Private School: mandatory, would be nice, or never? Why?

[MakingTheGrade]

When I was a kid, my parents offered to put me in private school. I absolutely refused to go, haha. My public school was amazing first off, and also, I loved the diversity there. I was a goth punk rocker and class valedictorian, and I loved having friends who were a little weird and crazy and also having friends who were uber dorky like me. Half of the friends I had could never have afforded a private school, and many of them came from tough family situations, but I think I learned a lot being their friend and helping them through tough times. I just couldn't imagine going to a private school. I still went to a top 20 college and then onto a top 3 med school.

I'd only send my kids to private school if our public school was dangerous to attend or sorely behind the curve academically.

ETA: My HS was a 10 on the Great School website! Not surprising...we had a rock wall and olympic sized pool, lol. My public HS was a little nutty..

 

[atroop711]

I think it's a personal choice. Some ppl are pro-public education some aren't. Not all publics are created equal (same for privates). Not all states run their Dept. of Education properly. Unfort. NYC spends the most per student and we're at the bottom of the list when it comes to success.

We chose to send our children to private school here in NYC. There are a handful of good publics here in the city but you have to live in the right zip code. I'm not a fan of 30 children in a classroom with one teacher nor the constant test prep. If we would have chosen to send them to public, our children would be attending a failing school (which we're zoned for). Failing schools are unacceptable to us.

We think their school is worth it.

 

[Haven]

It entirely depends on the child and the school, in my opinion.

If we have children who I believe will thrive in our local public schools, they'll attend the local public schools. If I believe they will thrive in a particular private school, they'll attend that particular private school.

That Great Schools website made me laugh. The high school I attended scored a 10, which is about twice as high as I would rate it. But that's just my professional opinion.

ETA: I wish my parents would have sent me to the U of C lab school. I wanted to go there so very badly, and I think I would have loved it. Alas, we didn't have the money.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

For me, it would be totally based on my child as an individual. What works for one, may not for another. For instance if my child is great at sports and the public school offered a compelling curriculum in conjunction with a great athletics department...we'd go public. If my child is a gifted actress/actor or artist and there is a private performing arts school that would offer him/her the best chance at success, we'd go that route.

In the end, I think no matter where you child goes if you put a value on education and lay the path for an intellectual future, they will do fine. I'm not one who will ever rely solely on the education system--private or public--to teach my child what they need to know in life.

 

[Octavia]

We'd have to move if we felt it was mandatory. Far as I know the closest is an hour away, and actually I'm thinking the ones I'm aware of are religious based, and I dunno if you can go if you're not part of the church. Regardless, I don't want them to go to a religious school anyway. So, luckily, it's not mandatory for us. Besides that, I think private school tuition is expensive, so..yeah, two strikes against.

I grew up in an area much like this, and I do have a bias toward public schools. However, the public schools in the city I live in now range from mediocre to flat-out awful (and dangerous). This is a major reason DH and I haven't bought a house yet -- we're not quite ready to move to the suburbs, but we want to buy in a good school district because private school would really strain our finances. there are some really great public schools in the suburbs here, so I'm pretty sure we will end up out there within the next couple years.

 

[jstarfireb]

When I was a kid, my parents offered to put me in private school. I absolutely refused to go, haha.

Ditto. Although I refused for different reasons than you, MTG! I wouldn't consider my public high school "amazing" (far from it!)...and diversity certainly was not one of its strong points. I just liked having a bit of the normalcy that went along with public school and eschewed the snobbiness of private school. I also would have been forced to work a lot harder in private school, and it sounds bad, but I enjoyed being able to coast through high school and still get straight As.

 

[stephbolt]

DH and I just bought a house in a great school district, and unless our future children are really struggling academically and we feel they would do better in the local private schools, they will attend public school.

I attended public school grades 1-3, private grades 5-8, and public again 9-12. I actually really disliked the social aspect of the private school, and don't feel like I got a lot better academic experience than I would have in public school (in fact, I would have had more opportunities for advanced math classes in the public school). But I think you have to look at the individual student and potential public and private schools, as well as your means.

