Private schools

[ilikeverin]

Oh, and *froths at mouth* CONTROL IS NOT GOOD!

[dazzleman]

I went to Catholic schools for 16 years and I have nothing but good things to say about it.  Keystone is exactly right, I loved having a uniform. It was good to just role out of bed, take a shower and just throw your uniform on.  You didn't have to see if something matched or was wrinkled.  I fail to see how something so superficial as clothing can help one express their individuality. 

By any chance, did you go to Chaminade?

[2952-0-0]

I know a few kids who went to private school all their childhood and guess what? Their academic performance was so-so-ish and they're spoonfed. Anything they want they get. At least at public schools they have a take it or leave it attitude. Don't do your homework you fail. Just like in the real world, f you don't do your work you're fired.

[Platypus]

I'd probably never send my kid to a private primary school, because if you go private from kinder to year 12 you often end up a bit of a tool

In high school, I would if it was the best school. My current school is public but it is a very very good school, which has results much better then all but one private school, a tiny jewish school with 10 students in a year level. I'd prefer to go to most private schools over most public schools, however.

[Kodratos]

I plan on sending my children to private school. I don't plan on being poor, so I wouldn't force my kids to go to a sh-tty school.

[Alcon]

I would send my kids to a private school, assuming:

- It was not snobbish. I have been to snobbish private schools.
- The children are not driven beyond realistic expectations. First graders should not have two hours of homework per night.
- It was not religious. This is simply because I am not religious, and have heard bad things from my friends who went to Catholic schools but aren't Catholic. It's just who you grow up with.
- The academic performance was very good.
- They did not coddle the children, nor pressure them excessively.
- It does not cost a ridiculous amount for what I am getting.
- My children could make the switch. Socialness in high school is very much important to growing up, despite what some seem to think.

I like my public school quite a lot. I have a science teacher who presents liberal-biased materials, and a Spanish teacher who makes fun of me for being a Democrat. Sure, it's more Democratic than Republican, but aren't private schools just more Republican than Democratic? It's still bias.

[Akno21]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.

Faith needs to be taught in the home, not in school. If the public school was crummy, I'd consider it, but I'd prefer to send them to a public school.

[Gabu]

I don't plan on being poor

Really?  I quite fancy the notion of being poor!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I vote no. There is absolutely none.

You struck a nerve with this thread, and I thoroughly agree with your stance.

Private school is a hellhole.

[TeePee4Prez]

If I had the money and the public school was not a good option.  If the public school was equal to or better than the private school then no.

[Nation]

I would DEFINITELY send my kids to a private school if I had the money, mostly because there are quite a few perfectly fine, non-snobbish private schools. Religious affiliation wouldn't be an issue.


However, if the public school in the area was a good one, I'd probably send them there. I went to public school all my life, turned out fine, met a lot of great people.

[Bono]

I'd probably never send my kid to a private primary school, because if you go private from kinder to year 12 you often end up a bit of a tool

Hey!

[JohnFKennedy]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

[John Dibble]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

That's pretty much how it works here too, I believe. Also, I find the notion that putting more funds into a crappy school will fix them to be very ignorant. Many of the worst public schools run on more money per student than some of the best public schools. Putting money into a broken system is just wasting money - the better idea is to reform the system so that it actually works in the first place, then you won't have to put in more money.

[JohnFKennedy]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

That's pretty much how it works here too, I believe. Also, I find the notion that putting more funds into a crappy school will fix them to be very ignorant. Many of the worst public schools run on more money per student than some of the best public schools. Putting money into a broken system is just wasting money - the better idea is to reform the system so that it actually works in the first place, then you won't have to put in more money.

Ok, good, so my economic analysis isn't completely pointless .

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose I can't really speak for the U.S (School system is different) but I dislike the way certain private (absurdly called public schools over here) schools leech off the local community.
I'm not naming any names here, but there's one in a fairly run down town beginning with "S" that does that to a disgusting extent.

[dazzleman]

That's pretty much how it works here too, I believe. Also, I find the notion that putting more funds into a crappy school will fix them to be very ignorant. Many of the worst public schools run on more money per student than some of the best public schools. Putting money into a broken system is just wasting money - the better idea is to reform the system so that it actually works in the first place, then you won't have to put in more money.

You are so right here.  I get so sick of hearing liberals say that "funding" public schools is the answer.  We are already funding them, very generously in most places, and that includes poor areas, which get a huge subsidy from richer areas, at least in my state.

