FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What do you you think about public vs private schools?





deanhills
This discussion continues from this thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107129.html

Basically the discussion is about whether there should only be one type of school available, i.e. public schools, whether there should be freedom to choose private or religious schools and/or whether private schools should receive Government subsidies. Are private and religious schools good institutions for teaching children?

Bikerman wrote:
If a private school does not pay tax then it is essentially subsidised by the tax payer (ie everyone else). Since most private schools have charitable status then that is exactly what happens.
I believe it is fair that the ruling not to pay tax should be applicable to all schools that participate in the school system. Whether the students are in private or public schools, their parents are still paying tax and the students are still part of the education system. They will all be writing the same Government exams at the end of their schooling.
Bikerman wrote:
Why is it OK for a Catholic school to teach that homosexuality is evil and that non-Catholics will burn in hell, but not OK for a racist school to teach their particular type of nastiness?
Perhaps racism is against the law? But I agree, that Catholic schools teaching homosexuality is evil or that non-Catholics will burn in hell is not good. In my experience in South Africa however, that was never really taught to students. One could say it is indirectly there as it is in the religion, but I have not seen it in the teaching. Nor did I feel any animosity from Catholic children for me being non-Catholic. I would say they were probably more tolerant than some of those from public schools.

Bikerman wrote:
So you think it is fair that everyone pays to train teachers that only the wealthy then can make use of? State education is available to everyone and is paid for by everyone. Private education takes resources that have been paid for by everyone and makes them only available to those who can pay again.
I don't understand why it should be an issue. The wealthy children are also entitled to participate in the education system. So they should also have access to teachers that have been trained by the system. The only difference is that they are in schools that are exclusive and expensive and can therefore afford better teachers.

Bikerman wrote:

As I said before, it is perfectly possible to make an ethical case for private schools. A capitalist perspective would be that every parent should have the right to select the school for their children and that those schools should then be free to compete in an open market for students. That is not what happens - the market is rigged because state schools do not have the ability to change terms and conditions for teaching staff. The logic of this is that either:
a) You take a free-market position with regard to education and remove state control over schools completely. There are some that advocate this - personally I think it would be disastrous.
b) You take a socialist position with regard to education where the state provides schooling for all.*
c) You do what happens now - a mixed system with a rigged-market, providing educational advantage for the wealthy subsidised by all.
(c) seems to be the only practically feasible option. I agree that (a) would not be workable although it would be great if they could revamp the system so that there could be more emphases on teaching than on bureacracy and management of teaching. (b) could only work if there was a truly exceptional public teaching system, which there obviously is not. In North America some of the public schools are even dangerous, some students fear for their lives, so do some teachers. Perhaps in the UK it is much more perfect than in North America, but obviously there is much more funding needed and Governments should do much more for the education of children.

Bikerman wrote:
* It will be no surprise that this is my own position. Education is not comparable with other goods and services for several reasons - chief amongst them being that the 'customer' is the child, not the parent. Bigotry of all kinds is best combated by education. If you allow bigots or special interest groups to set-up their own schools and educate their children in that atmosphere of bigotry, then you are failing in the duty to properly educate the child, and, by the way, storing up massive problems for society as a whole. That is why I would be against racist schools and why I AM against religious schools.
Maybe this is a bit idealistic as where there are people you will always find bigotry, even in the public schools. I was taught in a public school and I find very few teachers who are truly objective in their teaching along the lines expected by you. There are always bias as people are essentially very human and teachers seem to be naturally opinionated and biased (I grew up in a family of teachers). I found teachers who were unbiased more the exception than the rule. They were the ones I treasured the most.
Solon_Poledourus
***DISCLAIMER***
My approach to this is idealistic, and in terms of practicality, it's probably unrealistic. Having said that, I need not be told that it would never work on a National scale. But this is a question of what I think would be best, so here goes.

I don't know how many other countries have this, but in the US, we have the option of home-schooling our children. This can work well, or it can be a failure, depending on how it's done and of course, it depends on the parents ability to teach. Obviously, in a single parent household this would be much more difficult.

So assuming there are two parents, or a single parent who is financially set and doesn't need to work, I think home-schooling should be the first option. In conjunction with a two week session of state mandated testing each year, on core subjects. That way a parent could teach their kid any bigoted or religious or politically biased material they want(then there would be no blaming the educational system when your kid turns out to be a f*ck up), as long as they also get the basics of reading, writing, math, etc. The reason I would suggest kids taking a two week testing session at a university(or some place), is to ensure that parents are not helping the kids cheat.

Some people say that home-schooling has a negative effect on a child's ability to develop necessary social skills. It's actually the opposite, from a few studies I've read years ago(which I am too lazy to look up), and from the people I know who have been home-schooled. Kids who are educated at home are not subject to the peer pressures or social cliques of a public or even private school environment. In addition, this would help keep a much tighter parent-child bond, as opposed to kids who fall prey to social pressures at school and uncharacteristically rebel against their parents in order to fit in. There would be other problems, I know, but I think educating kids at home with state designed testing would be best.

Think of all the money we could save if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children. We wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries, teachers unions, kids being beaten up or molested by teachers...
joe_042293
I've seen the syallbi of some religious schools, and it really pains me to see how useless it is in the real world. The thought of children going to these schools because their parents enroll them, and because they know no better than to do as they say. And then leaving school with a useless set of qualifications and having a poor life because of the mistakes of their guardians.