 

[that_someone_special]

Does anyone know where I look to find out school information (public schools)? I want to use this to strengthen my argument for the city I would like to move to. The city we are in now, ah.... public schools might not be an option. However DH went to school here for most of his life and LOVES IT and might be a little blinded by that.

 

[MonkeyPie]

For me, it would be totally based on my child as an individual. What works for one, may not for another. For instance if my child is great at sports and the public school offered a compelling curriculum in conjunction with a great athletics department...we'd go public. If my child is a gifted actress/actor or artist and there is a private performing arts school that would offer him/her the best chance at success, we'd go that route.

In the end, I think no matter where you child goes if you put a value on education and lay the path for an intellectual future, they will do fine. I'm not one who will ever rely solely on the education system--private or public--to teach my child what they need to know in life.

Absolutely this.

My school system BLEW. Badly. I didn't know how to study or write intelligent papers even when I graduated, so needless to say, I Epic Failed at college. I tried three times, and I was so bad at it, I quit trying. I want to eventually try again, but for now I've been lucky enough to do well in my career choices so I have a good job with great benefits. Someday, maybe, I will be more awesome. But for now I have done what works for me and my family.

If Micah grows up and shows an affinity for something, I will look into a school that encourages that. There are several schools here that specialize in a particular field - my BIL's went to a school for architecture and computers, and did GREAT - so he will have some options. But if not, then I will pick the best public school available. Because I can guarantee we will never be able to afford some of the private schools here. And that's ok.

As for the original post, CUSO, consider this - there are half the amount of private schools existing than the amount of public schools. So how does THAT affect the supposed data?

 

[megumic]

This thread seems worthy of a mention of our overall failing public school systems nation-wide.

I have many teacher friends and my in-laws are teachers, so I mean no insult to anyone, because being a teacher truly is hard awesome work and as someone noted earlier, most of student-success is parent-based.

But I still have to say it: we need public school reform and we need to ditch the tenure system.

Personally, I fully support our public school systems and as a parent I will work hard for their continued improvement. Barring outstanding circumstances warranting a private school education, our kids are going public.

I agree we shouldn't teach for a test, but when students don't have the basic tools that enable them to learn and continue to mentally develop their analytical skills, there's no starting point.

On the 2009 NAEP Reading Test, about 26 percent of eighth graders and 27 percent of twelfth graders scored below the "basic" level, and only 32 percent of eighth graders and 38 percent of twelfth graders are at or above grade level. Source: http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/the-stats

 

[Haven]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

 

[D&T]

really depends on the kid, and area. I went to Public, did really well even though all i did was studied and went to work, since we were immigrants, and parents too poor to afford athletic activities or anything at all for me. DH and his four siblings went to Private school, and well... they must have not utilized all the opportunities that were available (or they were waiting for parents, and grandma to pay their way through life) to them and advanced themselves after high school. I've done more, and gone further with my education, career and financially risen quicker than they have.

As for us, our kids will be going to Public, my oldest DD is in public school, and she is excelling even though she is one of the youngest in her class.

mandatory? I would hope not. You should be able to have options.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I agree it depends on the kid and the area.

I also wonder if the study mentioned above controlled for parental education, SES. My guess if you compared children of the same SES from public school and private school, the outcomes would be similar.

I went to private school from preschool to 9th grade, and at that point asked to be placed in a public school. From 1st to 5th grade I went to a very artsy school and loved it, but I will admit, I am not sure how good my academic education was. Then the tuition went up and my parents divorced. So in 6th grade my mother put me in a small private school against my will. There were only 4 6th graders. The school had a "work at your pace" mentally and they put me two grades behind. I got labeled as the "dumb one" and really started to question my intelligence. The owner/head teacher was also very mean, looking back, I would say she was verbally abusive. A few years after I graduated, several parents pulled their children and the owners eventually sold the school.

I went to an all girls' school for a year, and my grades started to go up. But I really did not know how transition from the small group, the the big group of girls, and the girls were pretty mean. That is the point I demanded to go to a public school.

Once I started the public school, my grades went though the roof. I eventually got into a better college than most of the girls from the "prep school" I went to.

