with children but I wanted to get your feeback on this very matter if you think it matters pub v. private or is more of what the kids get OUTSIDE the classroom that's more beneficial.

I went to private school K-7th grade and public school 8-12 and I noticed a HUGE difference in my mentality and the teachers and just all around atmosphere. Though the kids were snobbier at the private schools there was also a lot more focus on the academics by the falculty.

[wordsmith]

You're talking elementary/secondary schooling, not college, right?

I'd say it depends entirely on the school/district, and it ALWAYS depends on what your kid is getting at home, no matter WHERE you send him to school.

Some people prefer private/parochial for their sometimes smaller size and individualized attention, or for religious philosophies involved. A coworker's child asked to to go a small Catholic private high school because the public school he'd have had to attend was dangerously gang-ridden. But there are obviously very good public schools as well.

[Dreamchasa]

Yea elementary and secondary schooling.

I went to catholic school 2nd through 7th and took some good things from it. Even though I'm no longer part of the church I'm debating in my head on the pros and cons of the experiences.

I think my issue with private schools is the lack of diversity most offer where with the public you have more diversity yet seriously tend to lack in the academics unless you put them in all honors classes which lacks diversity as well. I want to get that good social and academic balance.

[wordsmith]

I went to public school that was utterly lacking in diversity. It depends on where you live. In my town, the Catholic school was more culturally diverse than the public, because so many of the Hispanic kids went there (our only significant cultural group).

I also got a really sound education in public schooling, but it was more under my own steam...teachers/curriculum weren't all that challenging, it was more what I made of it. But that has to do with upbringing. Kids who are raised being healthily encouraged to excel will excel no matter where they go to school.

[sundaycomics]

Depends on the school district.

My husband and I would have gone to the same school except he went to private Christian school and I went to public. His school was, demographically, like our town 30 years ago (way more white people). Mine also had a daycare in it for the girls who got pregnant before they graduated.

But as far as academics and extracurriculars our schools were pretty much the same, except that he had Bible classes and we had a football team. We both took AP classes. Kids from both schools ended up at pretty much the same colleges too.

[tdko]

Slight threadjack:

I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that girls who attend all-girl schools tend to do better, learn more, and get further in life. I watch some of the girls in the youth group I advise, and they dumb themselves down around boys. If it's like that in a safe environment like we have, then they must be doing it at school.

I was also struck by Super Size Me's point that healthy eating improved behavioral problems in teenagers.

[Dreamchasa]

I could understand that though I'm not sure its so much a sex thing as the culture that a certain group breeds. By this I mean in european american culture (and I'm going way out on a limb here so feel free to correct this part) I've seen that dominant male ego seem to cause some women to want to play down their intellect. I've seen in african-american culture where the guys dumb themselves down b/c being smart is somehow frowned about where the women don't play party to it. They outnumber AA men in graduate schools in some reports I've seen over 4-1. Though that's off topic.

In most of the asian groups I remember it was demanded that both sexes go after a certain level of academic success. So on and so forth....

[WeirdBrake]

Black females outnumber black males in most law schools.

[wordsmith]

Every girl I went to post-secondary schooling with who had gone to an all-girls' school absolutely loved their experience, in part because of the different way many girls do act around boys. We also studied this in educational psych in my teacher training.

I don't know any guys besides my uncle who went to an all-boys' school.

[Dreamchasa]

I know at Tuskeegee Vet School they outnumber them 10 to 1 I believe I read in Newsweek. Yet I digress....

I think OVERALL public schools have more diversity to them from all walks of life and private schools which usually are smaller tend to be more academically sound. Would that be a wrong statement to make OVERALL? There is obviously a perception in our society of the difference b/w the two.

[wordsmith]

I still think it's totally going to depend on geography, too.

[lilyflower]

I'm totally for public schools except in the case where the schools aren't safe (and there are some public school districts/schools that are notoriously unsafe). I'd rather pay the moola to send my kid to a private school than a school where he/she cant wear certain colors out of fear of gang violence.

That's not the case in most suburbs and most districts though. I did public school from K-12 and I doubt it hindered me academically in any way.

[capella]

My husband went to Catholic school 1-12 grade. I went to some of the most ghetto public schools imaginable. If you've ever been to PG county Maryland, you'll know what I'm talking about. I think we are equal in education and intellect. But I think he was much more sheltered about the world and how to deal with all kinds of people, be it race or economic backgrounds.

I think it matters much more what goes on inside the home and the kind of encouragement and support a kid gets than the cost of their education. Parents are such a HUGE piece of the puzzle. Read to your kids. Ask them critical thinking questions. Do stuff with them and talk to them. That matters so much more than public or private.

I think the bigger thing is that kids in public schools don't get the same resources as kids in private schools. But I think that has more to do with economic backgrounds of the parents than the schools themselves. For instance, parents who have the money to send kids to private school are more likely to actually have books on hand (live in a "print rich" environment) and be more educated themselves. They are more likely to have access to technology, such as computers and the internet. Or fancy graphing calculators.

