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.
No, they don't. Private schools seek out and pay better teachers, and the teacher quality in public schools vary widely from state to state. Private schools are not required to use teachers with formal credentials, so they can draw from a much bigger pool of professionals and highly trained specialists who may not have a teaching degree. As long as the private school is accredited, that is all that's necessary.
When the pay is good, a lot of professionals discover that teaching is a good and fulfilling job. They may not make a career of it, though- some go to teaching as a break from the demands of business, and others may get even better offers from business.
There's no such thing as "public schools" (or "private schools" for that matter) as a useful category, since there is so much variance between schools. Sometimes one single school system can span the entire variance - New York City public schools alone range from Stuyvesant to some fairly dire outposts.
But if you mash everything together and call it "public schools," you're going to mis-diagnose a lot of the problems. You'd have to break things down by individual school before making an assessment.
Also, remember that public schools didn't used to try and educate everyone. As late as the later 1950's and early 1960's, a large portion of students dropped out by ninth grade, many to enter the workforce. A high school diploma was somewhat more selective; it wasn't meant to be a basic credential that every single young person was supposed to attain.
OR schools could group students fluidly by skill/ability levels so that each student can learn to the best of their effort and ability, and no one gets held back waiting for the slower learners to catch up to bare minimum basic achievement levels.
No, they don't. Private schools seek out and pay better teachers, and the teacher quality in public schools vary widely from state to state. Private schools are not required to use teachers with formal credentials, so they can draw from a much bigger pool of professionals and highly trained specialists who may not have a teaching degree. As long as the private school is accredited, that is all that's necessary.
When the pay is good, a lot of professionals discover that teaching is a good and fulfilling job. They may not make a career of it, though- some go to teaching as a break from the demands of business, and others may get even better offers from business.
I don't think you need a teaching degree to teach in a private school, unless things have changed, also private school teachers have no support, like a union behind them.
I don't think you need a teaching degree to teach in a private school, unless things have changed, also private school teachers have no support, like a union behind them.
It depends on the private school in question. There is no legal requirement to have a teaching degree, but I'm certain many (if not most) private schools require a teaching degree, at least on a de facto basis.
Even though I do not understand what political ideology has to do with this thread, where I am from most of the "high end tuition" private schools are made up of kids from more liberal leaning families. What really makes me laugh is that these high end private schools that have good athletic programs, give scholarships to their athletes in which they come from families that otherwise could never afford the tuition. So much for prioritizing education.
Last edited by jazzy jeff; 04-23-2013 at 03:38 PM..
Our public schools here are pretty good, but even up here, private schools do better. They take in the best of the best, and it's very hard to get in.
My son applied to a private school, and even though he was an honour student, they didn't accept him because he has an autism spectrum disorder and didn't make eye contact with the interviewer.
Because they aren't having to teach to the lowest students, meaning not only can they move at a faster rate but they can also go more in-depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Not necessarily true. Remember, the data was controlled for SES. Lower SES is correlated to lower academic preparedness and achievement, but holy order Catholic schools have been able to overcome that. Are Private Schools Really Better? - TIME
I was not talking about low SES. I was talking about low functioning or low intellect students. Trying to teach a child with an IQ of 65 or below in a regular classroom means the teacher will be spending a greater amount of time with that child than "regular" students. Often the entire class has to wait for the students who perform in the bottom 25% to get the prerequisite material, which the rest of the class could recite in their sleep, before the planned grade appropriate lesson can be started for all. Private schools either refuse to take those kids or encourage their parents to take them to the local public school, citing that they are better equipped to educate the child.
Our public schools here are pretty good, but even up here, private schools do better. They take in the best of the best, and it's very hard to get in.
My son applied to a private school, and even though he was an honour student, they didn't accept him because he has an autism spectrum disorder and didn't make eye contact with the interviewer.
I taught a lot of Asperger kids - it was the private school's loss if the only issue was failure to make eye contact. Those on the high end of the scale are not the kind of kid holding back the other kids.
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.