When it comes to my kids, the question will not be public vs private. My Mother's bias against public schools really hurt me. My question will be is this a good school and a good fit for my child?

 

[zoebartlett]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

Haven -- I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Michelle Rhee's recent actions of letting go many DC teachers. Maybe it should be a separate thread. I don't want to threadjack this one.

 

[ksinger]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

Yes, what she said.

I adore you Haven. Only you, Swimmer, and a few others, really understand. I may not be a teacher, but I'm slowly becoming about as informed as one. (In order to become even more informed, I'm currently carrying around a copy of my state's "PASS" standards, which several districts think substitutes for an actual curriculum. A joke. But I digress yet again.) I don't actually like it, to be honest. Ignorance is bliss. Complaining without understanding was so much more fun.


megumic, you say " we need public school reform and we need to ditch the tenure system. "

I would suggest that before you assume you know the problems facing the public schools, and what reforms are needed (right now the prevailing paradigm is that BUSINESS is going to be the saviors of public education. As if short-term profit-oriented thinking will solve every problem.) that you read this book: "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education" by Diane Ravitch. She is a historian of education, and was an educational policy analyst under Bush I, and Clinton, and was a big proponent of testing, but did an about-face in the face of evidence that it was not only NOT improving educational outcomes, but resulting in less educated kids. It's a great, informative, frustrating, excellently written and incisive read.

Getting rid of tenure sounds great, like every reform before it that purports to be the next silver bullet, but it is only a very small issue in the overall picture. You could fire every teacher deemed "bad" and start fresh, and the problems will not disappear. And of course with the current budget woes in most states, the first people they look to cut are the most expensive ones, not necessarily the worst. Which leaves the most inexperienced teachers left to flounder. It is accepted reflexively by the public for some reason, that the longer a teacher teaches, the worse they get. Like most things the public believes based on the basis of what they've been told by self-proclaimed pundits (usually politically motivated ones), or by their own "anecdote", the data does not bear this view out. More experienced teachers are actually MORE effective, and are absolutely essential for mentoring and reducing the scary level of turnover in the ranks of new teachers, who are usually thown to the wolves. But I realize, resignedly, that nobody is going to believe that until the purge has been done and nothing happens - Americans are notorious for periods of intense "educational reform" and believing that there is some magic spell that is going to make it all better. This cycle has been going on for decades.

And no one EVER considers the massive black-hole-like vacuum of leadership in many districts' administrations, which are frequently in bed with the politicians and business. But by all means lets blame the people with the least actual power to effect institutional change, and the most actually invested in your kids - the teachers, rather than their incompetent managers, many of whom taught only for a few years, and then classes like...oh...typing, or phys-ed. In many states, I assure you, they are running around in total panic, trying to promise miracles to the public, who has been repeatedly lied to that education can be obtained by some magic means other than continuous, unrelenting effort.

I could go on but my fingers need a break....(lucky you guys!)

ETA - edited for crappy sentence structure. She grades her own papers!!

 

[iLander]

I've had both of my kids in both private and public schools throughout their lives.

I prefer private schools because the teachers and administrators are accountable to the parents. The parents are the "clients" and everyone is aware of that. If there is an issue with a teacher or another student, you can get your issue addressed quickly and effectively. In public school, your issue is put on the list with a ton of other issues.

That being said, I went to public school all the way through. I didn't take any AP classes, just kind of coasted, but got good grades, an excellent SAT score, and a full scholarship at the college of my choice.

Based on seeing what my kids did in their private schools, I think I would have learned a wider variety of things in private school. I would have pushed myself more, maybe stretched and dreamed a little more. I could have reached higher, maybe to the Ivy League, with some encouragement from interested faculty or counselors.

I think studies that show private school kids test better than public school kids are a complete waste of time and money. They are ignoring the obvious point: of course they do better! Admission to private school is a selective process and the students admitted are generally better test takers (because they passed the admission test) and come from a home that values education (obviously, since they are willing to pay for it). In public school they have to take everyone.

