And again, I am the one criticizing that proposal for reasons after reasons - including no numbers. Using exactly what they posted, then this statement agrees with what they said: "Class sizes should be 3 students per teacher to solve education problems". Did they post anything to the contrary? No. Did we not learn from George Jr who also promoted wish-washy solutions using same reasoning?

Meanwhile we have lecture halls in elementary schools. They are rooms with desks for 30 kids.

How many posted based upon myths that private schools are better? Why did I let this thread go so far before finally posting facts? I waited for someone to discuss from reality rather than from assumptions - post numbers. No numbers means junk science was being used.

For every study that says class sizes of 15 is better, another study takes the same facts to prove 30 is just as sufficient. It is a wash no different than electric fields created cancer in kids. It is arguing over WMDs because they must exist rather than first asking some damning questions, demanding numbers, and addressing the problem.

Why did Saddam have WMDs? Because he had to make everyone believe that lie. No one bothered to first address the problem; therefore knew Saddam must have WMDs for the same reason that smaller class sizes must work. Work? Work to solve what? What is this problem that smaller class sizes miraculously solves? Why was the education system so much better back when class sized averaged 30 per teacher? What changed? Again, when do we define the problem before (instead) imposing solutions?

Again, based upon what others have posted, they want 3 students per teacher? Why did they not post a number? That is the first symptom of junk science alive and well. It is a 'feel good' solution; therefore it must be right. This is what Rush Limbaugh and George Jr did to promote 'No child left behind'. When do we first define the problem?

Did anybody learn this lesson from a liar named George Jr? Why so many solutions without even defining the problem?

That's a classroom. A lecture hall holds over 100 (and 100 would be a small one), and is generally encountered for the first time in college.Or, how about 45? Why not 60?

Exactly my point. Where were their numbers? What is the difference between a 30 person lecture hall and a classroom constructed for 5 students? Well, so many are posting declarations that a smaller class size means a better education - and did not post numbers. So yes, a class of 30 is better than a lecture hall of 100. We can easily make both cases because why? No numbers were provided with a claim that smaller classes are better? Same tricks were used to prove Saddam must have had weapons of mass destruction.

The OPs post asked about financing private schools. I am still asking why - a question still not answered? But then this is exactly how Rush Limbaugh lies are spun into political agendas. Others just assumed private school meant better education. Why? No one posted a number until that 15 July NY Times article. No wonder Rush Limbaugh still has listeners. The shortage of analytical questioning - the shortage of doubters - is mountainous. Smaller class sized are 'proven' for superior education? The classic popular perception - rather than hard facts .... the numbers.

So why do we finance private schools with taxpayer money? Our education systems are too good? We need to dumb down the kids? Since the problem was not defined and since the NY Times article provided facts, then apparently kids are being too well educated. A completely logical conclusion when a problem is based on assumptions. Why should taxpayers finance private schools that don't provide a superior education? Only one reason is logical - we must dumb down the kids.

Curiously, only Happy Monkey and tw have even put forth numbers for a 'large' and 'smaller' classroom? Why did so many previous posters assumed private schools have superior education? Does popular myth mean it is a fact? I am mystified that products of this education system could let 'Saddam has WMDs' logic be used again.

This never was a rhetorical question. What is the problem to be solved in the OP's original post? Anyone. Not just Luisa. Anyone who posted. What is the problem being solved by funding private schools?

I only want to address one of your many points tw, as to the matter of numbers and class size.

Before we can even begin to discuss whether 5, 15, 30, or more students per class is "better", we need to define: better for what? Better at producing math and science geniuses who will back science which argues favorably for burning coal and oil? Or for producing math and science geniuses who will come up with better ways to monitor billions of hours of cell phone conversations daily so we can keep tabs on our citizens?

Or perhaps better at producing free and creative thinkers who are able to envision a new global paradigm which doesn't rely on corporate welfare in order to artificially stimulate the economy. Or maybe it will create a better system of education to make the united states the envy of the art world, producing art, dance, and music that heal and nourish and empower people, instead of feed them into the machine of commerce making corporate rock, and "blue chip" investment paintings which have no message other than potential returns on investment.

What, exactly are our eduactional goals anyway? We need to agree on this before we can decide how many students per class we'll have.

John Taylor Gatto's premise is that our educational system is designed to create an army of factory workers who are trained to conform, be easily led, are used to being lined up, graded for performance, and to cowboy up and take it. If that's the case, then all is hunky dory with our so called eduactional system.