I think that all religious schools should have a syllabus which at least includes the basics: mathematics, English, the sciences. Anything less than that is simply unfair.
deanhills
joe_042293 wrote:
I've seen the syallbi of some religious schools, and it really pains me to see how useless it is in the real world. The thought of children going to these schools because their parents enroll them, and because they know no better than to do as they say. And then leaving school with a useless set of qualifications and having a poor life because of the mistakes of their guardians.

I think that all religious schools should have a syllabus which at least includes the basics: mathematics, English, the sciences. Anything less than that is simply unfair.
I thought they did have the basics? All schools have to subscribe to a basic curriculum otherwise they will be in trouble with the Government. The final exams are the same for everyone.
Afaceinthematrix
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
***DISCLAIMER***
My approach to this is idealistic, and in terms of practicality, it's probably unrealistic. Having said that, I need not be told that it would never work on a National scale. But this is a question of what I think would be best, so here goes.

I don't know how many other countries have this, but in the US, we have the option of home-schooling our children. This can work well, or it can be a failure, depending on how it's done and of course, it depends on the parents ability to teach. Obviously, in a single parent household this would be much more difficult.

So assuming there are two parents, or a single parent who is financially set and doesn't need to work, I think home-schooling should be the first option. In conjunction with a two week session of state mandated testing each year, on core subjects. That way a parent could teach their kid any bigoted or religious or politically biased material they want(then there would be no blaming the educational system when your kid turns out to be a f*ck up), as long as they also get the basics of reading, writing, math, etc. The reason I would suggest kids taking a two week testing session at a university(or some place), is to ensure that parents are not helping the kids cheat.

Some people say that home-schooling has a negative effect on a child's ability to develop necessary social skills. It's actually the opposite, from a few studies I've read years ago(which I am too lazy to look up), and from the people I know who have been home-schooled. Kids who are educated at home are not subject to the peer pressures or social cliques of a public or even private school environment. In addition, this would help keep a much tighter parent-child bond, as opposed to kids who fall prey to social pressures at school and uncharacteristically rebel against their parents in order to fit in. There would be other problems, I know, but I think educating kids at home with state designed testing would be best.

Think of all the money we could save if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children. We wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries, teachers unions, kids being beaten up or molested by teachers...


Absolutely not... I usually agree with most of your points, but this one I completely disagree with.

Quote:
So assuming there are two parents, or a single parent who is financially set and doesn't need to work, I think home-schooling should be the first option. In conjunction with a two week session of state mandated testing each year, on core subjects. That way a parent could teach their kid any bigoted or religious or politically biased material they want(then there would be no blaming the educational system when your kid turns out to be a f*ck up), as long as they also get the basics of reading, writing, math, etc. The reason I would suggest kids taking a two week testing session at a university(or some place), is to ensure that parents are not helping the kids cheat.


You seem to be grossly overestimated someone's ability to teach their children all subjects well. Is every parents a chemist, physicist, biologist, mathematician, linguist, historian, etc? In school, children are taught by someone who spent at least four years specializing in their field. Parents simply cannot cover all the material as well.

Furthermore, many things require additional students. What if you child wants to learn music? Well you sort of need a band class for that because you have to have enough people for a band. Furthermore, school is much more than text books. Will the parents also be a basketball, football, tennis, etc. coach? Kids learn a lot through inter-school competitions and activities.

Quote:
Some people say that home-schooling has a negative effect on a child's ability to develop necessary social skills. It's actually the opposite, from a few studies I've read years ago(which I am too lazy to look up), and from the people I know who have been home-schooled. Kids who are educated at home are not subject to the peer pressures or social cliques of a public or even private school environment. In addition, this would help keep a much tighter parent-child bond, as opposed to kids who fall prey to social pressures at school and uncharacteristically rebel against their parents in order to fit in. There would be other problems, I know, but I think educating kids at home with state designed testing would be best.


I think you may find often that many kids spend too much time with their parents these days. I know too many kids who spend their days after school in doors playing video games. Kids need to get out and socialize with each other. Besides, you cannot keep them locked up forever. So you manage to keep them locked up until their 18 so that they're not pressured by other teens... They go off to college, now what? Kids will have to learn at some point to stand up to peer pressure. That's a fact of life.

Also, the socializing that kids get at school is extremely important. Kids meet with people from all different cultures, and do many things that they simply cannot do outside of school. I've already mentioned sports, clubs, spelling bees, activities, etc. It's through these things that kids learn to socialize and that they also learn to find themselves. I'll use myself as an example. When I was 16 a chess club was formed at my high school. I didn't play chess at all. My friend encouraged me to come with him to a meeting and try it out. I sucked at first. But after playing a few games, I quickly began to get good. Within months there wasn't a single person at my school who could beat me and I began traveling around to other cities playing in tournaments. I then discovered one of my life hobbies. I could not have done this without the socializing at school. I also discovered in high school my strengths, weaknesses, passions, etc. Most of this was discovered through teachers, friends, etc. I repeat, this happened because of school.

Quote:
Think of all the money we could save if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children. We wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries, teachers unions, kids being beaten up or molested by teachers...


Education is a big job opportunity. Sure we wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries... but then again, we'd have to worry about millions of people losing their jobs...

Think about your views on education... seriously...
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
joe_042293 wrote:
I've seen the syallbi of some religious schools, and it really pains me to see how useless it is in the real world. The thought of children going to these schools because their parents enroll them, and because they know no better than to do as they say. And then leaving school with a useless set of qualifications and having a poor life because of the mistakes of their guardians.