I think the fact that they take everyone is the beauty of public school. I'm proud of a country that pays for every single child to learn the skills that they will need to be part of society. I think that is what makes America great.

BTW the premise of this thread is kind of ridiculous, because if it's mandatory private school, then it's not private is it? What would make it private? That everyone pays for it? I believe that by paying taxes, everyone is paying for it. The summation is that we DO have mandatory private school; it's called public school.

I think teachers do an amazing job for very little pay. I've seen some of the kids and their parents: we should be happy those teachers even show up every morning.

 

[onedrop]

My opinion has been shared by others on this thread, I think the decision regarding public vs private depends a lot upon the child, and the educational options in the said area. Sometimes private school is the preferred option if a child would not be able to achieve in a public school. But I don't think private school is mandatory for a child to succeed. Where I live, the public school system is just *okay.* So when and if DH and I have kids, we are going to have some tough choices to make, especially regarding middle to high school. DH and I have talked a lot about the school situation (for future reference only, of course) and are prepared to give the public school in our neighborhood a chance, but if we have to try private we'll go that route.

OT: Zoe, you asked an intriguing question about Rhee and the DC schools. I have a lot of friends working in the DC school system so I have found myself drawn into many discussions about this issue.

 

[ksinger]

ilander says: '"I think studies that show private school kids test better than public school kids are a complete waste of time and money. They are ignoring the obvious point: of course they do better! Admission to private school is a selective process and the students admitted are generally better test takers (because they passed the admission test) and come from a home that values education (obviously, since they are willing to pay for it). In public school they have to take everyone.

Bing bing bing!! We have a winner!! Not too hard to have great outcomes when you can and do, cherrypick your students.

 

[TravelingGal]

I'm a believer in public school, but not opposed to private.

I hope to find a way to make the system work for us. There will be good teachers, bad teachers, apathetic ones. I just think I need to work and instill in my child that education is valuable. Not sure how I am going to do that yet, but I'm working on it. For now, I plan to be interested and involved along the way.

And I'm going to make it my business to know who she is friends with. Yes, I'm going to be one of THOSE parents.

 

[decodelighted]

GENERALLY, aren't the best public schools in areas full of rich people. Just move there! Also: helps to BE rich. Pale doesn't hurt either. I'll have to settle for one of the three. Dang.

Actually I went to private school k-12 ... and private uni (big bucks!). Mostly on scholarship though. Always tested well. Won awards. Yada. Fast forward to mid-life TOTAL FAILURE! Thanks SELF! Not much anyone else can do about that now is there?

 

[Lauren8211]

The report said that students who had completed at least the eighth grade in a private school were twice as likely as other students to graduate from college as a young adult.

This is why I just love these "studies." Gee, do ya think maybe this might have something to do with the fact that parents who can afford private school tuition are also more able to afford to pay for a full four years (or more) of college?

What? No! Keep that logic mumbo-jumbo to yourself, IG! The study speaks!

 

[fieryred33143]

My preference would be public while saving for her future. We don't plan on living in areas with limited choices on good schools though.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

"Students thrive when allowed to learn in a safe and supportive environment."

True. They also thrive when they are born to literate non-gang parents who weren't teen parents, who have a college education, jobs and money, and who read to them, feed them healthy food, and aren't currently at home sleeping off the last round of crack they took, says the wife of a teacher in a tough, impoverished urban district.

The single most important factor in student success is the STATUS OF THE PARENTS. Period. Any attempts to focus attention strictly on the schools, is a distraction from the real problem facing education today.

I think the most important thing with parents, isn't their status, but their involvement. They don't have to have attended college to read to them or attend their spelling bees. As long as they can provide the basics to life and then go so far as to be involved with their children to benefit their future, their status doesn't matter.

You're taking issue with my wording, but I wasn't talking in terms of class, or using 'status' to mean social standing. It's not a stretch to assume that one's age of first gestation, economic, educational and literacy level, gang, or drug addiction "status", is going to have a negative effect on one's parental involvement.