I know that in most public schools, students are grouped by ability level and that kind of edges out the "public education is dumbed down" idea. You'll be placed into the class you're best suited for.

There isn't anything wrong with a public education. Siphoning kids off to private school isn't going to do anything to better prepare our future generations. I guess it's not really a surprise though that I'd be much in favor of supporting public education. :p

[SmilesSoSweet]

My brother, sister and I a long with our cousins all went to public schools. I think it was more of cost than anything else. My neighbors all went to Catholic schools but my parents still felt that the public schools were best for us. I think tutition at the grade school level was like $3k-5k a year. This was back in the 80s too. The pubilc school down the street, obviously it was free.
The city's school district was really good and where we lived at good schools. There of course were a few elementary and middle schools within the school district that weren't so good.

We also attend Saturday morning CCD classes at the Catholic church. My parents felt that was our time for religious learning, then during the week we would be at the public school. We all (cousins included) attended public high schools too.

[bridgetjones]

Hmm... Well due to quirks in the Ontario public school system, there are single sex Catholic public schools with uniforms. I went to one of them. It was the closest my parents could send me to a private school without well sending me to a private school. They felt like I might feel like crap around the rich kids since I would be one of the poor kids. Yeah I sorta felt it sometimes even though I was outside the private school system bc the school I went to was in a rich nieghborhood. There was snobbery but less pronounced than in an expensive private school.

However the fact that there were uniforms does to some extent equalize the rich and the poor kids. There was a wide variety of socioeconomic classes in my school that I think is rare in Canada and the US. I liked the uniforms. It was weird to go to uni and have to think about what to wear in the morning :) I had to spend alot of money to buy clothes :(

Another adjustment when going to uni was to get used to having boys in class. It was cool to be a teenager and not care about what you look like when you get to school. Not to mention you never had your lust object there distracting you in class. I also never experienced women dumbing themselves around boys until uni. Hello? Who is there to impress? On the other hand it can cramp socialization in other ways. I would not say I loved it. It had its benefits academically for sure. Socially, I am still not so sure about my experiences in a single sex environment.

[RudeGirl]

I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that girls who attend all-girl schools tend to do better, learn more, and get further in life. I watch some of the girls in the youth group I advise, and they dumb themselves down around boys. If it's like that in a safe environment like we have, then they must be doing it at school.

I wonder if those studies about high school girls performing poorly in science and math are garnered from selective, cherry-picked evidence. In my graduating class, 2001, there was a group of five of us--all girls--who ran out of science and math courses to take by 11th grade. For every example of guys outperforming girls, you could find an opposing example.

There are other studies, too, that suggest that girls perform better in high school than guys do; in my school, that was definitely the case. There were three guys in the gifted program, and by high school, they all had 2.0 averages because they adhered to the theory that doing poorly in school and playing in rock bands would make them more popular people.

[RudeGirl]

Also, I find it interesting that "diversity" is such an important factor in a well-rounded school experience. I know black, Chinese, Korean, and Indian kids who are similar to me in interests, and academic persuits. Conversely, I know many, many, many white people--here, we call them "Yinzers, n'at"--with whom I have nothing in common; for me to associate with them would be a "very diverse" step outside of my current surroundings.

The word "diversity" is misleading, because it has a more interesting, converse implication; that is, that everyone in the same ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic group thinks and behaves in a similar fashion, and that racial, religious, or socioeconomic diversity, demographically, is necessary to promote exchanges of different ideas and perspectives.

[capella]

The word "diversity" is misleading, because it has a more interesting, converse implication; that is, that everyone in the same ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic group thinks and behaves in a similar fashion, and that racial, religious, or socioeconomic diversity, demographically, is necessary to promote exchanges of different ideas and perspectives.
I don't know if it's that crazy an idea to think that people of the same race, religion, socioeconomic backgrounds would have similar beliefs and perspectives. Yeah, not everyone is going to think the same but there's something to be said about cultural values and sharing beliefs with people of other backgrounds.

[yankeeyosh]

I wonder if those studies about high school girls performing poorly in science and math are garnered from selective, cherry-picked evidence. In my graduating class, 2001, there was a group of five of us--all girls--who ran out of science and math courses to take by 11th grade. For every example of guys outperforming girls, you could find an opposing example.

I don't know how it is in other sciences, but in meteorology, there has been a rapid increase in the number of females who are interested. In my college class (00), there were only two females graduating out of a class of 13. By your class (05), it was nearly 50-50. My entering grad school class (03) was roughly 30% female, but the 05 entering class was once again roughly 50-50.

[RudeGirl]

I don't know how it is in other sciences, but in meteorology, there has been a rapid increase in the number of females who are interested. In my college class (00), there were only two females graduating out of a class of 13. By your class (05), it was nearly 50-50. My entering grad school class (03) was roughly 30% female, but the 05 entering class was once again roughly 50-50.

I was class of '04, actually. What's the stats on that class?