I think that all religious schools should have a syllabus which at least includes the basics: mathematics, English, the sciences. Anything less than that is simply unfair.
I thought they did have the basics? All schools have to subscribe to a basic curriculum otherwise they will be in trouble with the Government. The final exams are the same for everyone.


No... Unfortunately many religious schools do not teach the basics... I had a friend who grew up going to various private Christian schools and none of the schools (his mother kept switching him to different schools because he would frequently get expelled for speaking out against their nonsense) served him well as far as a decent education goes.

Their science department was an utter joke. I remember having an argument with him years and years ago (probably about 10 years ago) because I was taught in my science class that the age of the world is thought to be about four and a half billion years old and he was taught that the world was 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs had lived together... Who was taught correctly (of course now we both know who was taught correctly).

The math department was also a joke. I guess what it comes down to is that in the United States to teach at a private religious school, there are no set standards by the government for teachers. The school gets to make their own rules. This leaves many teachers unqualified for their job. My friend was in pre-calculus and didn't know what a logarithm was (and that is something that you should learn in basic algebra)... That should give you an idea on how absolutely atrocious that school was.
Bikerman
There are many religious schools that do not teach what I (speaking as a professional teacher) consider to be a balanced curriculum.
Here in the UK we have, for example, the Vardy Foundation which currently runs two large secondary establishments and is bidding to run more. The Vardy Foundation (setup by Peter Vardy) is overtly and unapologetically creationist. They believe that evolution is a scientific conspiracy and that the bible contains the literal truth of creation in Genesis. You can imagine, then, how the curriculum is delivered and what the 'underlying ethos' of the school is.

There is constant pressure from religious bunnies to introduce ID/creationism into the science curriculum - this is a well known strategy (called the Wedge Strategy) introduced by the Discovery Institute.

On the general question - I am, as I think is clear, opposed to all religious schools on principle. The argument that parents have the right to decide on the school for their children is, apparently, a very strong one. In practice, however, there are several problems with it:
a) In reality only comparatively wealthy parents can select private schools. This leads to educational apartheid where the majority attend state schools which are, compared to private schools, run down and badly staffed and equipped. Since the elite do not send their children to state schools then the pressure to improve them is diminished and the cycle continues. The private schools continue to cream-off the best pupils and the best teachers to the detriment of the state system.
b) Children are not chattels and do not belong to their parents. The state has a duty TO THE CHILD to provide the best education possible. Where that conflicts with the wishes of the parent then the deciding factor is the needs of the child - not the parent.

I've not even mentioned the physical and sexual abuse that was a feature of religious schools (particularly Catholic schools).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003809.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims

I wouldn't trust these people to tell me the time of day - let alone educate children.
Hogwarts
Bikerman wrote:
b) Children are not chattels and do not belong to their parents. The state has a duty TO THE CHILD to provide the best education possible. Where that conflicts with the wishes of the parent then the deciding factor is the needs of the child - not the parent.

And what if the parent can enable the child to have better education than the state-provided one?

I went to a private school (starting from year 6) and came out the better for it. Public schools, at least in South Australia, are required to accept all students by default -- regardless of their track record. Conversely, private schools are able to discriminate based upon the student's past behavior -- basically meaning that the existing students get the best education possible. Shouldn't it be considered that a person who's been expelled from several schools would have a negative impact upon other student's education? It probably would be the case.

Personally, I believe it would be much better if the state privatized and subsidized almost all schools; which, in my opinion, would enhance the education of the students.
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
b) Children are not chattels and do not belong to their parents. The state has a duty TO THE CHILD to provide the best education possible. Where that conflicts with the wishes of the parent then the deciding factor is the needs of the child - not the parent.

And what if the parent can enable the child to have better education than the state-provided one?

I went to a private school (starting from year 6) and came out the better for it.
There is no way you can possibly know that.
Quote:
Public schools, at least in South Australia, are required to accept all students by default -- regardless of their track record. Conversely, private schools are able to discriminate based upon the student's past behavior -- basically meaning that the existing students get the best education possible.
No - that doesn't follow at all. Disruptive or violent students are normally dealt with by being taught in a special unit within the school. I can't speak with authority about the Australian system, but I would be surprised if this were not the case. What you are essentially saying is that private schools can select the students they wish to teach, leaving it up to the state to pick up the rest (all pupils have a right to an education, even the 'naughty' ones).
Quote:
Shouldn't it be considered that a person who's been expelled from several schools would have a negative impact upon other student's education? It probably would be the case.
Quite possibly - that is why the school should then make 'special' arrangements for such pupils. Here in the UK that is what they do...
Hogwarts
Bikerman wrote:
Quite possibly - that is why the school should then make 'special' arrangements for such pupils. Here in the UK that is what they do...

So, what, you stick them in rooms with plastic scissors?

Is it fair on the teachers who have to teach them? Do students that have been expelled have a right to education? I'm pretty sure they themselves don't want it, and if they're dumb enough to do something such as throw a chair at a teacher, I'm not sure there's much point in educating them.
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quite possibly - that is why the school should then make 'special' arrangements for such pupils. Here in the UK that is what they do...

