Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund private education?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Griff

What is the goal of education? The state has goals for your children, do you?

Absolutely! The states goals for my children and my goals may or may not be very different. My goals are for my children to be properly prepared for college and beyond. The state may recognize that some children may not have the drive, desire or whatever to go onto college and therefore their goals may be different. I recognize that in some places the goal is just to get them through - that is not all I want.

[Griff]

Luisa may want to look at this-

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/index.htm

I didn't realize that Gatto had fleshed out his ideas about American education. We apparently see a lot of this the same way. When you look at his ideas remember that he was New York's teacher of the year in '91.

[tw]

What do private schools teach? Why do conservative Christian colleges do particularly poor at education? This was demonstrated in the Cellar on 3 Aug 2006 entitled:
Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack Substancially missing in their curriculum was math and science. Calculus and statistics not taught. No wonder a student is so easily manipulated in attributing it all to god. As one student from a Christian College noted (when his only math is called business math - better called accounting); we are being trained to spread the word. How is that any different from Middle East Madrassas so criticized by conservative western leaders; schools that also train extremism – religious inspired politics? Why would we criticize Middle East governments for financing their 'private' schools and yet do same domestically?

Just like reasoning for Saddam’s WMDs, this advantage by financing private schools is predicated on popular myths. If the problem is quality of education in public schools, then fix the problem. Instead micromangers want to impose massive programs from the top without first learning the problem. Will throwing money at a problem solve it? Yes when the micromanger comes from business schools. But then those same people said Einstein could run any restaurant better – a concept taught to micromanagers in business schools.

Will making class sized smaller solve all problems? Yes where the micromanger read some study – rather than also read the other studies that demonstrate no. But again, the devil is in the details. Micromanagement is the concept behind “No child left behind”. I don’t know any education industry professional who talks kindly of that micromagement example. Details quickly get lost in executive summaries and micromanagement. Forgetting details – such as what is the problem – and taxpayers should now finance private schools.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Will making class sized smaller solve all problems?

Nothing would solve all problems.

Making class size smaller would solve some problems. If class size were irrelevant, then there would be lecture halls in elementary schools.

[DanaC]

Well said Sundae. I am totally opposed to private education. I am appalled that for every one parent who, faced with a child's education being mishandled, is able to pay to rectify that, there are thousands of parents who have no choice but to put up with it. If there were no such thing as private sector education, the state schools would be a damn sight better and a higher proportion of our children would recieve a better education than they currently do.

The results in Newark NJ were famous. Did you read it? Annoying. Yes - because reality is that blunt. State of NJ took control of the Newark Education system. They threw so much money into it that students in Newark had more money per student than any other state public school. And still the school system was not performing.

All you are proving there tw, is that more money and smaller class sizes do not, alone, a solution make. That in no way proves that extra funding and smaller class sizes have no effect. I don't currently have the info to hand, but this was something tackled during my literacy support courses and there is plenty of evidence to show that better staff : pupil ratios improves overall results.

I also, like everybody I know, was educated in a state school. There were problems, the funding was inadequate (in the days of Thatcher this was), the teachers were underpaid and striking intermittently, books had to be shared and the school had just sold off its sports block for use as a privately run gym. Nevertheless, I got a decent education: I didn't get to learn Latin, but I did get to learn French, German and a little Spanish. My history teacher and my English teacher were both awesome teachers and completely lovely people (proper teachers, y'know, suede jackets with brown cord elbow pads, khaki desert boots and the unerring ability to spot a pupil-led plot before said pupils had even fully formulated it). Back then, it really was a tiny percentage of pupils that attended private schools and the individual examining authority had a lot more say on curriculum.

Nowadays, we are rushing headlong into a deeply privatised education system, with failing schools being strong armed into public-private status and specialist and grammar schools being allowed to leech the most able and leave behind a school which gradually sinks until it can be forced into Academy status. The curriculum is centrally set, and the specifics of teaching more and more heavily prescribed. Changes to the curriculum and structure of children's education are effected in knee jerk reactions to adverse results. Wholescale alterations which throw the baby out with the bathwater, or seek to reinvent the wheel.