[SmilesSoSweet]

I used to work for a college bookstore who also would sell books for a couple of days to a Christian high school. Their books would be labeled, "Biology, for Christian schools." "Literature, for Christian schools." I think the only book that didn't have to emphasize the Christian school part of it were the math books. I don't know, it just seems like it was a little sheltering of the students. But then again I only went to public schools - even for college - so I wouldn't know from first hand experience.

As for school uniforms, the school district I was in was the first public school district in the nation to require school uniforms for K-8. I think one or two of the high schools now require uniforms, but not all of them. I never worn uniforms because it didn't go into effect until my sophomore year of high school. From what I hear a lot of students do like wearing the uniforms, because they don't have to worry about what to wear everyday. From the schools' point of view, there isn't as much obvious seperation from income levels with the uniforms.

[yankeeyosh]

I was class of '04, actually. What's the stats on that class?

Ah, '04...so you graduated in three years you Gen 'Y' overachiever you :)

I actually am visiting my undergrad dep'ts webpage, so I can now give you the statistics for classes of 02 and later.


02: 3 females, 9 males (25% female)
03: 2 females, 11 males (15% female)
04: 4 females, 6 males (40% female)
05: 9 females, 10 males (47% female)
06: 8 females, 10 males (44% female)
07: 4 females, 6 males (40% female)
08: 7 females, 8 males (47% female)
09 (a bit regressive): 6 females, 13 males (32% female)

00, as I said, was 2 females and 11 males (15% female) , and 01 only had 2 female and 7 males (22% female).

So, as you can see, except for the class of 09, there definitely seems to be a major sea-change in the demographics.

[pisces2473]

I used to work for a college bookstore who also would sell books for a couple of days to a Christian high school. Their books would be labeled, "Biology, for Christian schools." "Literature, for Christian schools." I think the only book that didn't have to emphasize the Christian school part of it were the math books. I don't know, it just seems like it was a little sheltering of the students. But then again I only went to public schools - even for college - so I wouldn't know from first hand experience.

As for school uniforms, the school district I was in was the first public school district in the nation to require school uniforms for K-8. I think one or two of the high schools now require uniforms, but not all of them. I never worn uniforms because it didn't go into effect until my sophomore year of high school. From what I hear a lot of students do like wearing the uniforms, because they don't have to worry about what to wear everyday. From the schools' point of view, there isn't as much obvious seperation from income levels with the uniforms.
They should have math books for Christian schools. Like, "if Jesus has 2 loaves and 5 fishes, how many people can he feed?" :razz:

As for the uniform thing, I can see how it would be great for public schools. But then, you'd get "oh your shoes are from Walmart, mine are Sketchers" or other such nonsense. Kids.

[capella]

I know that I was tortured in middle school for not having a "Starter" jacket, Nikes/Reeboks and Levi's or some crap like that. Payless shoes and a used jacket from your granpa's drycleaning service (the stuff no one wanted so they never picked it up). Yeah, I was sooo high fashion. School uniforms are a great idea.

[yankeeyosh]

I know that I was tortured in middle school for not having a "Starter" jacket, Nikes/Reeboks and Levi's or some crap like that. Payless shoes and a used jacket from your granpa's drycleaning service (the stuff no one wanted so they never picked it up). Yeah, I was sooo high fashion. School uniforms are a great idea.

Starter jackets...in 92, people went as far as murder for those things. Now, they collect dust at Walmart.

[pisces2473]

I know that I was tortured in middle school for not having a "Starter" jacket, Nikes/Reeboks and Levi's or some crap like that. Payless shoes and a used jacket from your granpa's drycleaning service (the stuff no one wanted so they never picked it up). Yeah, I was sooo high fashion. School uniforms are a great idea.
Fortunately, I wasn't picked on for not wearing the right clothes...that's b/c I was too fat to buy them....so I got picked on for OTHER things. YAY. But I do remember the girls saying stuff like "Nice shoes...where'd you get those???" just to watch me squirm b/c they knew that I got them at Payless or Kmart or wherever. Now we're all grown-ups, everyone's all "I LOVE Payless!" Funny how it is now that mommy and daddy can't buy you everything...

[pisces2473]

Starter jackets...in 92, people went as far as murder for those things. Now, they collect dust at Walmart.
*taps chest* Starter...hometown pride, yo. Factory was in my 'hood, bitches!

[WeirdBrake]

I wonder if those studies about high school girls performing poorly in science and math are garnered from selective, cherry-picked evidence. In my graduating class, 2001, there was a group of five of us--all girls--who ran out of science and math courses to take by 11th grade. For every example of guys outperforming girls, you could find an opposing example.

There are other studies, too, that suggest that girls perform better in high school than guys do; in my school, that was definitely the case. There were three guys in the gifted program, and by high school, they all had 2.0 averages because they adhered to the theory that doing poorly in school and playing in rock bands would make them more popular people.