So, what, you stick them in rooms with plastic scissors?
No, you put them in small groups with staff specially trained to deal with pupils with Special needs....
Quote:
Is it fair on the teachers who have to teach them? Do students that have been expelled have a right to education? I'm pretty sure they themselves don't want it, and if they're dumb enough to do something such as throw a chair at a teacher, I'm not sure there's much point in educating them.
Every student has the right to education. Depriving them of education is not the answer - it simply re-enforces their position, rather than offering a potential way out.
If a student throws a chair at a teacher then I would argue that education is absolutely critical. Of course teachers should not have to put up with physical (or verbal) abuse and I would expect any school to have a strict policy on that. Students who do assault teachers should, of course, be dealt with. That might involve moving them to a different school or moving them to a special unit within the existing school.
Hogwarts
Bikerman wrote:
No, you put them in small groups with staff specially trained to deal with pupils with Special needs....

So now it's fair to go to extreme lengths to give education to those who have violated their right to an education, instead of putting that money where it would be better spent? Such as giving those people who haven't violated their right to an education a better education?
Bikerman
Hogwarts wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No, you put them in small groups with staff specially trained to deal with pupils with Special needs....

So now it's fair to go to extreme lengths to give education to those who have violated their right to an education, instead of putting that money where it would be better spent? Such as giving those people who haven't violated their right to an education a better education?
The alternative is to let them fester in ignorance. In terms of money being 'better spent' then I totally disagree. The cost to society of delinquent behaviour, which often leads on to a life of crime, is immense. Education offers the most powerful way of changing anti-social attitudes and behaviour and is FAR more cost effective than keeping people in prison.
Solon_Poledourus
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
You seem to be grossly overestimated someone's ability to teach their children all subjects well. Is every parents a chemist, physicist, biologist, mathematician, linguist, historian, etc? In school, children are taught by someone who spent at least four years specializing in their field. Parents simply cannot cover all the material as well.
As I said toward the end of the post, "if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children." They would have to know how to teach the basics.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
]Besides, you cannot keep them locked up forever. So you manage to keep them locked up until their 18 so that they're not pressured by other teens... They go off to college, now what?
I'm not suggesting they should remain their sole instructor all through college. Just teach them the primary stuff(which would require at least 1 parent to know(or at least be able to teach) all the primary stuff, part of their responsibility as educator).
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Furthermore, many things require additional students.
Simple enough: Neighbors could work together.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Furthermore, school is much more than text books. Will the parents also be a basketball, football, tennis, etc. coach?
Absolutely.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Kids learn a lot through inter-school competitions and activities.
There would be no rule against groups of parents and students competing with other groups of parents and students. They could organize it at the Y.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I think you may find often that many kids spend too much time with their parents these days. I know too many kids who spend their days after school in doors playing video games.
That's not "spending time with parents". That's more anti-social than going out and getting high. Besides, they would be studying music and sports and geology, etc. Not just sitting around. And a good 1 on 1 educational session wouldn't have to last as long as regular school hours, as the education is more focused. The kids would have plenty of time to go hang with friends.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Also, the socializing that kids get at school is extremely important.
Complete myth. Parents are perfectly capable of introducing their kids to other cultures and other people. Kids are also capable of meeting other kids on their own outside of school.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
and do many things that they simply cannot do outside of school. I've already mentioned sports, clubs, spelling bees, activities, etc.
All this can be done by family and friends, rather than perfect strangers.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I could not have done this without the socializing at school. I also discovered in high school my strengths, weaknesses, passions, etc. Most of this was discovered through teachers, friends, etc. I repeat, this happened because of school.
That's great for you. But just because you and I and millions of others accomplished what we needed to with the help of a public education setting, doesn't mean that kids can't do all those things and learn all they need to in a home setting. In fact, many home-schooled kids can tell you the same thing you just told me.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Education is a big job opportunity. Sure we wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries... but then again, we'd have to worry about millions of people losing their jobs...
Yeah, because I said we should fire all the teachers right now and institute this. I didn't go into all the details of a slow transition, because I didn't think it was necessary in a hypothetical scenario.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Think about your views on education... seriously...
Plenty of people choose and vouch for the benefits of home-schooling. There are many well adjusted, normal people who got all they needed out of it. All I changed was adding a state required testing period at the local college. I have thought alot about education, and I prefer home-schooling over a public education. Apparently, that view warrants being patronized. I guess the parents of roughly 2 million home-schooled kids should reconsider their views on education too.
Wikipedia wrote:
According to an unsourced National Home Education Research Institute statement, an estimated 1.9 to 2.4 million children were home educated during 2005–2006.[60]
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
No... Unfortunately many religious schools do not teach the basics... I had a friend who grew up going to various private Christian schools and none of the schools (his mother kept switching him to different schools because he would frequently get expelled for speaking out against their nonsense) served him well as far as a decent education goes.

Their science department was an utter joke. I remember having an argument with him years and years ago (probably about 10 years ago) because I was taught in my science class that the age of the world is thought to be about four and a half billion years old and he was taught that the world was 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs had lived together... Who was taught correctly (of course now we both know who was taught correctly).

The math department was also a joke. I guess what it comes down to is that in the United States to teach at a private religious school, there are no set standards by the government for teachers. The school gets to make their own rules. This leaves many teachers unqualified for their job. My friend was in pre-calculus and didn't know what a logarithm was (and that is something that you should learn in basic algebra)... That should give you an idea on how absolutely atrocious that school was.
So did this guy pass the final exams? I would have imagined that there would be one standard exam that has to be written by everyone at the conclusion of their school, whether public or private?