And do you really really think that educational level of the parents doesn't matter? Because it just isn't so. Starting here:

The language experience of the children shows that by about age 3,
children from welfare families had acquired, on average, 525 vocabulary words,
while children of working families had acquired 749 words. But by this age
children of professional families had acquired 1,116 vocabulary words. These
researchers went on to assume that the patterns of verbal interaction they recorded
in the homes of these families would continue in a similar way over time. So they
extrapolated from the data they had obtained through age three, to estimate
language experience by age four. They found that an average child in a
professional family is likely to have experience with almost 45 million words,
while an average child in a working-class family would have experience with 26
million words, and the average child in a welfare family would have accumulated
experience with 13 million words.108

What this research tells us is that, on average, the less affluent the family,
the fewer words said to the child, and the less complex the language used. In fact,
at age 3, the child from a professional family who had the smallest vocabulary
still had a much more extensive vocabulary than did the child from the welfare
family with the largest vocabulary.109

This restricted experience with language early in development seems to be causally
related to academic achievement later in life. Right from the start, at entrance to kindergarten, higher SES children were
found to have cognitive scores about 60% higher than did children from lower ES families.110

I can trot this stuff out all day. I know where to find it quickly either on the web or saved on my computer. I'm a regular walking encyclo anymore, sadly. (I remember this particularly because of how sad and appalled I was to read it)

http://bulletin.spps.org/sites/8408bc37-7c5a-435e-b738-2d321c0648bd/uploads/Report_from_Brown_Center.pdf

You're right, my problem was with the word "status." To be honest, those stats don't mean anything to me. They're probably right, but I could care less. As we all know there's always an exception to the norm, so I'll spare us all from reading my tirade.

Ok, well I won't spare you mine. At the risk of burdening everyone with "anecdotal" proof, I can just say that this is not always true. This is so offensive to me on so many levels I couldn't let it go, and it takes quite a bit to rile me up. (I'm a teacher, too, and like to think I'm pretty patient and tolerant. )

I would agree that one of the most important things for a youth to find academic success is a strong mentor. That may be a parent, a teacher, a friend, a pastor, the list goes on. I worked at an alternative high school and I saw several kids who were truly gifted, but not mentored. Sure, there were the "gang" kids, but there were plenty of bright ones with a lot of academic promise. Then, let's add in the stigma toward children of low-income, single-parent, barely-educated families and these kids have no chance. I'm sad to say that I worked in several camps in an affluent neighborhood where the scholarship kids were treated differently (read:worse) by some of the counselors. Your point of view is one of the reasons these types of kids don't succeed. They are programmed to think they can't.

As for private vs public school, I think it depends. My mom (single parent of 2 by the time she was 21, by the way) sent me to Catholic school because I was more academically focused. She sent my brother to the large public high school because he wanted to play sports. We both thrived in our schools and have graduated from private universities, him with a BA, me working on a PhD. In the metro area I live in now, private school is the only option. The public schools are very weak and the one closest to me is somewhat dangerous.

Please excuse me if I'm taking this somewhat personally, as I have worked with many of these types of kids, and even was somewhat of one myself. I guess I'm still coming off of the "if I don't take my daughter out today, I'm a horrible father and she will be a stripper" comment from the other day. Give me a freaking break. I understand a less than ideal home can make success more difficult for a child, but ultimately that child will grow up and be in charge of forging their own path. I feel that my job as a teacher is to mentor and empower those children in addition to teaching them language.

Haven, I have to say that I agree with many of your comments and bet you are a fantastic teacher.

Edited: punctuation, age

 

[megumic]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

Yes, what she said.

I adore you Haven. Only you, Swimmer, and a few others, really understand. I may not be a teacher, but I'm slowly becoming about as informed as one. (In order to become even more informed, I'm currently carrying around a copy of my state's "PASS" standards, which several districts think substitutes for an actual curriculum. A joke. But I digress yet again.) I don't actually like it, to be honest. Ignorance is bliss. Complaining without understanding was so much more fun.


megumic, you say " we need public school reform and we need to ditch the tenure system. "

I would suggest that before you assume you know the problems facing the public schools, and what reforms are needed (right now the prevailing paradigm is that BUSINESS is going to be the saviors of public education. As if short-term profit-oriented thinking will solve every problem.) that you read this book: "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education" by Diane Ravitch. She is a historian of education, and was an educational policy analyst under Bush I, and Clinton, and was a big proponent of testing, but did an about-face in the face of evidence that it was not only NOT improving educational outcomes, but resulting in less educated kids. It's a great, informative, frustrating, excellently written and incisive read.