Yep, I've heard that, in general, girls outperform boys academically in high school and in college and that the male dropout rate has exceeded the female dropout rate. Also, the rates of drug abuse, incarceration, and suicide are higher for males than for females across the board.

Political correctness often takes a stoning from malicious truth. ;)

[yankeeyosh]

Yep, I've heard that, in general, girls outperform boys academically in high school and in college and that the male dropout rate has exceeded the female dropout rate. Also, the rates of drug abuse, incarceration, and suicide are higher for males than for females across the board.

Political correctness often takes a stoning from malicious truth. ;)

It's true. That's one strike against the EVIL EMPIRE aka standardized test. Even though girls tend to do worse than boys on the SAT, they now are clearly in the majority for college students and grads. For instance, for the HS class of 96 (my class :) ), 70% of females went on to college, while only 60% of males did. And females make up about 55% of the grads now.

[SunDevil]

I went to public school; that was the only viable option. Had I lived 25 miles West, I would have gone to Catholic private school with my cousins.

How do you guys feel about home schooling? I've only met 5 people that were home schooled, but all of them were incredibly smart. Like one girl in my freshman engineering class was 15 or 16 and she was easily doing all of the problems. It would be like if I, at 26 with an engineering job, went back and took the basic 100 engineering class again.

[ebruening]

I went to private school K-7th grade and public school 8-12 and I noticed a HUGE difference in my mentality and the teachers and just all around atmosphere. Though the kids were snobbier at the private schools there was also a lot more focus on the academics by the falculty.

I went to Catholic school from kindergarten through twelfth grade. All the kids who went to my grade school and high school were comfortably upper middle class. Looking back on my high school experience now that I teach in a Title 1 high school in small-town USA, I realize that most of my classmates had a MUCH higher sense of entitlement than my current students have. Yes, the kids were "snobbier" at my high school, but I think your comment about there being " a lot more focus on the academics" at a private school needs some tweaking. Private schools typically have much smaller classes; teachers can give students individual attention because they don't have classes of 30+. At my high school, we had classes of 20, at most. You get what you pay for, even in education, sadly enough :(

[lilyflower]

I wonder if those studies about high school girls performing poorly in science and math are garnered from selective, cherry-picked evidence. In my graduating class, 2001, there was a group of five of us--all girls--who ran out of science and math courses to take by 11th grade. For every example of guys outperforming girls, you could find an opposing example.

There are other studies, too, that suggest that girls perform better in high school than guys do; in my school, that was definitely the case. There were three guys in the gifted program, and by high school, they all had 2.0 averages because they adhered to the theory that doing poorly in school and playing in rock bands would make them more popular people.

Science chicks represent, yo :cool: Hell, the only people at my school who competed in the state science competition in the later year WERE girls - there were four of us in my year, all female.

*Two time PJAS regional winner*

[SmilesSoSweet]

I don't know how it is in other states, but in California (this may have changed) it wasn't required for teachers to have teaching credentials if they taught at private schools. How scary is that? You pay all this tutition for your child(ren) to attend a private school and their teachers may not have credentials? The schools I attend from K-12 had good academic programs. I was fortunate enough to be in those programs, too.

I have known a few people who attend private Catholic schools who rebelled right after they graduated or stopped going to a Catholic school. A lot of them didn't finish college and had kids before getting married. But also, I know a lot of people who attended public schools and the same thing happened. (My ten-year high school reunion is this year, and I know a few people from my class who have kids that will be TEN this year!)

[wordsmith]

I think it matters much more what goes on inside the home and the kind of encouragement and support a kid gets than the cost of their education. Parents are such a HUGE piece of the puzzle. Read to your kids. Ask them critical thinking questions. Do stuff with them and talk to them. That matters so much more than public or private.

Totally...my public schools were mediocre at best. Not because they were ghetto, because they were rural, and therefore just as lacking in funding and quality instructors as inner city schools can be. My academic successes were far more a product of parenting than schooling. I just never had anything more than a handful of teachers at best who were that good or inspiring. But I still got to college more than well-prepared to excel, and was with students with far better k-12 educations than I'd received. I more than held my own, and it's due to the influence and support of my parents, both educators by trade,though otherwise employed most of my youth. What goes on at home is probably a BIGGER piece of the puzzle than the quality of schooling, for many.

[wordsmith]

Private schools typically have much smaller classes; teachers can give students individual attention because they don't have classes of 30+. At my high school, we had classes of 20, at most. You get what you pay for, even in education, sadly enough :(

Class size is a HUGE factor, totally agree.