In South Africa it was completely the opposite from what you have described. The religious and private schools have more stringent rules and higher standards. For example there is a special school for Germans, and quite a number of bright students prefer it as they can matriculate (do their finals) in 8 or 9 subjects, whereas in public schools (it used to be anyway at the time I emigrated) 6 or 7. Public schools are sometimes limited in the subjects available for "matriculation". Sometimes students have to choose between history and science for example in a public school, whereas a private school would offer a much greater variety. Science and math teachers are very scarce, and some students who are really bright may do better at private schools with better science and math teachers. Or the public school may have poor IT teaching and the student excelling in IT would change to a private school for better teaching. Everyone however wrote exactly the same final exams in their final year that are set by Government and marked according to strict rules. This is also the exam that allows entrance to Universities depending on the marks that have been achieved in the exams.

Looks as though Australia is the same from Hogwarts' postings.

Contrary to Chris's point of view of children being forced by parents to attend expensive schools, parents generally do not force their children to attend specific schools (some do of course but not everyone in expensive schools are there because they have been forced to be there). If children do show promise in a certain direction, and the public school in their district does not cater for that, then parents usually look for either a different public school or a private school. It is completely voluntary. Sometimes parents who by normal standards would be classed as not wealthy, would do everything they can to get their child with promise in the arts for example to attend private academies in the bigger cities. Back to South Africa again, these arts academies would have required basic teaching in all the other subjects as well, and they have to have a certain pass in those subjects in order to graduate.
Afaceinthematrix
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As I said toward the end of the post, "if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children." They would have to know how to teach the basics.


And what I said... Very few people are qualified to teach every subject because high school (if done correctly) does cover more than a few basics. Are you claiming to be proficient in mathematics (through calculus - which is what most high schools go through (although I've heard rumors of some high schools teaching linear algebra)), physics, biology, chemistry, foreign languages, history, economics, government, music, literature, etc.? In school, you're taught by someone who spent at least four years in college specializing in their subject.

Quote:
Complete myth. Parents are perfectly capable of introducing their kids to other cultures and other people. Kids are also capable of meeting other kids on their own outside of school.


Unless you're spending at least half a dozen hours a day interacting with all sorts of people, the opportunities at home are not nearly as great as in a school. Not only does it have to do with students, but it also has to do with teachers. I had many different teachers in high school that all had different views on life that opened my minds to new ideas that my parents simply didn't have...

Quote:
All this can be done by family and friends, rather than perfect strangers.


You'd be surprised to find that the facilities wouldn't be nearly as good.

Quote:
That's great for you. But just because you and I and millions of others accomplished what we needed to with the help of a public education setting, doesn't mean that kids can't do all those things and learn all they need to in a home setting. In fact, many home-schooled kids can tell you the same thing you just told me.


I've dealt with many students who were home schooled and this just doesn't happen nearly as often. Most people against home schooling are against it for all of the obvious reasons (such as home schooled kids often turn out to be socially awkward - which I can confirm by many people that I have known - and sheltered), but they always seem to miss the fact that you're basically getting one viewpoint - the viewpoints of your parents! Firstly, my parents wouldn't have been able to teach me much because I surpassed their level on knowledge years ago. Secondly, I would have missed Mr. L**'s and Mr. M***'s, mathematical inspiration, Mr. S****'s chess inspiration, Mr. F**** and Mr. M**** advice on life, Mrs. D***** literary insight, etc. I would have just had my parents viewpoints...

Quote:
Plenty of people choose and vouch for the benefits of home-schooling. There are many well adjusted, normal people who got all they needed out of it. All I changed was adding a state required testing period at the local college. I have thought alot about education, and I prefer home-schooling over a public education. Apparently, that view warrants being patronized. I guess the parents of roughly 2 million home-schooled kids should reconsider their views on education too.


Yes they absolutely should. I tended to notice after that people who had been home schooled tended to be sheltered and that their homeschooling did not do them well academically.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As I said toward the end of the post, "if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children." They would have to know how to teach the basics.


And what I said... Very few people are qualified to teach every subject because high school (if done correctly) does cover more than a few basics. Are you claiming to be proficient in mathematics (through calculus - which is what most high schools go through (although I've heard rumors of some high schools teaching linear algebra)), physics, biology, chemistry, foreign languages, history, economics, government, music, literature, etc.? In school, you're taught by someone who spent at least four years in college specializing in their subject.
Agreed. Also, very few parents have the patience nor the time to teach their children as they are too busy with living their lives by trying to provide an income for the family. Regrettably schools have become an extension of the upbringing of children. I noted that for example when I was in England and some of the towns were snowed in. The whole industry came to halt, more because of the fact that the schools had been closed and parents did not know what to do with their children, and had to stay home to look after them, than not being able to go to work. Parents are depending on schools to take care of their children more than can be imagined.
Solon_Poledourus
I know plenty of people that were home schooled, and they are not the least bit "awkward". That is one of the biggest myths about home schooling. Those kids get as much social education as anyone else(there are of course exceptions, but I could name at least as many public schooled kids who are awkward). The home schooled people I know have gone on to fulfill normal(some of them above normal) lives.

As far as parents having to teach calc and trig and such, I agree that it would be difficult. But I never said home schooling should be mandated over night. If the parents have the means and ability, then in my opinion, it's a much better way to go. Yes, it requires alot on the part of the parents as well as the child, but in the end, I believe it's a better choice.

