Still Against Private Schools? Think Again.
This story illustrates a private/public partnership that has literally transformed one Ohio school.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvW-Ga9AX0Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvW-Ga9AX0Y
Comments
Umm, that's a public school with corporate sponsorship. Your title is factually incorrect.
Yes, but it's far more incendiary, and likely to spark discussion and debate with the highly opinionated monkeys that swing from the branches 'round here.
Yes, but it's far more incendiary, and likely to spark discussion and debate with the highly opinionated monkeys that swing from the branches 'round here.
You mean it's entirely disingenuous and has nothing to do with the debate you are trying to incite?
You mean it's entirely disingenuous and has nothing to do with the debate you are trying to incite?
Not really. The point was the public and private partnership in school and it's positive effects. Now is it really that difficult to see the benefits of a privately run school based on the same principles? Clearly, this school is an extraordinary case, and one that works based on the volunteerism of the employees of the partner company, but it's still a model worth expanding since it involves real-world solutions and measurable success.
Not really. The point was the public and private partnership in school and it's positive effects. Now is it really that difficult to see the benefits of a privately run school based on the same principles? Clearly, this school is an extraordinary case, and one that works based on the volunteerism of the employees of the partner company, but it's still a model worth expanding since it involves real-world solutions and measurable success.
Sounds like a stretch.
There is a lot of room for improvement and increased efficiency in the public school system. Possibly one way to actually do something about it is to let a private corporation run a school, under contract. One thing that stands in the way is the bureaucratic control the state exercises over schools: who is allowed to teach, and who isn't. It really should be just in a contract, what proficiency the student must achieve at the end of each school year. Does it really matter who actually did the teaching? I guess Albert Einstein would not have been qualified to teach science in Oregon public high schools, from what I understand.
I put my money where my mouth is, to use an old expression. We sent our son to private school and still paid for public education through our tax bill. It cost $2500 a year in elementary school, while accounting office figures showed that Portland Public School district spent about $6500 per student.
My son's high school was more creative and cost no more than his grade school. He worked one day a week. They have their own bus fleet to take students to work. Each year students work a different day, and Mondays are rotation day, one day every four weeks. His senior year he worked at Xerox, and before that worked at a local radio station and an animal shelter. The companies pay the school something like $21,000 a year for each student worker. In summer, many students are offered paid summer jobs to keep up the continuity. This work-study program operates well, and is popular with parents and student alike. There is competition to get into this school. We were fortunate that we got in when the school first opened and few parents knew about it.
There is a lot of room for improvement and increased efficiency in the public school system. Possibly one way to actually do something about it is to let a private corporation run a school, under contract. One thing that stands in the way is the bureaucratic control the state exercises over schools: who is allowed to teach, and who isn't. It really should be just in a contract, what proficiency the student must achieve at the end of each school year. Does it really matter who actually did the teaching? I guess Albert Einstein would not have been qualified to teach science in Oregon public high schools, from what I understand.
I put my money where my mouth is, to use an old expression. We sent our son to private school and still paid for public education through our tax bill. It cost $2500 a year in elementary school, while accounting office figures showed that Portland Public School district spent about $6500 per student.
My son's high school was more creative and cost no more than his grade school. He worked one day a week. They have their own bus fleet to take students to work. Each year students work a different day, and Mondays are rotation day, one day every four weeks. His senior year he worked at Xerox, and before that worked at a local radio station and an animal shelter. The companies pay the school something like $21,000 a year for each student worker. In summer, many students are offered paid summer jobs to keep up the continuity. This work-study program operates well, and is popular with parents and student alike. There is competition to get into this school. We were fortunate that we got in when the school first opened and few parents knew about it.
An excellent real-world example of how this works. I'm sure some sourpuss will slam this story as "unrealistic" or "harmful" to kids, but the fact is, the existing schools are more harmful to the success and well-being of America's kids.
I think the biggest current problem with public schools, in my experience, is that they 'teach to the standardized test' for whatever state they are in, rather than offering a well rounded education. Would a private school be any better in that respect?
I suppose that would depend on what is your definition of a well-rounded education. If it means turning out students that can be productive, think for themselves, have a realistic expectation of how they can fit into our society and world, I'd bet they could get all of that... Snoopy?
Umm, that's a public school with corporate sponsorship. Your title is factually incorrect.
Who is "against private schools" anyhow?
It's a factually incorrect *and* ham-handed title.
They'll be out don't worry. Some are against private schools.
The government could require testing for a minimal set of basic skills (reading comprehension, writing, arithmetic, constitutional knowledge, some basic historical stuff and some basic scientific stuff) on a regular basis to ensure that parents are not neglecting the education of their kids.
Separate method (a publicly-funded educational system) from results. Give people the maximum amount of freedom of choice for educating their kids. Create massive amount of competition.
That has never worked, and won't ever work, Chris. Good private education is not affordable for the working poor -- your system would punish parents for failing to find affordable good educational opportunities rather than the private institutions that spring up "to ensure parents are not neglecting the education of their children."
The standards and funding ARE to a large degree separate -- funding is at a local level, standards are at a state and national level. My preference would be funding at a state level and standards at a national level.