[capella]

In Florida the class sizes are capped at 18 or so for elementary, 22 for middle and 25 for high school. They are doing this measurement on a classroom by classroom basis now instead of district average. And the governer (the other dubya) is hell bent on getting the VOTER approved class size amendment done away with. Why? Because the state can't afford it. Or in other words, the state thinks its money is better spent on something other than educating its future generation. It's a fancy way of saying "We don't care enough about your kids' education to fund the amendment you put into action. Our kids can all afford smaller private school classrooms while the rest of you can let your kids sit in a room of 30-40 kids with ONE lone teacher." I can tell you from experience that a room of 34 kids is way too much to handle. And those were my advanced kids. I had 27 in my regular level class and if you have 2 or 3 trouble makers it is HELL to manage and actually get learning going on. My husband had a class of 40 Yes! 40!!!! 6th graders at his ghetto school last year. Can you imagine getting 40 rowdy 6th graders to sit down and do ANYTHING? Luckily at his new school he only teaches Intensive Reading, not any regular class, and so his classes have 14-16 kids. My largest class is 20 kids this year because we had a drop in enrollment and it is SOO much easier to teach. I'm betting they learn a lot more than the kids did last year.

[yankeeyosh]

In Florida the class sizes are capped at 18 or so for elementary, 22 for middle and 25 for high school. They are doing this measurement on a classroom by classroom basis now instead of district average. And the governer (the other dubya) is hell bent on getting the VOTER approved class size amendment done away with. Why? Because the state can't afford it. Or in other words, the state thinks its money is better spent on something other than educating its future generation. It's a fancy way of saying "We don't care enough about your kids' education to fund the amendment you put into action. Our kids can all afford smaller private school classrooms while the rest of you can let your kids sit in a room of 30-40 kids with ONE lone teacher." I can tell you from experience that a room of 34 kids is way too much to handle. And those were my advanced kids. I had 27 in my regular level class and if you have 2 or 3 trouble makers it is HELL to manage and actually get learning going on. My husband had a class of 40 Yes! 40!!!! 6th graders at his ghetto school last year. Can you imagine getting 40 rowdy 6th graders to sit down and do ANYTHING? Luckily at his new school he only teaches Intensive Reading, not any regular class, and so his classes have 14-16 kids. My largest class is 20 kids this year because we had a drop in enrollment and it is SOO much easier to teach. I'm betting they learn a lot more than the kids did last year.

You know, I remember when I was in elementary school in Florida, my class sizes were generally 33-35 kids...and I did NOT go to a ghetto school...it was in a middle to upper-middle class community. Miraculously, I don't think we were troublemakers at all (I was probably the biggest trouble maker, actually...I clearly remember having my name on the board in first grade under the "bad kids" list, with 21 check marks next to it...keep in mind that four check marks would get you sent to the principal's office with a referral). I think the reason why our classes were so big was because the town we lived in was growing exponentially...after second grade, they had to split up the school since it was essentially filled over capacity.

[sundaycomics]

As for the uniform thing, I can see how it would be great for public schools. But then, you'd get "oh your shoes are from Walmart, mine are Sketchers" or other such nonsense. Kids.

Yeah, I definitely remember kids making fun of my jeans because they were from the wrong place and mocking my brother because he used the wrong toothpaste.

[shimmer728]

I went to a suburban public high school. There is a private Catholic school in our town, but my dad said he didn't believe in sending his daughters there because he didn't want us to grow up with a bunch of kids who were exactly like us. I saw his point, though our HS wasn't terribly diverse, either. It was just your average suburban high school. I think I got a good education there. It seems like it's gotten better over the years, too.....now the school offers a shitload of AP classes. We only had one when I graduated in 1998.

Now, I have two cousins who both graduated from the Catholic school. My uncle said he sent them there because he wanted them to be around "the right kind of people." This is laughable. The drug and alcohol problem at that school is RIDICULOUS.

[kimmer23]

There was a special on 20/20 last night about this. I think it was called "Dumb in America?" It was pretty much saying how schools are failing kids in America. Korea was #1 and Belgium was #2 in education rankings. The U.S. was #25. That is awful.

My mom has worked in middle schools for the last 20 yrs and she thinks that kids are worse--they think they have a sense of entitlement and they arent getting proper parenting at home either.

[yankeeyosh]

My HS was a public school, but it was a specialized high school which 8th grades from all over New York City had to take a ***GASP*** standardized test to get into the school (and that was the ONLY measure that decided who goes or not). Most of the kids were super-smart, overachiever types who were grasping to get into the Ivies (although only one person in our class got into Harvard and a couple into Yale...no MIT or Princeton acceptances). There were slackers, too, although they were the exception and not the rule. However, curiously, I don't think many people took more than four APs, even during senior year. Part of that had to do with the long commute, and part of it is because AP's ***really*** required a lot of work (I don't know how it was for you guys, but an AP course at my school required an hour's worth of homework a night).

It was an incredibly diverse school...the demographics are probably matched by only a few other schools. It was roughly 40-45% Asian (Chinese, Indian, Korean, etc), 30-35% white (including many from the former Soviet republics), 10-15% African-American, and ~10% Hispanic. So it was definitely a good experience in that respect...an excellent school with diversity that you rarely see at private or suburban public schools.

[SmilesSoSweet]

It seems like it's gotten better over the years, too.....now the school offers a shitload of AP classes. We only had one when I graduated in 1998.