We simply disagree, and that's fine. I have nothing against public education, it suited me just fine. I just think a home education, properly given, is a better one.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
We simply disagree, and that's fine. I have nothing against public education, it suited me just fine. I just think a home education, properly given, is a better one.
Agree that we disagree. Personally I would have hated to be taught at home. Both of my parents were teachers. You cannot imagine parents more controlling than parents who are trained teachers. I was lucky in that there is no home schooling where I grew up, also my dad was forced to enroll me at a school that was in our direct area. He tried to get me enrolled at the school where he was teaching but the principal of the school where I was enrolled fought to keep me. He was of course a favourite principal amongst wise people in my memories. At least one teacher who acted in my best interests and there were quite a number of them, I was really lucky where I ended up ... Smile

Public school for me can be pscyhologically better as some parents would never be able to be really good teachers for their children. I'm really glad I could go to public school. If not, I probably would have run away from home.

Having said that, sometimes there are special circumstances of discrimination or ugly teachers. Indi described her experiences in this regard and this was followed by an excellent discussion in a different thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-100499.html#841011
Afaceinthematrix
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I know plenty of people that were home schooled, and they are not the least bit "awkward". That is one of the biggest myths about home schooling. Those kids get as much social education as anyone else(there are of course exceptions, but I could name at least as many public schooled kids who are awkward). The home schooled people I know have gone on to fulfill normal(some of them above normal) lives.

As far as parents having to teach calc and trig and such, I agree that it would be difficult. But I never said home schooling should be mandated over night. If the parents have the means and ability, then in my opinion, it's a much better way to go. Yes, it requires alot on the part of the parents as well as the child, but in the end, I believe it's a better choice.

We simply disagree, and that's fine. I have nothing against public education, it suited me just fine. I just think a home education, properly given, is a better one.


To each his own. I've just met a much higher percentage of home-schooled kids that are socially awkward. But it's even less than that. I just don't think that the education is nearly as good. You don't have people who spent at least four years specializing in a subject teaching it. You are also only given the one point-of-view and have far less opportunities to explore new things that may end up being a big part of your life.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Agree that we disagree. Personally I would have hated to be taught at home. Both of my parents were teachers. You cannot imagine parents more controlling than parents who are trained teachers.
Except maybe a Paris Island Marine Corps Staff Sergeant father and a Jehovas Witness mother.
hangnhu
public school private school and home schooling
surely to judge which one is better for education you would have to attend all three,

I always thought measuring the school standard by it pupils is not particularlly fair
every individual learn different and by characteristic and background effect this learning

home school would be difficult if parents do not know and basic - which I'm sure some do not
private schools always seems to overrides public school because of funding,
lack of equipments and good teaching effect pupils too
it seems I'm arguing for private school, though I never been to one
however if a friend is correct about the system, then I say private can be quite bad - socially
I won't elaborates, this discussion again appear to center for USA schooling system more, because I certain never heard of home schooling in England
Crazy_Canuck
I had my child in a private Catholic school through 1st grade, and then realized that they simply didn't have the resources that she needed, academically. I enrolled her in an international studies/gifted public magnet school, where she thrived. She is starting middle school next month, where she will be attending an IB school, once again public. From my experience, the private school was clearly inferior. I know that the students attending school there are far behind their public counterparts.

However, I do know that this is simply my experience, and that there are many instances where private schools may be far better than public.
Crinoid
Depends on how the educational system in set in particular country: legislation, not money, defines it.
I had seen excellent public school system and can't praise it too much after seeing the different, both public and private school systems.
In this thread a lot of attention was paid to a choice, I would rater speak about affordability and quality of public schools, security, equality and respect there. Sounds odd for you? Check educational systems of the other countries comparing to the one you are familiar with, and get this information from the fist hands, from the people who were there and here and can compare.
fatihaksu
Quote:
Depends on how the educational system in set in particular country: legislation, not money, defines it..

This idea makes you exactly right. I am totally agree with you. I have lots of experiences in this issue. For ex. the educational set in my country is almost a disaster. I was knowing that, but i saw that when i went to another country for my education. Even i cant pass one of my exam, i really liked and believe that it is much more better system. Why i failed is just i cant get used to this system. If i growed up in this system, no doubt that i can easily handle with it. [/quote]
umbral
private have priority on the intelectial coefic... public have priority on life
fatosshala
i think that is a change between public and private schools. The reason why is that private schools are like a business, just to take your money and nothing else
soljarag
it depends on where you live.... where I grew up the public schools were fine.... but if you live in a bad area... it could be shady....
zuifengwu
There is a growing controversy in our country regarding education in private schools vs. public schools. What is the difference really? Private schools have a great deal to offer and are able to implement more programs and hire better teachers due to the fact that they have more money in their school systems garnered by student tuitions. Should every child go to private school? Probably not, but your child might benefit if he seems to be getting lost in the shuffle of public schools.


