Privatize, Privatize, Privatize

[Mr. P]

I think somebody needs to ask for their tuition money back..

 

[liberalogic]

It's absolutely true that many public schools suck. I went to a public HS that did not offer extensive options for education and hired many teachers who were simply irresponsible and/or lazy.

The truth is that I value education more than anyone can imagine. I see it as a way to broaden my horizons and make me look at the world a little bit differently each and every day. I feel very uncomfortable with the privatization of all schools because I also think that that is encouraging competition as an age where students are still "finding themselves." I've had many friends who slept through junior high and then really turned it on in high school and became stellar students. If every school becomes competitive by the 9th grade, how will we know the "true" potential of each student? After HS, after the student has endured many years of serious academic training, once they have developed to "young adults": that's when competition should begin (which is what happens when you apply for college).

The public school system has been battered by misdirected funds and ill-suited leaders, but I don't think that it is a lost cause. I think that if someone can come along with the right attitude and experience, maybe he/she can make the difference.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I feel very uncomfortable with the privatization of all schools because I also think that that is encouraging competition as an age where students are still "finding themselves." .

WOw. Wow. THIS attitude is why our schools suck. You think CHina and india allow their kids to slack off until they FIND THEMSELVES?

 

[Hobbit]

Competition is what separates the strong from the weak. Sure, some people can turn around, but we shouldn't give them a free pass for a decade just to see if they ever do. If they turn around, then they can try to catch up with everyone else. It is competition that ensures quality products and affordable prices in a free market economy. It is competition that drives people to succeed. Without competition, what incentive is there?

I will tell you this, though. With grades not truly being tracked until ninth grade, some people think they can just slack off until it starts counting. Once they realize that failing to learn the fundamentals will make it infinitely harder to learn the more complex studies, it's too late. Make them compete for their station in school, and they will learn the value of hard work early.

 

[liberalogic]

But by making HS competitive through privatization, that means that students will begin to "compete" in elementary school. Are they truly able to understand what is at stake? High school starts when the kid is truly transforming into the young adult; that is when they are truly able to understand what is at stake (college admissions). You really think most 5th - 8th graders are thinking about college? Do you really think they are so focused that they are worried about getting into a great HS?

Incentive through getting into a "good" HS is not going to motivate students when they are too young to really comprehend the role that it will play in their futures.

And as for the reason why our country lags so far behind in schools, rtwngAvngr, is not solely the responsibility of the students. In recent years, elementary education has been "dumbed" down in an attempt to encourage students to want to learn instead of being burdened by it. It has become more about letting the kids have fun while learning a little something when it should be letting the kids learn as the primary focus and sometimes give them some breathing room. There is little substance in much of elementary education, which is why students end up falling behind in HS and have an already preconceived attitude that they should be having fun instead of learning.

 

[Hobbit]

It's quite simple. I believe that if you force someone to have something, it becomes loathed. If you make someone work for something, it becomes coveted. Elementary school students are typically competitive by nature, no matter what they think is at stake. I often see these young kids lording over other kids based on their performance in academics, athletics, and, well, anything. I don't think we need to worry about incentive to compete. If all else fails, privatizing should also motivate the parents to make sure their kids can get into the good private schools.

You also seem to forget that in a free market economy, there would be a school for everybody. Some would simply be more exclusive. In the collegiate world, anybody who has a high school diploma can get into a college, it's just a question of how good that college will be.

 

[liberalogic]

You also seem to forget that in a free market economy, there would be a school for everybody. Some would simply be more exclusive. In the collegiate world, anybody who has a high school diploma can get into a college, it's just a question of how good that college will be.

True, but if we privatize schools and make the gap even larger between a good school and a bad school, then how are kids going to get into good colleges that might come from the "bad" school?