That's just so weird to me. I attended a public high school in an inner-city area. In the academic program I was in, whatever AP test was offered in May, we had a class for it. I think at the time there was 21 different AP tests, and all 21 of them were offered at school. I took my first AP class as a sophomore.

The Catholic school in the city has been struggling to stay afloat since the mid-1990s. Because the public high schools (there are five in the school district was in) nearby this Catholic school were doing so well, a lot of parents decided not to spend the money on a Catholic school that couldn't give what the public high schools were giving.

[shimmer728]

That's just so weird to me. I attended a public high school in an inner-city area. In the academic program I was in, whatever AP test was offered in May, we had a class for it. I think at the time there was 21 different AP tests, and all 21 of them were offered at school. I took my first AP class as a sophomore.

The Catholic school in the city has been struggling to stay afloat since the mid-1990s. Because the public high schools (there are five in the school district was in) nearby this Catholic school were doing so well, a lot of parents decided not to spend the money on a Catholic school that couldn't give what the public high schools were giving.

Wow, yeah, my HS was in a pretty middle-class area, and we still didn't have AP classes until probably around 2000.

[bridgetjones]

I went to a suburban public high school. There is a private Catholic school in our town, but my dad said he didn't believe in sending his daughters there because he didn't want us to grow up with a bunch of kids who were exactly like us. I saw his point, though our HS wasn't terribly diverse, either. It was just your average suburban high school. I think I got a good education there. It seems like it's gotten better over the years, too.....now the school offers a shitload of AP classes. We only had one when I graduated in 1998.

Now, I have two cousins who both graduated from the Catholic school. My uncle said he sent them there because he wanted them to be around "the right kind of people." This is laughable. The drug and alcohol problem at that school is RIDICULOUS.

One of my HS teachers said that give the upper middle class demographic in our school there should be coked out drug heads walking around. Nah. It was academic and we just had the usual potheads and smokers with the usual amount of drinking going on in any HS. Posibly less... It depends. Then again arent there usually rich kids that like can afford to be drugged out and screwing around but cannot get kicked out bc their parents have money to give to the school? Wheras the scholarship students would be kicked out for the same behavior.

[ebruening]

Totally...my public schools were mediocre at best. Not because they were ghetto, because they were rural, and therefore just as lacking in funding and quality instructors as inner city schools can be.

We have the same situation at my school, Words. I hope the legislature knows that it's the kids who are being cheated when it comes to budget cuts.

[capella]

There was a special on 20/20 last night about this. I think it was called "Dumb in America?" It was pretty much saying how schools are failing kids in America. Korea was #1 and Belgium was #2 in education rankings. The U.S. was #25. That is awful.

Honestly though, it's not so much that schools are failing kids. It's that schools don't have the resources to do the job right due to lack of funding. That and most people don't value education. They value everything but education. A lot of what is said is lip service. And schools can't fix problems that come from the home. Schools can't fix poverty or make parents take care of their kids. And the schools hands are tied most of the time due to an overly litigious society. It's not the schools at fault on this one.

[yankeeyosh]

Honestly though, it's not so much that schools are failing kids. It's that schools don't have the resources to do the job right due to lack of funding. That and most people don't value education. They value everything but education. A lot of what is said is lip service. And schools can't fix problems that come from the home. Schools can't fix poverty or make parents take care of their kids. And the schools hands are tied most of the time due to an overly litigious society. It's not the schools at fault on this one.

yup...politicians keep touting how "No Child Left Behind" is landmark and will change America's education system through (yay) standardized testing. But they never realize that testing alone isn't going to improve student performance if schools are understaffed, undersupplied, and overwhelmed.

I do think that student performance has improved...in some areas significantly, over the past 20 years. However, a lot of that has to do with the fact that things were so bad to begin with that there was only one way to go, and that is up. A report that came out in 1983 called "Nation at Risk", which called the current student population a "rising tide of mediocrity", initially galvanized school districts to take action and increase funding. (another factor to improvement in student performance may actually pertain to the overparenting of portions of today's generation, which forced learning activities on students, and forced them to take difficult courses, thus "artificially" helping student performance) Since then, time has passed, and funding really hasn't increased that much since. I don't think there will be much more improvement unless funding increases.

[wordsmith]

Honestly though, it's not so much that schools are failing kids. It's that schools don't have the resources to do the job right due to lack of funding. That and most people don't value education. They value everything but education. A lot of what is said is lip service. And schools can't fix problems that come from the home. Schools can't fix poverty or make parents take care of their kids. And the schools hands are tied most of the time due to an overly litigious society. It's not the schools at fault on this one.

It's really NOT schools' faults. She's exactly right, it's funding (NCLB is a joke -if by joke, I mean tragic, and not funny at all- it doesn't help anything, in fact, it hurts a great deal. Teachers spend all their time teaching a standardized test), and it's parenting. Children who are products of good parenting are the ones that have the best shot at excelling in their education no matter the caliber of their school.