Faith based schools proliferate, furthering the divisions in our society, and exposing our children to myth dressed as science; sometimes replacing the local secondary school and drawing its pupils from families who are dismayed but trapped into the system.

We over complicate the system. Education is not a simple thing, but nor is it rocket science. Well-trained teachers, enough to fully staff a school; funding for materials and books and, dare I say it, musical instruments and the odd museum trip; enough flexibility for teachers to do what they are trained to do and enough authority control to enforce standards and allow accountability.

[Griff]

I went to a horrible public school. We were trained to have low expectations, keep our mouths shut, and stay in line. Based on the present conformation of American society, I'd say these lessons were well learned in many places.

Individual teachers, administrators, and philosophers do care about children, but the system's purpose is to create fodder for corporations and cannons. It is a creaky system left over from the first half of the last century when mass society demanded a uniform product of minimum standards. Much like our army we're geared to fighting the last war. Even now the national standards craze further consolidates power and stifles innovation. Our inflexible system is creating inflexible people.

It is true that parents will avoid being responsible for their children no matter what system is in place. The question for me is, who bears ultimate responsibility for children? Euros believe in socialism and public schools are the backbone of that system, unfortunately some of us see that system as another form of slavery.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Griff

It is true that parents will avoid being responsible for their children no matter what system is in place.

What I didn't express very well was that the majority of parents I knew growing up were very much involved in their children's lives. My niece and nephew are at state school and trust me - there isn't an aspect of their lives that my sister doesn't currently have input into.

Perhaps British schools involve parents more? When I was at secondary school (12+) I can't remember a month going past without some sort of communication between the school and parents for one reason or another- school fete, musical, carol concert, voting for the Board of Governors, athletics team schedule, Parents' Evening etc etc.

Originally Posted by Griff

The question for me is, who bears ultimate responsibility for children?

The parents of course. I can't stress how much I believe that. It's very difficult to take a child from a home where there is no respect, discipline, love of learning, manners etc etc and expect them to perform well in school. And parents are responsible - ultimately - for their children's education. But they are also responsible for their children's health - it doesn't mean that every parent should be capable of performing surgery on the kitchen table. I know it's stretching the point, but it is more cost effective to educate children together and I believe it is reasonable to raise taxes to do so.

Originally Posted by Griff

Euros believe in socialism...

We have had a right-leaning watered-down socialist government for the last 10 years. In the last 100 years Conservative rule has far exceeded Labour or Liberal rule. I grew up seeing access to education as practically a right, rather than a socilalist ideal. And I grew up under a right-wing Prime Minister.

Originally Posted by Griff

...and public schools are the backbone of that system, unfortunately some of us see that system as another form of slavery.

I prefer to see it as a form of freedom. It doesn't matter whether your parent is poor. They might have a low IQ, or they might simply be lazy. If you work hard and are blessed with some natural talent you will be able to use the education society has given you to benefit yourself and indirectly society in return. I thought that was one of the central tenets of American life - that any child can grow up to be the President?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

I went to a horrible public school. We were trained to have low expectations, keep our mouths shut, and stay in line. Based on the present conformation of American society, I'd say these lessons were well learned in many places.

Individual teachers, administrators, and philosophers do care about children, but the system's purpose is to create fodder for corporations and cannons. It is a creaky system left over from the first half of the last century when mass society demanded a uniform product of minimum standards. Much like our army we're geared to fighting the last war. Even now the national standards craze further consolidates power and stifles innovation. Our inflexible system is creating inflexible people.

It is true that parents will avoid being responsible for their children no matter what system is in place. The question for me is, who bears ultimate responsibility for children? Euros believe in socialism and public schools are the backbone of that system, unfortunately some of us see that system as another form of slavery.

My experience is different. Public schools were more flexible whereas the private (read Roman Catholic) schools were of the grind 'em down and form them into drones, regimen.

Living in the suburbs, bordering on rural, public school was local and for High School, bussed to the city. They had three High Schools, Classical, Commerce and Trade. The names pretty well describe the schools goals but it worked. Then when it was my turn, my town and the next town, built a regional High School, which I had to attend or go to private(RC) school.