Now I know I'm generalizing a bit here, but try to understand what I'm getting at:

If you go to a "bad" or an ill-regarded HS because of your performance in elementary and Jr. HS, but you end up thriving in this school and you have an "A" average; who is going to get into the better college: You with your "A" or the kid from the elite, well-regarded school with a "B+"? The second kid will get in because many colleges look at the ranking of the HS and they will determine that the second kid had a more rigorous academic background. Now who's to say that the kid from the poor school couldn't get an "A" in the prestigious school? How is it fair that one is admitted over the other?

It's true that hard work should be encouraged: trust me, I believe that more than you can imagine because I worked with younger kids (ages 3-8) at a learning center for two years and I pushed them as hard as I could. At the same time, though, the future of many of these kids is being put at stake or jeopardized way too early in their academic careers. It isn't until HS, when kids are more mature, more aware of the world around them, and closer to their futures that they TRULY understand and FEEL the pressure for themselves instead of having mommy or daddy on their case repeatedly saying they need to go to a good school. The "incentive method" of going to a good HS can be repeated by parents; and yes, it will be instilled in the child's mind, but they will only be reciting their parents' words instead of feeling for themselves and understanding for themselves what higher education is all about.

If kids are capable of being as mature as you imply (understanding the tremendous burden of the future), then let's start teaching sex ed. in first grade.

 

[Hobbit]

True, but if we privatize schools and make the gap even larger between a good school and a bad school, then how are kids going to get into good colleges that might come from the "bad" school?

Now I know I'm generalizing a bit here, but try to understand what I'm getting at:

If you go to a "bad" or an ill-regarded HS because of your performance in elementary and Jr. HS, but you end up thriving in this school and you have an "A" average; who is going to get into the better college: You with your "A" or the kid from the elite, well-regarded school with a "B+"? The second kid will get in because many colleges look at the ranking of the HS and they will determine that the second kid had a more rigorous academic background. Now who's to say that the kid from the poor school couldn't get an "A" in the prestigious school? How is it fair that one is admitted over the other?

It's true that hard work should be encouraged: trust me, I believe that more than you can imagine because I worked with younger kids (ages 3-8) at a learning center for two years and I pushed them as hard as I could. At the same time, though, the future of many of these kids is being put at stake or jeopardized way too early in their academic careers. It isn't until HS, when kids are more mature, more aware of the world around them, and closer to their futures that they TRULY understand and FEEL the pressure for themselves instead of having mommy or daddy on their case repeatedly saying they need to go to a good school. The "incentive method" of going to a good HS can be repeated by parents; and yes, it will be instilled in the child's mind, but they will only be reciting their parents' words instead of feeling for themselves and understanding for themselves what higher education is all about.

If kids are capable of being as mature as you imply (understanding the tremendous burden of the future), then let's start teaching sex ed. in first grade.

First off, I never said they were mature. In fact, if you look at my post, the way they compete is actually pretty immature, but compete they will. It's also a basic bit of reverse psychology that if you give somebody something, they take it for granted. If they have to work for it, it becomes coveted. As an example, take your average 8-year old girl and offer her a free sheet of pink construction paper. She might take it and she might not, but probably won't be too enthusiastic. Take the same girl, find another one, and say, for example, that whoever gets to a nearby fire hydrant and back first wins this piece of paper, and you might see them cheating and arguing over who's cheating to get that same piece.

As for the example you gave for the high school rankings, test scores matter a lot more than the high school you went to. If you went to "Craptastical Central High" and make the same GPA as the guy who went to "Best Prep School Ever," yet you made a 34 on the ACT as opposed to his 30, you'll probably get into the better school. As of right now, people going to inferior high schools can get into good colleges as long as they're willing to work hard for it. Some students may also choose to attempt to transfer if they think their current school doesn't fit their needs. It's nothing new. In college, many students either go to community college or a regular college, and then attempt to transfer up after a year or two.

There's also the fact that since all high schools could focus on college prep, vo-tech, or special ed, as opposed to having to cater to everyone in their district, no college bound student will have his potential held back by somebody who is either incapable of or doesn't want to figure out algebra.