[capella]

Don't get me started on what a waste of money and effort NCLB is.... Understaffing is such a big problem. Classrooms could really use teacher's aides to help manage some of the paperwork and prep-work. This would leave us teachers with a lot more time to focus on student achievement and planning better, more enriching and engaging lessons. Teaching is like running a marathon for months on end. There is not a break at all. And the most important thing (so I've been told a million times) to student achievement is the teacher.

We need more resources and staffing help in schools to really make a dent in the problem. There ought to be universal day care (sort of a pre-head start) where all kids could go to get a good start early on (so that by 3rd grade they aren't already lost on the notion of being "good" in school). That would help parents with day care costs and it would get more kids prepared academically for the first day of school. Most kids aren't read to as children and they don't have any sort of skills in place before they hit kindergarten. Research says that by 3rd grade most kids have decided whether or not they are going to do well in school. How frightening is that? We need to do more to get kids ready for school in the first place so that we don't play years of catch up trying to get them on "grade level." It's very scary.

[shimmer728]

Re: NCLB.....I have yet to interview one administrator or teacher who thinks this is a GOOD thing. NCLB hurts rural school districts the most, as Jess has said before. Although there are all these federal educational mandates now, funding hasn't increased. It's very frustrating for teachers, as I'm sure you guys know.

But hell, it won't be around forever. These philosophies on education seem to change every time the federal administration changes. :rolleyes:

[kimmer23]

It's really NOT schools' faults. She's exactly right, it's funding (NCLB is a joke -if by joke, I mean tragic, and not funny at all- it doesn't help anything, in fact, it hurts a great deal. Teachers spend all their time teaching a standardized test), and it's parenting. Children who are products of good parenting are the ones that have the best shot at excelling in their education no matter the caliber of their school.


There was one woman on the program complaining that by the end of kindergarten the teacher still had not taught her son how to write his name. I would have thought his parents would have taught him that BEFORE he even started kindergarten. Most kids can write their name and count to 20 and also know some colors by that age.

[kimmer23]

We need to do more to get kids ready for school in the first place so that we don't play years of catch up trying to get them on "grade level." It's very scary.

I agree there.

[capella]

Re: NCLB.....I have yet to interview one administrator or teacher who thinks this is a GOOD thing. NCLB hurts rural school districts the most, as Jess has said before. Although there are all these federal educational mandates now, funding hasn't increased. It's very frustrating for teachers, as I'm sure you guys know.

But hell, it won't be around forever. These philosophies on education seem to change every time the federal administration changes. :rolleyes:
It's not a good thing at all. It's crap. It pulls money from the schools that need it for very arbitrary things and gives money to schools that do well (i.e., schools that have a lot of parent involvement (not to mention well-off parents) and resources. It's so beyond messed up. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against having standards and accountability. But NCLB is a ridiculous way to do it. It's legislators dictating what educators should do. Educators should do the educating. Not some dude in congress. I can't wait for NCLB to go the way of the Dodo. Schools are really hurt by this nonsense.

[yankeeyosh]

It's not a good thing at all. It's crap. It pulls money from the schools that need it for very arbitrary things and gives money to schools that do well (i.e., schools that have a lot of parent involvement (not to mention well-off parents) and resources. It's so beyond messed up. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against having standards and accountability. But NCLB is a ridiculous way to do it. It's legislators dictating what educators should do. Educators should do the educating. Not some dude in congress. I can't wait for NCLB to go the way of the Dodo. Schools are really hurt by this nonsense.

In 2003, the Manhasset, NY (a wealthy NYC suburb on Long Island's Gold Coast) school district spent $22,311 per student. New York City's average spending was $11,627...half of what was spent in Manhasset. It doesn't take a Ph. D. in ed stats to realize that there IS tremendous disparity, and this is a crying shame. The obvious solution would be to try to shift funds from the rich to the poor districts...the "Robin Hood" effect, but the day that happens will be the day pigs fly and the cow jumps over the moon. The wealthy suburbanites, who fund the vast majority of the politicians' election campaigns, will never, ever go for that, and to be honest, I don't blame them, because they spent a lot of money to give their kids a solid education. However, something has to be done...

[capella]

20+K per student???? We get 5K per student. In 2005-2006. 'Nough said. :mad:

[capella]

I don't blame them, because they spent a lot of money to give their kids a solid education. However, something has to be done...
You can only be as strong as your weakest link. Just sayin'.

[yankeeyosh]

20+K per student???? We get 5K per student. In 2005-2006. 'Nough said. :mad:

Yeesh...that's awful. I know the cost of living is higher here, and teachers get paid a bit more here, but that's ridiculously low. At FSU, there were a lot of people from Florida, and they told me how Florida schools were not doing their job, and the FCAT nonsense, but I didn't expect the spending to be that low. It's an outrage. Do you think this might be because FL doesn't have an income tax?

[steamroller]

Did anyone happen to watch the 20/20 special on education? It was on last night. I had to turn it off, because it was pissing me off so much.