Getting rid of tenure sounds great, like every reform before it that purports to be the next silver bullet, but it is only a very small issue in the overall picture. You could fire every teacher deemed "bad" and start fresh, and the problems will not disappear. And of course with the current budget woes in most states, the first people they look to cut are the most expensive ones, not necessarily the worst. Which leaves the most inexperienced teachers left to flounder. It is accepted reflexively by the public for some reason, that the longer a teacher teaches, the worse they get. Like most things the public believes based on the basis of what they've been told by self-proclaimed pundits (usually politically motivated ones), or by their own "anecdote", the data does not bear this view out. More experienced teachers are actually MORE effective, and are absolutely essential for mentoring and reducing the scary level of turnover in the ranks of new teachers, who are usually thown to the wolves. But I realize, resignedly, that nobody is going to believe that until the purge has been done and nothing happens - Americans are notorious for periods of intense "educational reform" and believing that there is some magic spell that is going to make it all better. This cycle has been going on for decades.

And no one EVER considers the massive black-hole-like vacuum of leadership in many districts' administrations, which are frequently in bed with the politicians and business. But by all means lets blame the people with the least actual power to effect institutional change, and the most actually invested in your kids - the teachers, rather than their incompetent managers, many of whom taught only for a few years, and then classes like...oh...typing, or phys-ed. In many states, I assure you, they are running around in total panic, trying to promise miracles to the public, who has been repeatedly lied to that education can be obtained by some magic means other than continuous, unrelenting effort.

I could go on but my fingers need a break....(lucky you guys!)

ETA - edited for crappy sentence structure. She grades her own papers!!

I'm not assuming I know all regarding what needs to be done to improve education. However, I have done a fair bit of research out of concern for our nations educational system. (I have no stake in it, as I don't have kids.) In fact, I agree with most of what you have said above (even if stated a bit snarky).

I agree with what you said about testing -- it is one of the major problems. And I also agree that ditching tenure won't solve everything. But it is a jumping off point to get teachers in there who are motivated and willing to do their jobs. Yes, of course, this also goes back to the policy, bureaucracy, administration, etc, etc. Teachers, parents and students aren't the only ones to be held responsible here. But that's exactly what Rhee was trying to do, she was starting with a major institutional change to bring in new talent to start the change from the bottom up, instead of the top down.

I would agree that more experienced teachers are in fact more effective -- but as a blanket statement this fails. Not all more experienced teachers are necessarily better -- teachers still need to be willing, motivated, happy teachers. You cannot deny that some teachers with more experience are burnt out, unmotivated, bored, and are just there to reach retirement to get the benefits. Even as a law student, I have some professors that are completely ineffective -- I write "RETIRE" across their end of year review.

Since you seem to know so much about where the break-down in our education system is happening, how would you propose we begin education reform? I'm sincerely interested to know, as I am a huge advocate of public education.

 

[megumic]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

Haven -- I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Michelle Rhee's recent actions of letting go many DC teachers. Maybe it should be a separate thread. I don't want to threadjack this one.

ditto.

 

[iLander]

The way to improve the schools:

increase teacher pay so that a larger pool of qualified applicants will teach

Find ways to discipline/remove problem students

Somehow get the administrators to stop being such idiots

Remove all the "teach this or you don't get the money" programs that are dictated by the federal and state governments

Somehow get the parents to care

Somehow get ALL the students to care

Give money to schools that actually need it

When all that is done, you will essentially have the same thing as a private school.

Bet the "scores" are the same too.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

The way to improve the schools:

increase teacher pay so that a larger pool of qualified applicants will teach

Find ways to discipline/remove problem students

Somehow get the administrators to stop being such idiots

Remove all the "teach this or you don't get the money" programs that are dictated by the federal and state governments

Somehow get the parents to care

Give money to schools that actually need it

When all that is done, you will essentially have the same thing as a private school.