 

[liberalogic]

First off, I never said they were mature. In fact, if you look at my post, the way they compete is actually pretty immature, but compete they will. It's also a basic bit of reverse psychology that if you give somebody something, they take it for granted. If they have to work for it, it becomes coveted. As an example, take your average 8-year old girl and offer her a free sheet of pink construction paper. She might take it and she might not, but probably won't be too enthusiastic. Take the same girl, find another one, and say, for example, that whoever gets to a nearby fire hydrant and back first wins this piece of paper, and you might see them cheating and arguing over who's cheating to get that same piece.

As for the example you gave for the high school rankings, test scores matter a lot more than the high school you went to. If you went to "Craptastical Central High" and make the same GPA as the guy who went to "Best Prep School Ever," yet you made a 34 on the ACT as opposed to his 30, you'll probably get into the better school. As of right now, people going to inferior high schools can get into good colleges as long as they're willing to work hard for it. Some students may also choose to attempt to transfer if they think their current school doesn't fit their needs. It's nothing new. In college, many students either go to community college or a regular college, and then attempt to transfer up after a year or two.

There's also the fact that since all high schools could focus on college prep, vo-tech, or special ed, as opposed to having to cater to everyone in their district, no college bound student will have his potential held back by somebody who is either incapable of or doesn't want to figure out algebra.

First off, for those students in special ed., vo-tech, etc., there are special schools for them right now. There are also special programs in regular public high schools that cater to their needs as well. I don't think the special education programs in HS right now are so large that they really take away from college prep.

Also, many colleges pay a lot more attention to school ranking than you think. Yes, standardized tests count, but school rankings are important as well. Trust me, I recently went through the process.

And I like the idea of making kids work harder. I believe that challenging kids is a fundamental part of education. My problem, though, is that not all kids develop the essential skills as early as you assume. It takes some kids a few years to really become motivated, intellectual students because their minds haven't really developed yet. To base elementary school and JR HS on where everyone goes to HS, which will then be a big factor in determining where you go to college, is wrong.

Many students, when they are in HS, begin to realize the importance of a college education. They realize that it is an important decision and can effect the rest of their lives. No child should be at a disadvantage because of the HS that they are in, which was determined by the work that they did when they were younger.

 

[Annie]

But by making HS competitive through privatization, that means that students will begin to "compete" in elementary school. Are they truly able to understand what is at stake? High school starts when the kid is truly transforming into the young adult; that is when they are truly able to understand what is at stake (college admissions). You really think most 5th - 8th graders are thinking about college? Do you really think they are so focused that they are worried about getting into a great HS?

Incentive through getting into a "good" HS is not going to motivate students when they are too young to really comprehend the role that it will play in their futures.

And as for the reason why our country lags so far behind in schools, rtwngAvngr, is not solely the responsibility of the students. In recent years, elementary education has been "dumbed" down in an attempt to encourage students to want to learn instead of being burdened by it. It has become more about letting the kids have fun while learning a little something when it should be letting the kids learn as the primary focus and sometimes give them some breathing room. There is little substance in much of elementary education, which is why students end up falling behind in HS and have an already preconceived attitude that they should be having fun instead of learning.

I teach in a parochial school. Middle school, 6-8th grades, social studies. I do not 'dumb down' curriculum. I do teach the students that they are preparing for high school/college. From the fall, I give direct instruction on how 'that year' will prepare them for high school/college:

6th is 'ancient history': Welcome and wake up. Unlike the first 6+ years of your educational experience, you will have to make 'judgements' and be able to explain how you reached your conclusions.

We will be studying river civilizations, the Greeks, the Romans, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Renaissance. You will have to be able next year, to explain/expound on how each impacted the Founders/Framers of the US.

7th Grade: Early American History-Civil War: Unlike last year, you will have to do more than demonstrate knowledge of the text, but make the connections from the past to the events of the 18th and 19th centuries in America. The Constitution and the Civil War are grounded on the experiences of the ancient civilizations.