Everyone in my family went to Catholic Schools, until my generation. By that time, the Catholic schools just weren't keeping up with the public school in my hometown. I was a k-12 public school kid. We had a television station, kickass teachers, college courses galore (all paid for by industry)...and 99.9% working white kids.

For me, I wanted to get as far away from that crap as I could. In that process, I fell in love with urban schools and the kids stuck in them.

I taught a year at a Catholic school. It was actually more liberal than I had expected. I was teaching To Kill a Mockingbird to 8th graders and all kinds of other groovy stuff. I didn't really like it. I didn't like suburban moms being up my as 24/7...or being part of the parish gossip.

I'm back where I need to be: in the city.

It makes me SO angry that a kid doesn't stand a chance if they're born to the wrong family, live in the wrong neighborhood, or go to the wrong district.

I wish there was a way that we could truly give every kid access to EQUAL education....and half a fighhting chance to make it in this world.


Yes. There's my post on education after three glasses of wine....after correcting 50 essays.

[Blythe]

Did anyone happen to watch the 20/20 special on education? It was on last night. I had to turn it off, because it was pissing me off so much.I did, I thought it was really interesting. Why did it piss you off?

I thought the most interesting part of the story was how they compared America's schools to a monopoly. I never really thought about it that way, or realized in other countries they could pick which schools they wanted their kids to go to. I also thought it was really interesting what they said about the teacher's unions being a cause of a lot of the problems. Honestly, I don't get the whole tenure system or how it's so hard to fire bad teachers, even when they've molested students. And I think it just makes more sense to be able to reward teachers on merit, which the union system prohibits.

I know there are tons of hard-working teachers out there, especially some of the people on this board. I think though that younger teachers tend to be better and less jaded. And also in teaching for the right reasons. I think the teachers we had as kids are missing a lot of the drive of the younger teachers. Which, in a way, is understandable. How do you stay motivated in where you can't be fired and you're not rewarded based on how well you do? I had a friend whose dad taught English at my HS and he used the same lessons plans for like 10 years. He basically taught on auto pilot and I bet he's not the only one out there. And for America's schools to be rated 25th in the world? That's insane.

[capella]

The problem with paying teachers on "merit" or "performance" is how that is defined. "Merit" is equated with "your kids score well on whatever standardized test we handed down from up on high." It doesn't take into account all the stuff that affects student achievement that the teacher has very little or NO control over. And so what happens? You get teachers who flock to the affluent schools and wouldn't touch a Title I school (high percentage of Free or Reduced Lunch kids, poor kids) with a 10 foot pole.

And it doesn't matter if you're really a talented teacher at all if you have a classroom full of kids whose parents would kill them if they got less than an A or didn't do well on a test. If they have a lot of kids who've had a lot of support and resources to do well in school. Is that the teacher getting them the high scores? I don't think so.

And what, then, happens to the kids in the poor schools? They get the teachers who couldn't hack it someplace else. They get the teachers no one else wants. And this doesn't mean they would ALWAYS get bad teachers. But the best of the best, who maybe would've given that school a shot, says Heck NO! because they don't want to be penalized monetarily for things they can't control.

The best way to get good teachers is to pay for good teachers. If educators were paid a salary comparable to other professions of the same caliber and workload, there would be a LOT more people willing to go into education. You'd have a better selection. And these cruddy teachers wouldn't make it into the profession, because if a principal wasn't so worried that they couldn't fill the position he or she would be a lot more willing to weed out subpar teachers. Notice where school districts are "high performing" or considered good. They don't have trouble hiring and retaining good employees.

I'm not against getting rid of bad, lazy teachers. Hell they make the profession I adore look bad. I know a few of them and it pisses me off that I work my ass of for the same (or sometimes LESS) pay than they receive to do absolutely nothing or bare minimum. But we shouldn't be paid based on student achievement when so many other things affect it.

Edit: Why is it only teachers who get this kind of crap thrown at them too? You know if they decided to pay nurses based on how many people died in the hospital that day, or social workers based on how well their patients took medication or lawyers based on how well the client thinks you did, there would be an outrage and everyone would understand why. But when it's a teacher's pay people are so quick to dismiss it and say things like, yeah, well they get the summer off. :mad: This kind of thing ticks me off to no end.

[ebruening]

I'm not against getting rid of bad, lazy teachers. Hell they make the profession I adore look bad. I know a few of them and it pisses me off that I work my ass of for the same (or sometimes LESS) pay than they receive to do absolutely nothing or bare minimum. But we shouldn't be paid based on student achievement when so many other things affect it.

5K per student sounds like a fortune. Capella, Words, Yankee, I agree 120% with what you said regarding school funding and NCLB. Oh yeah, and one more thing: European standardized tests are CONTENT based; American standardized tests are SKILL based. That's comparing apples to oranges; numbers may not lie, but data can be twisted to reflect a particular outcome.

*Edit: I took out a lot of specific info relating to my school district. I don't want the superintdent looking up stuff online and finding my info. That actually isn't as far-fetched as it may seem. :(