Bet the "scores" are the same too.

YES

 

[Autumnovember]

Where I live the private schools which are the most noteworthy are Grey Nun Academy, The George School, and the Quaker "Friends Schools". But the public school system here is noteworthy as well.

DD has attended public school since kindergarten and has thrived in this environment. She attended a Quaker preschool and the curriculum was phenomenal. However, public school has offered her things that private could not. In elementary school she had no more than 20 students in her class. In high school no more than 20 and in many as few a 6. In 1st grade she was tested and accepted into the "Gifted Program". She has been in all Honors/AP classes since middle school (teacher recommendation).

On the other hand, some of her friends did not continue in public high school and went to The George School. Others who went to parochial switched to public high school after 8th grade. Some of the kids who switched over from private could not handle the courseload in public school and were held back. So if you are lucky to live in an area where the public schools are top notch I see no need to waste money on private schools unless your child prospers in a smaller school environment.

Totally forgot about George School! I was thinking about St. Bedes, Villa Joseph Marie, and Archbishop Wood.

Council Rock HS South & North both got 10's on that website. What do you think, accurate?

I agree with the rating.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I like www.greatschools.net Has ratings of schools and if you click around, it has test scores, etc., for nearly all schools.

Wow, my elementary, Jr. high, and HS all scored 9s!!

Same with the elementary my kids go to and their future Jr and HS! Yah!

 

[Haven]

Ah . . . nevermind.

I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts about how removing the tenure system will fix all the problems of our school system. I'll say this: The teachers aren't the problem. Neither are the students. If outsiders could understand that, perhaps we could start making some progress.

Haven -- I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Michelle Rhee's recent actions of letting go many DC teachers. Maybe it should be a separate thread. I don't want to threadjack this one.

I imagine Rhee's actions satisfied many who claim to be in support of public school reform, and believe that it's these damn teachers who are to blame for underperforming students.

I think it is a very dangerous thing to reward or punish teachers based on student achievement without first examining our definitions of student achievement.

It is also a very sad and dangerous thing to approach education reform with a business mindset. A business can improve its revenue by identifying its low-earning products and removing them from their product line, or by weeding out the products that don't meet standards and putting out only its best specimens. The minute we start chucking our underperforming students out of our schools, I'm out of here.

Schools are not businesses, and teachers are not quality-control specialists. We welcome students of all abilities, backgrounds, and needs. We need the most dedicated, committed, and trained teachers in the classrooms with the most difficult, needy, and underprepared students. The kicker is this: These students--the at-risk students, developmental learners, essentials kids, or whatever euphemism you'd like to call them--they aren't going to meet the "student achievement" measures required by the state for their age group, because they are behind and students can recover only so much ground in one school year. So guess what? When we begin to assess teachers based on their students' performance (and when we assess that performance using invalid and inauthentic measures in the first place) we force teachers to choose between doing what they need to do to keep their job, and doing what is best for students. Is that a choice you'd like your child's teacher to make? I think not.

I'm proud to be a teacher. We spend our days working with other people's children and helping them grow into successful individuals. We love our jobs so much that we attend professional conferences during our vacation time; we regularly stay late to help our students after school; we coach activities and chaperone dances and go to games and tournaments to cheer for our students; we see the horrors of bullying, poverty, gangs, parental neglect and abuse and yet we still keep on waking up every morning and coming into work to face it all over again, day after day. We are the most resilient group of scapegoats I have ever seen. Despite the blame placed on us by politicians, parents, and well-meaning citizens, we continue to do our jobs and do them well.

Assessment of teacher performance is difficult because we don't churn out concrete evidence of our professional effectiveness the way a salesman churns out sales numbers every quarter. I have no interest in reform based on assessment results until we have first examined the assessments.

To put it in PS terms: Would you buy a cushion based on its HCA score?
Why not?
Oh, that's not the right assessment for a cushion?
What? You advise that I actually see it in person? You mean, there's more to a cushion than it's score?
Shocking.