The problem with all arguments about private schools being more cost effective is the fact that teachers salaries have been forced artificially low by the fact that they are governmental employees -- once you take that barrier away, teachers will need to be paid at what they are worth. And private schools are not significantly better or even necessarily on par with public schools (depending on the region, locality, funding, and support for local schools).
Our PUBLIC educational system is the backbone of economic mobility in this nation, any privatization of the system will by necessity slow class mobility and that is a bad thing.
What we SHOULD discuss here is how corporate sponsorship in public schools can help to provide a better educational experience for America's youth.
That has never worked, and won't ever work,
In the early history (mid-1700's to mid-1800's) of this country most schools were privately owned and operated and they worked fine. In fact some argue that compared to today's (basic) educational level, students of that era were far superior. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. This all happened before what we call the public (compulsory, government-funded) school system existed. Funny (sad) statistic: Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.
Good private education is not affordable for the working poor -- your system would punish parents for failing to find affordable good educational opportunities
No. Of course not. Competition would create a wide variety of pricing options for all customers. Further, parents would be able to choose educational options in an a la carte fasion completely unavailable currently.
The United States Department of Education released a statement recently detailing the average cost per pupil in public and private schools and found that the average public school cost was approximately USD$7,200 per student while the average private school cost per pupil was just USD$3,500. The Department of Education also stated that less than 25% of private schools are considered "elite," costing more than $10,000 a year.
The problem with all arguments about private schools being more cost effective is the fact that teachers salaries have been forced artificially low by the fact that they are governmental employees
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Teachers are very well paid...and (at least in my state) they also built in (to the constitution!) cost-of-living raises regardless of economic conditions, attendance, etc. These were the only people getting raises (and not getting laid off) during the last recession. Very secure and well paid...great benefits. The NEA (the largest and one of the most powerful unions in the country) has consistently ensured that teacher pay has not been "forced artificially low".
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average elementary-school teacher in 2002 made $30.75 per hour. That is considerably more than other public servants, such as firefighters ($17.91) and police officers ($22.64). It is even more than highly skilled professionals, such as biologists ($28.07), mechanical engineers ($29.76), and chemists ($30.68), and just shy of computer scientists ($32.86), dentists ($35.51), and nuclear engineers ($36.16).
once you take that barrier away, teachers will need to be paid at what they are worth.
Indeed (except I would say that when you take away the monopoly position they have)...and for many it will be less than they are currently paid.
And private schools are not significantly better or even necessarily on par with public schools (depending on the region, locality, funding, and support for local schools).
Most are at least on par. But more to the point, greater competition and choice will improve all of the schools.
Our PUBLIC educational system is the backbone of economic mobility in this nation,
So we're told.
any privatization of the system will by necessity slow class mobility and that is a bad thing.
Giving parents a choice of where to send their kids will give them options currently unavailable. If parents are stuck in a poor area...with poor public schools...giving them an (or many) option(s) will enable them to move their kids to other schools seeking out the best education they can afford. Certainly in true hardship cases we would see scholarships and grants established to help truly financially disadvantaged families. This needed even be done through the government though.
Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
And this is exactly the wrong discussion to have here. Thanks original poster for your stupid thread title.
What we SHOULD discuss here is how corporate sponsorship in public schools can help to provide a better educational experience for America's youth.
BR, just go with the flow. If you want to pick nits start another thread.
I think the biggest current problem with public schools, in my experience, is that they 'teach to the standardized test' for whatever state they are in, rather than offering a well rounded education. Would a private school be any better in that respect?
I don't believe private schools provide a more rounded education per se. Some do I'm sure. Typically, private schools provide a good education at a reasonable price, and offer more variety. This is what I've observed locally.
Public schools are like any public project, inefficient, at least here in Portland. But what influenced me most is the administration. New programs are implemented seemingly without consideration for merit. Someone likes an idea and the kids become guinea pigs. It has to fail badly and undergo years of trying to make it work before it is dropped. Some programs fail less badly and continue seemingly forever without evaluation.
Private schools can't afford to behave this way, and are more goal oriented and budget conscious. When public schools need more money, they usually get it. The practice is to cut programs so it hurts the kids in some visible way. Kid are also brainwashed in class to encourage their parents to vote 'yes' for schools. It always passes at election time.
I'm not getting into the bigger argument here about educational philosophy, except to say free education should be available to all children, K-12. How you go about it is debatable. Some say a voucher system and plenty of private schools, could save a great deal of money and improve efficiency. Public schools would have to compete with the private sector. Others say some of the public schools should be run by private companies under contract, to compete with those run by government employees. With this system we could see who produces the best educated graduates. Still others are happy with the public school system the way it is.
When my son reached school age, I had to choose what I thought was best for him from what was available at the time. I chose private school. With conditions the way they are today, I'd make the same choice. I've seen no progress in public education. It has been status quo.
BR, just go with the flow. If you want to pick nits start another thread.
Bah, not nit picking in the least. It's calling you out for being disingenuous and trying to actually discuss the video itself rather than dragging out once again this stupid polarizing public vs private school discussion.
No. Of course not. Competition would create a wide variety of pricing options for all customers.
How would that *not* enable massive educational iniquity?
God-- you people don't even want to guarantee a high level of education for all-- just auction it off to the highest bidder and pray to God that competition lowers the price somewhat for those who can't afford a good school.
Despicable.