8th Grade: Reconstruction-Current: You are required to demonstrate both knowledge of the past and the repercussions of subsequent historical decisions regarding democracy and free will. (Catholic school, mind all). You should be able to recite the successes, failures, and mixed events and give coherent explanations of each.

The above are a simplified version of my goals for each grade. Concurrently I'm teaching skils, meaning I tell:

6th grade: Read text looking for outlines that tell you the main and subtopics you must know for a test. Keep all tests, worksheets to study for next test.

7th grade: All of the above plus: recognize the difference in location; i.e., being in colonies v England; being in GA v VA; being a freeman v slave. Be able to argue for or against a position.

8th grade: All of the above plus: Be able to construct essay tests from a cross curricular point of view. Meaning, bring literature, science, religion, into your writings and be able to support the position you take.

From 6th graders, I expect them to write in their notes what I tell them to. In 7th I expect them to write what the text leads them towards, and what I tell them is important.

In 8th, I expect them to write what is 'new' to them. If they already recognize, could defend, no point. Write instead what 'ideas' are original to their thinking or could support what they already think. In 8th I mostly teach by Socratic method.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Too funny. Kathianne's a teacher. I was the class clown. Some things never change! LOL.

Keep up the good work, Kat. You rock.

 

[liberalogic]

I teach in a parochial school. Middle school, 6-8th grades, social studies. I do not 'dumb down' curriculum. I do teach the students that they are preparing for high school/college. From the fall, I give direct instruction on how 'that year' will prepare them for high school/college:

6th is 'ancient history': Welcome and wake up. Unlike the first 6+ years of your educational experience, you will have to make 'judgements' and be able to explain how you reached your conclusions.

We will be studying river civilizations, the Greeks, the Romans, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Renaissance. You will have to be able next year, to explain/expound on how each impacted the Founders/Framers of the US.

7th Grade: Early American History-Civil War: Unlike last year, you will have to do more than demonstrate knowledge of the text, but make the connections from the past to the events of the 18th and 19th centuries in America. The Constitution and the Civil War are grounded on the experiences of the ancient civilizations.

8th Grade: Reconstruction-Current: You are required to demonstrate both knowledge of the past and the repercussions of subsequent historical decisions regarding democracy and free will. (Catholic school, mind all). You should be able to recite the successes, failures, and mixed events and give coherent explanations of each.

The above are a simplified version of my goals for each grade. Concurrently I'm teaching skils, meaning I tell:

6th grade: Read text looking for outlines that tell you the main and subtopics you must know for a test. Keep all tests, worksheets to study for next test.

7th grade: All of the above plus: recognize the difference in location; i.e., being in colonies v England; being in GA v VA; being a freeman v slave. Be able to argue for or against a position.

8th grade: All of the above plus: Be able to construct essay tests from a cross curricular point of view. Meaning, bring literature, science, religion, into your writings and be able to support the position you take.

From 6th graders, I expect them to write in their notes what I tell them to. In 7th I expect them to write what the text leads them towards, and what I tell them is important.

In 8th, I expect them to write what is 'new' to them. If they already recognize, could defend, no point. Write instead what 'ideas' are original to their thinking or could support what they already think. In 8th I mostly teach by Socratic method.

Boy do I wish I had you for a teacher-- maybe I could've learned something in 7th grade.

It's sad that there are not more teachers out there like you who are focused on what they need to do.

Which leads me to this: Is the problem with education today really the students? Or is it the lack of quality teachers that infiltrate the school systems?

I'd say instead of privatizing, why don't we find a way to improve the quality of teachers present in the school system.

 

[Annie]

Boy do I wish I had you for a teacher-- maybe I could've learned something in 7th grade.

It's sad that there are not more teachers out there like you who are focused on what they need to do.

Which leads me to this: Is the problem with education today really the students? Or is it the lack of quality teachers that infiltrate the school systems?