Private schools can offer a smaller student to teacher ratio than public schools simply because of the fact that there are less students in these schools. The majority of students attend local public schools. As the public schools become more and more crowded, many families are choosing the smaller private schools to gain more one on one attention for their children from the teachers. Private schools also offer more accelerated, college focused courses and are more intent on honing their students to go to college. Public schools often have the philosophy that each student is different and college isn’t for everyone, and students are not pushed in that direction, though they may choose to strive for it on their own.
zuifengwu
Many public schools which are located in affluent areas can be just as focused and have just as much money as private schools, it is in the city areas where the most difference can be seen. It is necessary to judge for yourself: look carefully at your public school and your child. If your child is one that seems to need more attention from teachers or is floundering in a class that is too large, you may want to consider private school simply for the attention that he needs. Private schools also generally have lower incidences of drugs, violence and drop outs, most likely due to the increased level of dedication of parents who send their child to private schools to have every advantage.


Though private schools can be quite costly, there is more and more legislation moving towards school vouchers where families could take the tax dollars that would be directed toward a public school education and use it for private school tuition. Not everyone can afford private school and so families who have lost faith in public schools are beginning to homeschool. There has been a great surge towards homeschooling in recent years as families begin to take control and refuse to let their children be ruined by the ‘veal farm’ that many public schools have become, turning out children who are just scraping by or simply dropping out.
zuifengwu
In general, private schools are more focused and dedicated to the education of children. Teachers in private schools often earn more and can be more dedicated when working with parents who are as equally dedicated to their children. Study the schools in your area carefully and decide if you can afford a private.
nigam
there is a big difference in sending children to public or private schools. Once you send them to public schools, the child can't learned so much in that school due to teachers who some aren't dedicated to their jobs as what i have observed here in our country. While in private schools, children learned good things which are taught by the teachers.
Soccerman
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
***DISCLAIMER***
My approach to this is idealistic, and in terms of practicality, it's probably unrealistic. Having said that, I need not be told that it would never work on a National scale. But this is a question of what I think would be best, so here goes.

I don't know how many other countries have this, but in the US, we have the option of home-schooling our children. This can work well, or it can be a failure, depending on how it's done and of course, it depends on the parents ability to teach. Obviously, in a single parent household this would be much more difficult.

So assuming there are two parents, or a single parent who is financially set and doesn't need to work, I think home-schooling should be the first option. In conjunction with a two week session of state mandated testing each year, on core subjects. That way a parent could teach their kid any bigoted or religious or politically biased material they want(then there would be no blaming the educational system when your kid turns out to be a f*ck up), as long as they also get the basics of reading, writing, math, etc. The reason I would suggest kids taking a two week testing session at a university(or some place), is to ensure that parents are not helping the kids cheat.

Some people say that home-schooling has a negative effect on a child's ability to develop necessary social skills. It's actually the opposite, from a few studies I've read years ago(which I am too lazy to look up), and from the people I know who have been home-schooled. Kids who are educated at home are not subject to the peer pressures or social cliques of a public or even private school environment. In addition, this would help keep a much tighter parent-child bond, as opposed to kids who fall prey to social pressures at school and uncharacteristically rebel against their parents in order to fit in. There would be other problems, I know, but I think educating kids at home with state designed testing would be best.

Think of all the money we could save if parents took on the responsibility of educating their children. We wouldn't have to worry about crappy teacher salaries, teachers unions, kids being beaten up or molested by teachers...



That is a great idea but, what will happen to all the jobs that will be lost? Quite a bit considering how many schools there are in the world and how many teachers their are per school. Also, building schools provides money for building companies. If building schools stops thats quite a lot of money building companies will lose. It could have quite and effect on many jobs. Although this could happen, kids would have a better education, not have to worry about peer pressure, and bullies. Kids might turn out more successful than they would if they went to a public school got bullied, and was pressured into doing drugs or such. So there are both good things and bad things about this idea.
Soccerman
zuifengwu wrote:
In general, private schools are more focused and dedicated to the education of children. Teachers in private schools often earn more and can be more dedicated when working with parents who are as equally dedicated to their children. Study the schools in your area carefully and decide if you can afford a private.


Yes that is very true. Private schools usually have more teachers, instead of having 1 teacher each 40 kids, u usually have maybe 1 teacher per 18-23 kids. So kids if they are falling behind get more help and such, but the teacher doesn't stop her lesson or class. She will want an extra conference or time with the kid to catch him up. Usually in public schools a teacher will stop a lesson or class so other ppl suffer because 1 kid is falling behind, and, public teachers can't control their kids as well as private schools, 1 teacher alone isn't enuf to control a crowd of 40 (not mentioning the trouble-makers.)
chatrack
Public schools will be better in quality of teaching due to the factor of compitation
Ow-Bert
public school, so u can meet a variety of different people, while private school people come from quite similar backgrounds and usually same religion or race due to their policy
sum12nv
publics schools are better cause of cheaper prices ans there are more public schools than private and private schools either are rlly strict or spoil the kids.
azoundria
Why does this need to be one extreme or the other?

Why can't schools be publicly funded and given more flexibility to meet the needs of their students?

I don't believe private schools receive any funding from the government, so why is that? If the government paid a flat fee for every student, to guarantee a certain basic standard of education, and gave the freedom to pay extra to certain schools, if a lower student/teacher ratio was required, then wouldn't that meet everyone's needs?

And finally, too many people are taking for granted a good education. Isn't something going to happen to make us appreciate what we have?
Hello_World
There should be absolutely no private schools.

These blood suckers take money out of the public purse... yes, they do... they have managed to convince people that they relieve pressure on the public system, so the government funds them too...

They don't relieve pressure, they suck money out of the public system and for what?

So there can be a two tier system, where the wealthy can get good jobs and the average joe struggles... not because the government system is bad (it's not, it is amongst the best in the world) but just because having a private school on your resume, and having wealthy friends and ties, makes life easier...