Still, it's not enough.  There are a couple of reasons why.  (1) In many poor areas, the family situation of many students is so bad that they need all these extra "services" that were traditionally not considered part of the cost of education.  Naturally, they want the rest of us to fund these too.  It's really like trying to push a thread through a needle.  When some people are doing everything possible to drag themselves, and their children down, no amount of money contributed by outsiders is going to be enough to stem that tide.  And yet they keep talking as if it will.  (2) The system is broken.  The unions see to it that bad teachers and adminstrators can't be gotten rid of without great cost.  Disinterested parents don't back up the schools on discipline.  Liberal "reforms" to protect the "rights" of problem students mean that those who disrupt the educational process are allowed to remain in the school and continue to destroy the prospects for others to get an education, rather than removed as they should be.

Money is not the answer.  If it were, the problem would have gone away by 1980 at the latest.

[Akno21]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

Yes, but that doesn't actually increase funding for public (state) schools, since it is already in place, yet problems are still there. You do have a point, although you could say that's how the rich help the lower classes.

[JohnFKennedy]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

Yes, but that doesn't actually increase funding for public (state) schools, since it is already in place, yet problems are still there. You do have a point, although you could say that's how the rich help the lower classes.

I didn't say it increased funding overall (and if I did I did not mean to and I apologise). My point is that it increases funding per head meaning that more money and time can be spent on each child which will improve their education.

[Akno21]

I go to a privte school, and they dont force us to wear uniforms, it's an open campus, and it's pretty better than the sh**tty public school from my area, where it rains in classrooms.

Well then fund the Public Schools.
 

By sending to children to private schools, you in a way do help to fund state schools (here public means private in terms of schools, also bear in mind that what I am saying is certainly applicable to the UK though not necessarily to the US).

This is all going to be UK based so correct me if it is totally different there.

Everybody pays taxes. Money from these taxes go to fund the state education system meaning that everybody is paying for children to be educated in the state sector. This means that lots of people without children and a small amount of children leads to more money being spent per head in the state sector. By sending one's children to private school, one is essentially acting like a childless adult as they are still paying taxes which go towards funding the education system, however, by not taking advantage of it for their children, more money is available to be spent on other children. This means that by sending children to private schools, parents of these children are paying for their children's education and as there is not a way to opt-out of the tax that pays for state education, they are helping the system and thus benefitting the rest of society.

Yes, but that doesn't actually increase funding for public (state) schools, since it is already in place, yet problems are still there. You do have a point, although you could say that's how the rich help the lower classes.

I didn't say it increased funding overall (and if I did I did not mean to and I apologise). My point is that it increases funding per head meaning that more money and time can be spent on each child which will improve their education.

Ah. So basically it could go from a 20:1 ratio to a 15:1 ratio while still keeping the same funding. You do have a point, and hopefully they can use that money to fix the roofs at public (state) schools, so people like Bono can mingle with people who are forced to grow up on welfare.

[7,052,770]

maybe in another state, but DEFINITELY NOT in Mississippi.  Mississippi's private schools exist for only one reason:  to keep out blacks, and I would not want my kid to have to be in that environment.

[Keystone Phil]

I've seen a lot of talk about "snobbish" private schools and thought I'd address the point.

There is a pretty snobbish high school for girls around my way. Now if I had a daughter, I would like to see her get a Catholic education. If I had to make a choice between a bad public school and this snobbish private school, I would have to go with the private school. However, if there was a good public school (like some of the suburban schools around here) than I would have to pick the public school. I wouldn't like the fact that my child would be missing out on a Catholic education (even though they could attend CCD) but I wouldn't want any part of a school where half the people will always think they are better than I am.

The best thing about this: There are good private schools around my area and people (for the most part) don't see themselves as "better" than anyone else.

[Bono]

I've seen a lot of talk about "snobbish" private schools and thought I'd address the point.

There is a pretty snobbish high school for girls around my way. Now if I had a daughter, I would like to see her get a Catholic education. If I had to make a choice between a bad public school and this snobbish private school, I would have to go with the private school. However, if there was a good public school (like some of the suburban schools around here) than I would have to pick the public school. I wouldn't like the fact that my child would be missing out on a Catholic education (even though they could attend CCD) but I wouldn't want any part of a school where half the people will always think they are better than I am.

The best thing about this: There are good private schools around my area and people (for the most part) don't see themselves as "better" than anyone else.

What would you do if you had a son? *blink* *blink*

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

HEEEELLLLL NO!

I'm not having my kid brainwashed, I'm in a huge fight with my mom right now because she may want to send my sister to Camden Catholic in Jersey.  And everyone I know in my school whose ever gone to a private school HATED it.  I send my kid to learn somehting useful.  Not to be whacked in the hand by a nun because he wasn't "proper" enough.  IMO, a bad public school is better than a good private one.  Besides, the few really bad public schools out there are in the city, and I'm a suburban guy.  I certainly would make sure my kid went to a school, but I would go thru alot to get them in another town's school if our town's was bad before I sent him to one of those boot camps. 

[Bono]

I wonder what's so bad about private schools there. I've gone to a private school all my lie, and there's nothing wrong with it.