It's a combination. Parents are more concerned with the kids being able to fit into THEIR sceduals, rather than adjusting to the kids. The kids are able to use their parents to get the schools to 'dumb down' the curriculum so that they do not have to move at a pace that requires effort. The teachers too are respossible, since for the most part a slower pace means less time spent on grading, lesson plans, etc.

I'd say instead of privatizing, why don't we find a way to improve the quality of teachers present in the school system.

Tell me how?


Thank you for that. I don't think what I do could be replicated in most public schools, as parents would complain about the 'transition' being unfair. (They do at my school, but I'm backed up because my principal, while finding me a 'thorn in her side', knows the value of standardized test results; high school students on National Merit Scholars/Finalists, {Catholic high schools list the grammar schools the students attended, something the public schools might want to try! } The exception would be some of the charter schools, which seem to be flying ahead of private schools.

Friday was a meeting with the Catholic High School most of our students attend. They brought the 'class results' of our previous 4 classes. Pretty impressive. Seniors: 1 to Harvard, full ride. 1 to Yale, full ride. One offered full ride to Univerity of Pittsburgh, declined; One to Stanford, partial scholarship. 2 to U of I, full ride. Out of class of 17, 8 attending THAT high school.

Every junior originally from our school, 12 in all there, are in the honors/AP track.

The sophomore class was a problem for us and is still in high school. Yet, 4 out of 6 at that school made merit awards on PSAT's last year! (normally taken in sophomore year.)

Every kid at the high school from last year's high school class, is in the top 5% of class! 8 out of 15 students from the 8th grade.

Truth to tell, the math/science teacher at our school is awful, (just to let you know that bad teachers do not mean that 'all is lost', as long as there are good teachers to make up the deficit).

 

[liberalogic]

Ok, but why can't that exist in public schools as well? Why is your school (the private school) so successful compared to many public schools? What would you say is the fundamental difference between your school and the public school in your area?

 

[manu1959]

Ok, but why can't that exist in public schools as well? Why is your school (the private school) so successful compared to many public schools? What would you say is the fundamental difference between your school and the public school in your area?

union teachers that are crap and you can't get rid of them

 

[Annie]

Ok, but why can't that exist in public schools as well? Why is your school (the private school) so successful compared to many public schools? What would you say is the fundamental difference between your school and the public school in your area?

The principal recognizes that in order for parents to fork over $3 k per year, we need to be doing something different than the public schools. The principal also recognizes that the same issues confront both, but says to the parents, 'if you want the kid to excel in high school, perhaps earning scholarship to college, you need to back up the teachers.'

 

[Annie]

union teachers that are crap and you can't get rid of them

Our 8th grade and prior 6th grade teachers are/were beyond crap. No unions.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, but why can't that exist in public schools as well? Why is your school (the private school) so successful compared to many public schools? What would you say is the fundamental difference between your school and the public school in your area?

When your school is a business and risks losing money if they don't run a quality school, they tend to run a quality school. The only thing that affects the funding of a public school is if they live up to the "No Child Left Behind Act," which is, like any other cookie-cutter federal program, idiotic, and what the population and average property value of the school district is, kids or no kids. If schools have to compete for funding based on where the parents want their kids going, they'll shape up.

The fundamental problem for publicly funded schools is the fact that they're publicly funded, not who's in charge, who's getting hired, or how well regulated it is.

 

[Emmett]

Her Mr. Conley-----


MIX ME UP ONE OF THOSE, WILL YA!

 

[Annie]

When your school is a business and risks losing money if they don't run a quality school, they tend to run a quality school. The only thing that affects the funding of a public school is if they live up to the "No Child Left Behind Act," which is, like any other cookie-cutter federal program, idiotic, and what the population and average property value of the school district is, kids or no kids. If schools have to compete for funding based on where the parents want their kids going, they'll shape up.

The fundamental problem for publicly funded schools is the fact that they're publicly funded, not who's in charge, who's getting hired, or how well regulated it is.

I'm not saying I disagree with the premise, but the problems with the public schools began way before NCLB.