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.
Most of the wealthy send their kids to private schools anyway, some because of religion education. So I don't understand your point. The problem is that these schools don't have to accept you if you don't meet their standards, like test scores. They just don't accept everyone who applies. They take the best of the best. Public schools don't have that luxury. They have to accept everyone, including all the disabled kids which private schools won't. So yes, they need more funding then they are getting. As a family of teachers, they pay out of their own pocket for supplies for their classroom.
Most of the wealthy? Says who? Define wealth?
I can think many, many wealthy communities where the super majority of kids attend local public schools.
Most private schools, K-12, are not highly selective and financially struggle. Most also have some semblance of scholarship programs. Those that are highly selective, increasing offer Special Ed programs at a premium, and do not count those students in their academic performance.
50% of all NJ state spending on education goes to the 31 Abbot Districts, the poorest communities. Yet, when this spending is divided by the number of students in these districts, actual per pupil spending is often greatly exceeded in wealthier districts with smaller student bases.
The winner of highest spending is the Bergen County Special Ed, at $ 60,129 per pupil with a small student population.
No shortage of districts in NJ that spend $30,000+ per pupil and most are not " economically disadvantaged" communities.
School performance is far more a reflection of the student body and home enviornment than anything else.
In the 90's I lived in Montclair NJ, a very racially and economically diverse community of extreme affluence and destitution and it all played out in the schools which ranged from drop outs to Rhodes Scholars. Same school. Same spending per pupil.
What mattered more so than anything else was what was going on within the home, or not. Those kids who came from homes with never ending economic and emotional chaos tended not to do well in school. They did not know, day to day if they would eat, be locked out, who else might be living in their home, if mama and or dad would be on a crack bender, or not. They might spend Saturday or Sunday visiting a parent in prison. They might be abandoned for days.
in so many cases, the dominate parent continuously put themselves before their children. I suspect in many cases, they just did not know any better or that drugs had rewired their brains.
While most of the most disadvantaged tended to be black, the black community produced a fair share of top students. They either came from affluent families or had stable home lives when education was highly valued.
Again. My point is that this was the same school, same spending per pupil. Very different outcomes. No telling how different outcomes might have been if all children had stable homes, free of never ending chaos and hysteria.
I have many friends in Montclair. Many send their kids to MKA because these days, the high school can be a little rough. Not rough like the Abbott districts, but still rough.
I love Montclair, but it amazes me how people live in a town with the highest property taxes in the state, in a state that has the highest property taxes in the country, and yet, they send their kids to private school on top of it. I’ll never be able to figure that out. Especially when you have so many surrounding towns with amazing school districts and lower property taxes. Montclair is an awesome town, but I’m happy living in a nearby town and visiting when I want to.
It's true. You see the sentiment expressed in this very thread. Anyone who wants their own children to succeed is accused of wanting to "rig the system."
WTH are you talking about?
I'm a mother of 3, ages 20, 18, and 14. I have a master's degree and might soon begin working toward another. My children's father (my ex-husband) has two STEM master's degrees and a MBA.
We raised our kids reading to them every day, beginning in infancy. I gave up my career for eight years to stay at home with them full-time to help ensure they got the childhood experiences that would best solidify their chances to succeed.
We consciously bought a house walking distance to the public library, and I took my kids there at least once a week to get more books. Throughout their lives, their father and I have given them countless (and, it should be added, very expensive) opportunities for educational, athletic and social development, including community and school sports and all that entails, camps, workshops, classes, faith-based activities, travel (domestic and international), etc.
We weren't alone doing these things -- most parents in the communities we've raised our kids in have been doing all the same things, but I think it's safe to say that we wanted our kids to succeed, as do, like, 99.9% of parents.
But most parents I know also realize how incredibly fortunate our kids are. Most believe in strong public education for all, and abhor the deep inequalities in our society. Because major discrepancies of wealth and opportunity severely undermine, in the short and long term, the health and well-being of our communities and economy. And, yes, we know the system, overall, IS rigged to most benefit those at the very top of the economic food chain, NOT the hard-working middle class, no matter how well-educated and dedicated.
I don't know who you guys think you are to dare suggest that those of us who believe in policies with more foresight, more vision, and more understanding, don't want our kids to succeed.
Conveniently, you never answered any of the questions I asked you earlier about your OWN academic and professional accomplishments, and, with them, how prepared you are to raise your kids in an environment strongly supportive of education, lifelong learning, and accomplishment. Because, I'm guessing, you don't have any kids. And because, I'm guessing, you have never been strong enough to pull YOURSELVES up by your OWN bootstraps.
Y'all don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 11-12-2017 at 12:33 PM..
I'm a mother of 3, ages 20, 18, and 14. I have a master's degree and might soon begin working toward another. My children's father (my ex-husband) has two STEM master's degrees and a MBA.
We raised our kids reading to them every day, beginning in infancy. I gave up my career for eight years to stay at home with them full-time to help ensure they got the childhood experiences that would best solidify their chances to succeed.
We consciously bought a house walking distance to the public library, and I took my kids there at least once a week to get more books. Throughout their lives, their father and I have given them countless (and, it should be added, very expensive) opportunities for educational, athletic and social development, including Civic and school sports and all that entails, camps, workshops, classes, faith-based activities, travel (domestic and international), etc.
We weren't alone doing these things -- most parents in the communities we've raised our kids in have been doing all the same things, but I think it's safe to say that we wanted our kids to succeed, as do, like, 99.9% of parents.
But most parents I know also realize how incredibly fortunate our kids are. Most believe in strong public education for all, and abhor the deep inequalities in our society. Because major discrepancies of wealth and opportunities severely undermine, in the short and long term, the health and well-being of our communities and economy.
I don't know who you guys think you are suggesting that those of us who believe in policies with more foresight, more vision, and more understanding, don't want our kids to succeed.
Conveniently, you never answered any of the questions I asked you earlier about your OWN academic and professional accomplishments, and, with them, how prepared you are to raise your kids in an environment strongly supportive of education, lifelong learning, and accomplishment. Because I'm guessing you don't have any kids.
You don't know what the heck you're talking about.
I think Konald is more interested in attacking liberals than he is in discussing education. Most of his posts come back to lib v Con and avoid discussing solutions to the inequitable nature of our education system.
I guarantee you whoever designed computers had nothing but paper, pens and books when graduating from high schools!
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.
