Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57755
Quote:
Originally Posted by plmokn
If your public schools are low performing AND you have one or two kids, then maybe private schools are a good idea. If your public schools are higher performing AND you have many kids, then maybe private schools aren't worth it.
Realize the teachers in public schools are about the same in high performing schools and low performing schools - it's the students who determine the performance. Low income, ESL, single parent, not educated parents are usually associated with the low performing kids.
Now, if you have lots of kids it is probably wiser to buy into a (typically more expensive) neighborhood with higher performing schools. If you have one kid, then maybe buy into a cheaper neighborhood (with presumably lower performing schools) and go private.
I agree. Having all children go to public schools probably would help test scores, but would not do anything to help the slower students and would in fact hold back the more advanced students.We chose our home after much research, visits to schools and school board meetings and have been very happy with the public school education they got. Moving was an option to private schools since the public schools where we were at the time were going downhill. People that send their kids to private schools or mover to more expensive areas with good public schools consider the education of their kids a high priority. They support school bond assessments, and provide additional funding through PTSA donations to help overcome the budget issues. From what I have seen of private school tuition, a higher house payment is probably going to cost less during the school years. For example a parochial high school near us is $16,000/year tuition. That translates to an additional $1,300+ people could spend on their monthly house payment to get into an area with better schools.
Oh gees, I suppose you go to the county health department for your child's dental and health care? I mean, it may take generations, but if we all did that, then it would be a better place.
And I suppose you think the government should open a grocery store? And a restaurant? And make computers and cars? Cuz I'm sure they'd do a great job.
Oh, and the state prison has a great work-out facility. Do you think they'll let us use it?
Because I mean, if we all work together, the world will be a better place and the only way to work together is through...government?
i don't think so.
ACTUALLY, the best way for people to work together is in the free market, through the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Education should be part of that. And thank God for the time being at least, it is.
My children go to two different and wonderful private schools because they are two different people with unique needs. I am so glad we have the choice.
That was one writer's opinion. And it was the same gobbledygook, too, in not placing blame for today's absymal student performance where it belongs.
So DH and I and our parents were "bad people" (like this president, past presidents, virtually all in Congress and, oh yeah, Caroline Kennedy, whose big cause is public education yet has chosen to send all of her kids to private schools)
Our oldest daughter went to a private high school and definitely received a better education than where we were at. This public school I know has improved quite a bit since then with a better administration hiring better teachers. In hind sight, I really should have sent my younger 2 to a private school also. They both had catching up to do with students from better schools when they went to college.
I know in our area of quite a few very high performing public high schools, so I wouldn't say that it's always the right decision.
I could care less about how sending my kids somewhere might help the general good. My kids were my responsibility and thus my only real concern.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations.
I agree with the writer, and I live in a city (Oakland) with terrible public schools. The elementary schools are pretty good. But right around when the kids hit 7th grade or so, the parents who can afford it send their kids to private school or move to a suburb with good public schools.
Even the teachers in the district send their kids to private schools.
As a result, the public high schools are much poorer and less diverse than the general population.
On the up note, there are more parents who think like the writer of the article, and they are sending their kids to public school. Test scores and performance have been on the upswing for the last 8 years or so, making 10% gains every year. So who knows, maybe by the time I have kids schools will be pretty good.
I went to public school, and would prefer to send my (future) kids as well. I do think it is important to meet people who aren't like you and socialize with them. It preps you for real life, and many of our problems are related to a lack of empathy for your fellow man.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations.
First we need to get rid of gifted programs that removed the best students from the classroom and leave the rest behind. That's a much bigger problem than rich people in small enclaves sending their kids to good schools instead of the local public prison school.
The author's premise is flawed. This is probably due to her substandard logic resulting from a substandard education.
The argument is that personal sacrifice for the good of others is "good" while personal self-improvement at the expense of others is "bad". This is an easily agreed-upon moral yardstick.
The author proposes that people with the capability to send children to private school should send them to public school to be "good". The presumption is that the parents are making a personal sacrifice for the good of the community. However, the sacrifice of the parents--having poorly-educated children--is not direct and personal. The true impact is on the children, themselves, who will have a substandard education. So, in reality, the parents are forcing their children to make a personal sacrifice for the benefit of society.
The author also fails to consider the financial gain of the parents which do not send their children to private school. The direct effect on the parents of public-schooled children is an immediate increase in wealth through a secondary sacrifice. So, in reality, the parents are actually experiencing direct personal self-improvement at the expense of others ( their children ). Therefore, by a typical moral yardstick, parents who send their children to public school when they could afford private school are "bad".
Venturing into the realm of supposition now, I would guess that the author's primary weakness is her own lack of children. She exhibits a subtle bias against family units by estimating that children are simply extensions of their parents, and not separate individuals. Therefore, negative impacts to the children are considered as being wholly transferred to their parents, when this is not actually the case. Parents may suffer some distress from having offspring fail to achieve their full potential, but the distress of the offspring will be much greater, more personal, and longer-lasting than the indirect suffering of their parents.
Divesting oneself from poor school systems and investing effort in good school systems (of any type) may or may not be bad for society as a whole. Gains from input to poor-performing schools must be quantified and compared with gains from input into good-performing schools. There is no indication that parental input into good performing schools has a less positive impact on society than parental input into poorly performing schools. The real question here is equity between people. Input into poor schools makes for a more equitable world. However, an equitable world is not necessarily the ideal one. The issue is significantly complicated, and the author does not seem to have the mental capacity to address such a muti-faceted problem.
To sum it up then, the writer of the article is not pro-choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