I can tell you exactly why Private education is better than Public in Australia, but I doubt it would have any relevance to the US because your grading system is different with regard to getting the marks to get into what you call college and we call university.

footfootfoot, I think you are talking about the hidden curriculum.

The amount of attention the teacher can pay to the students.

We have both colleges and universities here in America.

I don't need quantified studies to know a class size of 15 is better than 30, because I've had and lived with both.

15 - The teachers answers ever question. By hearing all questions can find out what they're not communicating clearly and change methods.
30 - The teacher will answer 4 or 5 questions and move on. If your question wasn't covered, too bad.

15 - The teacher has more interaction, can observes more closely each student's work
30 - The teacher can't even see what many of the students have on their desk, no less keep track of each students feedback. Much easier for the kid to skate.

15 - The teachers have time to really read papers and evaluate content.
30 - The teachers can only scan papers, catch spelling and punctuation errors, but not enough time to really Analyze content.

Simple logic would tell you the same thing. Any time there are numbers, there's someone with an agenda behind them. The agenda may be benevolent, but it's there, because people don't compile this stuff for a hobby.
Even if they did, they wouldn't have access to the information in most cases. Oh, and the people supplying the information have their agenda too.
Be careful of simple numbers, they're never simple. ;)

Your numbers made it pretty clear and simple, kinda logical too.

Oh, stop it. No one is assuming that all private schools are better than all public schools. The assumption is that all private schools are better than the absolute worst of the public schools.

Here's your "smoking gun" evidence: there is no such thing as a private school with metal detectors at the doors. By comparison, many public schools do have them. Voucher programs have never been suggested for average public schools. They are for the bottom 1% of public schools, where the problem of ignorant students is secondary to things like gang violence and drug use.

thanks for that link. It lead me to this one:
http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/Gatto/Gatto.html

An excerpt from that page:


"Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the state of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty per cent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880's when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard."

Bruce spells out some of the impacts of smaller classes quite well. (As if we'd expect less)

Taken a few steps further one gets into the territory of "unschooling". Which, although it won't prepare a child for life as a cube farmer or telemarketer or call center operator, isn't a bad way to spend a good part of one's life.

Gatto is full of shit. What? To be able to read, write and cipher are not the very basics of a good education? Bullshit, everything you do will be based on those abilities. While he may be technically right he distorts the picture.
Prior to this, the town owned schools taught the three Rs and about life, both good and evil, by teaching Protestant Christian Bible lessons. Why not, that's what the all were. That 5% were the influx(1840s) of Irish Catholic kids whose families didn't want the kids subject to protestant schools even after the religious part had been removed. They also, being poor immigrants, wanted the kids out hustling to help the family survive. The rest of the state was more like the immigrants, in they expected by their work ethic, every member of the family to be contributing. Life wasn't easy for the majority of the New England rock farmers, and spending money for a school and teacher to take the kids away from their chores didn't settle well....even for 90 days a year.

The idea that every kid be given a free education regardless of social/financial status, is one of the best things that happened in America.

Over the years the school year has doubled, the mandatory attendance age has climbed and the schools have become daycare until you can ship the off to college...or war. Why? How did this happen?

The parents, in pursuit of the American dream, lost interest in raising their children. They sub-contracted to teachers, in place of wet nurses and nannies, and pretended their lives were enriched.... pretended they were rich.

But they were really poorer. :(

But don't you have to go to college before you can get into university?

We also have colleges here, but the term is used fairly loosely in a lot of cases whereas University means a degree which qualifies you to work in professional circles (mostly).

No, Ali you don't. Graduates from both colleges & universities are also able to work in professional circles.

Hmmm...interesting. So when you go to college you get a diploma and a university gets you a degree? Or is it different?

A University is a group of Colleges banded together under one name and usually, except the older, urban ones have the Colleges gathered on a large campus. ;)

OK, the University of Pennsylvania encompasses:
Annenberg School for Communication
Graduate School of Education
School of Design
Law School
School of Arts and Sciences
School of Dental Medicine
School of Engineering and Applied Science
School of Medicine
School of Nursing
School of Social Policy & Practice
School of Veterinary Medicine
Wharton School

Penn calls them schools, but each one would be a college were it to stand alone. Some Universities call them colleges, some call the departments, it's all semantics. The important part is that except for some sharing of physical facilities, they could each operate as a College of their field.
If somebody says they graduated from Penn, I have to ask what degree the got to find out what they are trained in, law degree, business degree, medical degree, engineering degree, etc. Sometimes those degrees are broken down further, like mechanical engineering as opposed to electrical engineering.
Oh yeah, bachelors, Masters and PhD, too.:bonk:

Well that's pretty much the same as it is here then. Different schools housed in the same university. Husband lectures in environmental management in the school of geography, architecture and planning, but it's part of the University of Qld. If you do hubby's course you end up with Bem which is a Bachelor of Environmental Management, not to be confused with Environmental science which is in the science school.