Now instead of three choices with three distinct paths, there was Public/Private school that was college prep or skate. Either you were going to college or they didn't give a shit ....as long as you weren't disruptive. Here's your diploma. You can't support yourself? We're always looking for bus drivers and crossing guards.

A halfway decent system should realize that some students can't or won't go to college, and provide alternatives. But hey, don't blame me....I just pay thousands every year, I have no input.

[piercehawkeye45]

This how I think we can ease the situation.

Pay the teachers more and on performance. Teachers get paid shit and no one can deny that. No one wants to become a teacher anymore so the would be best in the buisness go off in different fields. I also think that paying teachers based on how long they have been working is horrible for the system. Teachers have no motiviation to teach well and like any other person, will do the minimum and try to just get by.

Along with bad parents, this is another big hitch in our system. Without any motivated teachers, there is no way to make a class interesting for the students, even kids interested in that topic. Get good teachers back in the system and it will start to flourish.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Teachers get paid shit and no one can deny that. No one wants to become a teacher anymore so the would be best in the buisness go off in different fields.

This is often repeated, but I'm not sure I believe it. There are lots of teachers in my family. All of them are able to lead solid middle class lives. I briefly considered teaching when I graduated from college. I had no certificate, so I was only qualified to work in a private school. Those private schools really did pay shit to beginning teachers.

I know that teacher pay varies wildly by location, but in my hometown, Arlington, VA, a beginning teacher get $42K, the average teacher salary is $69K and the max teacher salary is $91K. I don't think they are underpaid. See page 37 of this report for all the jurisdictions in the DC area. By the way, Prince George's County, which is a high crime area in Maryland, with many minorities, has a similar pay scale. Beginners $41K, Average $55K and max $84K. Those schools are worse than Arlington's schools, so it's not just about money.

[Sundae]

My take on it is that it's no different than celebrities paying 40% tax on their income, which amongst other things helps to subsidise drug counselling and treatment on the NHS. They pay again to book themselves into a private clinic when their own addictions get out of hand. If it's important to you, and you can afford it - go ahead. Just don't take funding away from people who have no other choice.

We pay taxes for the benefit of society - so that poor people's children have a chance to grow up to benefit society in return.

[Undertoad]

Also, those figures are for nine months work.

[footfootfoot]

Griff: Thanks for the John Taylor Gatto link. I put that up a couple of years ago when we had this conversation in a different form. I see there is a lack of parental engagement and a desire to make the schools responsible for *everything*. But I think that is also part of the zeitgeist; you know, complete abdication of personal responsibility.

As Piercehawkeye points out: Maybe the system falling apart wouldn't be the worst thing. (somewhat tongue in cheek) It is being disemboweled by the current admin anyway. "No child left behind" could also be "no child allowed to proceed" depending on how you look at it. The push to make schools "faith based" would be another way of funneling an enormous amount of tax money (which would still be collected, just redirected) from schools to halliburton and bechtel etc.

An educated populace is a liability for our current admin and they know it. You can't have a democracy with out an educated populace.

I need to eat lunch now. and then have recess.

Speaking of lunch, at our local school the kids get a 20 minute lunch break. The grade schoolers have lunch at 10:30 in order to accomodate the middle and high schoolers in shifts in the cafeteria. Recess? 15 minutes.

That's not living, I wouldn't wish that on an enemy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Glatt: Well maybe it was just where I came from. I think my school paid almost three times less than the surrounding schools so that issue got pounded in my head year after year. Teachers do get a lot of benifits so if a teacher has a spouse that makes a decent living they could live pretty well together.

An educated populace is a liability for our current admin and they know it. You can't have a democracy with out an educated populace.

Wise words. We don't elect officals on issues anymore (did we ever?) but on popularity. Sometimes I get the feeling that the presidential race is more suited to be a Homecoming King kind race than an actual poltical race.

[DanaC]

Also, those figures are for nine months work.

I doubt it. Most teachers I know do so much work from home that if you averaged it out to an hourly or weekly rate of work it would be way more than 9 months work. Bear in mind also, that just because the schools close for 9 months, does not mean that teachers stop working for the other three. Most teachers I know do a lot of work during the holidays: administration type work; learner progress charts; marking work; writing lesson plans; engaging in additional training to keep up to date; escorting classes of children on school camping trips etc.