The rise in private schools correlates with poorer education standards... we were number 2 in the world for a while there... but we have dropped back now...

And the religious aspect... half the private schools people go to because of status, and their children get a little religious indocrination snuck in by the school... the other half send them because they are religious... these are the more worrying. Getting indocrinated at home, then they go to school with the same rubbish is really brainwashing because the children aren't able to see that there are people with different and reasonable views...

What about Muslim schools? There is the situation now that there are people born in Australia, who have nothing to do with the Australian culture from the moment they are born then they go to a Muslim school then go get an arabic speaking job... what the hell?

As for home schooling... that is fine if you live in the middle of the outback with no-one around for 200 kms... or have some other reason that school is unaccessable... but otherwise... no. That isn't normal. It is just wrong. It is far too sheltered. And as for the idea that it should be for everyone... what about all the dumb people? yes, there is plenty of dumb people... should they, could they?

chatrack:
Quote:
Public schools will be better in quality of teaching due to the factor of compitation


Do you mean private schools? Because public schools are all about co-operation, about sharing resources, about creating a learning environment....

Ow-Bert:
Quote:
public school, so u can meet a variety of different people, while private school people come from quite similar backgrounds and usually same religion or race due to their policy


True. Private schools are about separating people.

azoundria:
Quote:
I don't believe private schools receive any funding from the government, so why is that? If the government paid a flat fee for every student, to guarantee a certain basic standard of education, and gave the freedom to pay extra to certain schools, if a lower student/teacher ratio was required, then wouldn't that meet everyone's needs?


At the very least, if you want to have your kids have special education you can pay for it yourself without sucking up the funds from everyone else.

Quote:
Once you send them to public schools, the child can't learned so much in that school due to teachers who some aren't dedicated to their jobs as what i have observed here in our country. While in private schools, children learned good things which are taught by the teachers.


Not so here. Teaching is a hard profession and if you aren't dedicated you will drop out and get another job. Public or private.

Quote:
Teachers in private schools often earn more and can be more dedicated when working with parents who are as equally dedicated to their children.


That is rubbish. If you are talking about dedication. I'm sure public school teachers are more dedicated to the teaching than private schools. Because if they wanted more money they could just teach at a private school but they choose public.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
And the religious aspect... half the private schools people go to because of status, and their children get a little religious indocrination snuck in by the school... the other half send them because they are religious... these are the more worrying. Getting indocrinated at home, then they go to school with the same rubbish is really brainwashing because the children aren't able to see that there are people with different and reasonable views...


Government is not doing that badly with indoctrination at public schools either. Definitely not a perfect scenario from an "open mind" type of teaching environment. Also, not all public schools are equal. I've heard about horror stories from one of the Frihosters here who was attending a secondary public school in Sydney. Bottomline, enormous chaos as far as the administrators are concerned. Yet I'm sure if one went to other parts of Australia, you may find excellent public schools. I attended an excellent public school in the country side of South Africa. It had such a great reputation that we often had children from the cities joining the school. So I guess I was quite lucky in that way. Yet some of the public schools in Johannesburg for example were not of the best. Very difficult to get good science, math or IT teachers, as of course there would always be many better paying jobs in those areas in the cities. Whereas in the country side, teachers enjoyed more status. I was lucky to have a really great math teacher.

I like the idea of private schools for gifted children. I find it a complete tragedy for children with very bright minds to be forced into a template public school where they will no doubt get bored very easily, and because of lack of challenge not really learn anything of value. I also like private schools for the arts. Public schools obviously can't find the necessary funding to specialize in the arts. So I think it would be great if gifted children may have the opportunity to attend a private school with focus on music, or dancing, or sports even. There are usually bursaries available for those who cannot afford the schools, however are above average gifted. My friend - a Sudanese expat - has a little boy who is very gifted in math and science. And has been provided for through a UAE Government bursary to attend a school for gifted children. He is being challenged all of the time.

I'm not entirely against private schools for religion. If I had children, I would not send them to one as I'd hope for them to have a more open-minded environment to learn in. But each to their own. Having said that, there are plenty of children in public schools who are being terrorized by their parents with regard to religion or no religion. Depending on where the public school is, it may find itself in a community with strong views about religion and that may have an impact on teaching, whether it is right or wrong. It may not be done overtly, but one can't get away from the community and parents meetings.

I remember when I was in South Africa there were quite a number of "posh" snob schools. But the products from those schools were amazing - I'd definitely encourage it. As those schools could afford the best of teachers, and it was an all round thing where children were not only taught academics, but how to work in teams, leadership abilities, lots of focus on sports with the best training money could buy. I was always amazed at the pucker English accents it produced as well. Children were not necessarily spoilt. They just came from very good backgrounds and did what their parents had done. It's written in their subconscious I think even before they join those schools that they are destined for big things. We can probably only do well with children who have that kind of sense of higher calling. Smile
Related topics
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Republican Philosophy...
Computers at school
Public vs Private/proxy domains
Using Neighbor's Wireless Link: Probation
The Emperor of the United States
simple Javascript OOP tutorial
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Principal, Athletic Director Could Face Jail Time For Prayer
Things only a Republican could believe
Public/private collaboration and management of rentalhousing
School Chairs
Michigan Republicans seek to dis-incorporate city official
Public vs. Private Space
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Jobs and Learning

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.