Each one has its own distinct admission office. One does not apply to the "University of Pennsylvania", one applies to the school of one's choice (at least at the graduate level) and is accepted or not by the school you applied to.

Canada has a system within which colleges and Universities are very different and the terms mean something completely different than they do in the states. Universities in Canada are the same as Universities in the states but colleges in Canada are more like American trade schools. In the US, a college is a "University" but with only one "school" where as American Universities have more than one school as in the University of Pennsylvania.

Also, American Universities and Colleges are either state supported or totally private. That matters inasmuch as state-supported schools must abide by non-statutory state and federal rules which can affect everything about the school whereas private Universities (such as Penn) are not bound by federal and state regulations other than the obvious statutory laws which, for example, might forbid teaching a course on overthrowing the United States Government.

The University of Minnesota calls their individual schools "colleges"
College of Liberal Arts, etc.

I was a teacher.
One of the things we make a priority is that my son goes to private school, period.
We get tax breaks for that and anyone who sends their kids to private school should.
He goes to an amazing Episcopalian school.
He begins Spanish and Mandarin, as well as math in Kindergarten.
I am an atheist.

Mandarin?

Hao bang!

I went to a Catholic school for grades 1 through 8. I could tell without a doubt that I received a better education. The teachers in 7th and 8th were very good, and I still remember my science teacher from those grades. (I believe that the teachers in my private school were paid less than other teachers in public schools, but liked the no-nonsense policies of the school. Also the money my parents spent on me to go to private school was less than what the state spent for each public school student.)

I felt that my freshman year in a public high school was a repeat of my 8th grade year at the Catholic school because everything that year just seemed very easy. (Just as a reference, I was never an exceptional student in public or private school because I would mostly get Bs and a C at times. The public high school that I went to was in a "rich" area and newly built. My class sizes at both schools were about 25 to 30 kids per class, except for special classes like PE or art.)

One example:
My freshmen year science teacher, in a public high school, was horrible. She constantly lost assignments to the point that my friend had the teacher sign a paper when he handed in assignments. He was eventually was given an A in the class because she couldn't produce his work. I personally never saw a report that I handed in at spring break and other assorted assignments. (I think she had to teach a class to be eligible to coach cheer.)

I would say that most of the teachers were good, it is just this one instance that always sticks out in my head.

One element mentioned in other posts is parent involvement. My parents always pushed me to complete every assignment and were able to help me when I needed it. Put simply, they cared about my success.

Based on my experiences in a public high school and summer school, I will try to send my kids, when I have them, to a private school for at least for the lower grade levels. To answer the question from the original post, I am not sure to what extent money should be given to private/charter schools, i.e. vouchers for only the poor or to anyone.

I simply don't trust religious-based schools to value the teaching of the child over indoctrination into the religion and brainwashing.

That is a valid reason for you not to choose a particular school. Any good school has core principles which everything is organized around. My kids' school is Catholic. Academics are pushed pretty hard, but the atmosphere is Christian in the positive sense of that word. Bullying, which is apparently the organizing principle of our local public school, is unacceptable to staff and students alike. My child (elected class rep.) is actually comfortable sitting down with our principal if she sees a problem developing. I'd like to see more alternatives in private education, but with public schools disrupting the market only religous and big dollar schools can compete.

No, taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund private education. Nor should taxpayer dollars be used to fund public education. Dismantle the failed, union-infested public school political/social influence machine.

With lay teachers paid less and Clergy teachers not paid at all, it should be cheaper to operate. But don't make the mistake of thinking the tuition your folks(and Others) paid, came close to covering the costs of operation. Most funding is not tuition.
New schools are a problem. They get hind teat when it comes to staffing because established teachers don't jump schools that often. So, you get newly graduated, disgruntled elsewhere, or transient teachers, a lot. Usually teachers do more than just teach. They get assigned all kinds of activities and in a new school that would mean getting those activities organized rather than taking over a set routine. Very time consuming stuff.
See, See, there's proof you were brainwashed.:lol:

Welcome to the Cellar, jbt. Good post.

Yes sir, nothing like a little constructive criticism to smooth the wrinkles. No wonder Spellcheck wanted to change Toymented to Tormented.;)
I'd take a wild guess that you're an anarchist? What institutions are you rethinking, or just all institutions?

Toy, tell me more about why you think unions are a problem.

Anarchist? No, way off.

I promote efficiency and benefits in a peaceful package.

As far as institutions, do you have a pet few that are off limits for discussion?

'Tis more important for unions to demonstrate their benefit(s). No?

They already have, unless all the nations without unions are the ones whose working conditions we want to emulate.

Almost like proving God exists. The burden rests with the believer.

UNions are a double edged sword. They protect honest hard workers as well as incompetent malingerers.

In college we had a professor who said a number of times that he hated teaching, he hated the students and he was just marking time until he could retire with full benefits.

Needless to say he was a shitty, has been, who should have been kicked out on his ass a long time before.

Thank unions that we were graced with his presence for years.

No, I don't have an alternate suggestion, but that is one example of what is wrong with unions. I could also tell you about our sadistic first grade teacher who would routinely stab children with pens, pull their hair and make them sit in their seats, not allowing them to go to the bathroom until they wet themselves. Not only should this woman not have been teaching, she should have been beaten on the soles of her feet until her nose bled. But she retired, fully vested and probably got a gold star and a big bouquet of flowers. Fuck the unions, unless you are getting rich off of one.

How does a union worker start a bedtime story for his kids? "once upon a time and a half..."

How can you tell a union workers kid at the playground? He's the one standing around watching the other kids play.

How can you tell if a union worker has died?
The donut falls out if his hand

etc etc

True. Some people do prefer the working conditions in Malaysia to those in the US. Mostly the factory owners, but they're people, too.

The UAW and Teamster Leadership should head to Malaysia immediately!

Why are your teachers all so incompetent? My best classes were the larger ones - 30. And those teachers never had problem answering all questions. But then xoxoxoBruce cites speculations as facts. Where xoxoxoBruce do you post by citing facts? Your numbers are classic speculation.

Some of my worst classes were 3, 5 and 10 students. That fact trumps speculation that xoxoxoBruce has posted. To make a point, xoxoxoBruce, instead, must provide peer reviewed studies. He does not. In fact this discussion automatically assumed private school education is superior - twisting the same speculation into a fact.

Meanwhile, xoxoxoBruces numbers are wrong. Replace 400 with 30; appreciate his typographical error. Yes, xoxoxoBruce, anyone can just arbitrarily post numbers as facts. Meanwhile, xoxoxoBruce’s conclusion – all classes should be reduced to one student – He fogets to mention that fact from *his sources*. But I mock.

There is no proof that classes of 15 means a superior education. There are studies that contradict - a wash. Most glaring assumption from that same spin - that private schools are superior education. Why would a teacher not be able to serve 30 students? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to the top person. During the baby boom, education was superior when class sizes were frequently 30 students.

Again, there are times when a smaller class size is necessary - ie autism. So that proves all large classes do not provide superior education? Nonsense.

Fuck you and your peer reviewed studies. I LIVED it. :p

Again, Bruce posts anectdotal evidence as facts. How do you know you lived it? More speculation presented as fact by xoxoxoBruce in the Cellar on the Internet in the Universe.

Unless you can prove that you weren't in the Matrix then I dismiss your experience as emotion wrapped in enigma surrounded by speculation under cover of fact. Same as top management at GM.

And if you didn't live it then it wouldn't be true? More speculation. At GM they speculated a lot. So does our mental midget president. He went to a school with small classes. In the Matrix.

When I was supposed to be teaching science they wanted me to spend most of my time teaching kids hygiene and how to use forks and knives...
We are not parents and NEVER should be confused for them.
A science teacher is a science teacher is a science teacher... you cannot grade lectures on deodorant. It was BS.
I loved teaching college.

That is because the smaller the class size the more obvious a buffoon you are. My goodness, but you have got be the reigning champion for pompous asses. Thankfully only you think you know everything. Try not talking down to everyone else and perhaps your occasionally valid point or thought might, just might, be well received.

Oh and leave Bruce alone or I'll send UG over to rip your intestines out your ass and strangle you with them.

I went to a Catholic school from the age of 5-12 and I received a wonderful education. We even started sex education in the final year - something that some secondary schools (13-16) weren't including as anything other than biology at the time.

I'm not saying ALL are, I'm just saying that I don't trust them. Especially after Hong Kong International School, where I went for third grade.

Fair enough. I accept the "indoctrination" part anyway - I was raised in a Catholic family, went to Mass every Sunday (and Holy Day of Obligation) and my parents moved into their house specifically to be close to a school which would educate us in the Catholic faith as well as getting a good education.

I'm telling him you've got an MBA. :p