1DE, Albino, FOL, CB, whoever.

[than205]

Personally, I feel it has more to do with our culture and parental involvement more than money ever will.

[Kai]

Parental involvement can only go so far.

If the teachers aren't getting the information across, then no amount of prodding is going to help the students understand it.

[-Carnifex-]

From my experience it isn't the teachers fault so much as it is the students. I'm surrounded by idiots in my school, but amazing teachers. Unfortunately, the idiots drag the rest of us down because they don't want to work or don't grasp concepts.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
IDE, sure there are good teachers in it for the gift of teaching, not the money. However, we need MORE good teachres. How does one get more educated, caring teachers to come teach? Have the average starting pay under $40,000 (after a 1 year MAT and 4 year BS/BA) when comparable salaries are at 50+? YOU INCREASE STARTING PAY! ENCOURAGE more people to come teach!

A very widely held fallacy.

Did you know that on average private school teachers make the same or less then public school teachers? Yet those schools almost always outperform the public schools by leaps and bounds. The reason for that isn't that the private school teachers make more, because they don't. The reason is the methodology of teaching. In the private schools there is no overbearing national force that forces the education of students to fall in line with preapproved standards. What I mean by that is that the NEA, one of the most evil organizations on earth, has warped education so much in the name of expanding their union that it is impossible to instruct now. There's also gross mismanagement and waste in the education system. We really need to begin over hauling the administrative processes dealing with education and learning where our money gets spent.

Also, as for needing more teachers. We really don't need more. It might not be a bad idea to shift some around and to start weeding out the poor ones, but we don't need more really. The unions like to say that because they always want more teachers, because it means more money for them.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
From my experience it isn't the teachers fault so much as it is the students. I'm surrounded by idiots in my school, but amazing teachers. Unfortunately, the idiots drag the rest of us down because they don't want to work or don't grasp concepts.

People make that point a lot, and on the surface it makes sense and it sounds good but I tend to disagree with it.

It's easy to say that a student isn't educated properly because he didn't want to learn so it's his fault. However (honestly) how many of us showed up for school WANTING to learn? I didn't. My teachers had to keep getting my attention from day one and making me sit there and pay attention and punishing me for not doing homework and all that to get me to actually learn. You know why they did that? Because it's there job to teach me, and part of that job includes getting my 6 year old brain to start understanding and then functioning in a learning envirnment. This becomes harder and harder to do the older the kids get (by highschool if it hasn't been ingrained it's going to be tough).

For instance take this conversation here. None of us came into the world with an innate knowledge or desire to learn about and discuss the educational failures of our system, but here we are doing it. Somewhere an interest in that had to be formed.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

so we resort to this tactic do we.....

Yes I did. *hngs head in shame at the CB tactic*

What are you questioning the way our glorious government spends your money????? That is UNamerican. If you don't like the amount of money you have to give or the way that money is spent why don't you go to Canada or Russia . Before you jump down my throat for that last statement I agree with you. It is your right to question how much you are taxed and what your taxes are spent on.

I would, but Canada and Russia have higher tax rates.

Now if you read what I wrote I said, "I realize that you probably don't disagree with this....but I'm trying to point out how sending your kids to private school is a choice." Basically all I was saying is that the fact that you sent your kids to private school has nothing to do with the argument for/against vouchers.

Here is what I said about that, "Now vouchers on a limited scope may not be such a bad idea (as you suggest)." So basically I was just typing that long message to say I somewhat agree with you. You have had to realize by now that I am a long winded blowhard!!!!

So in other words, I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kai]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

The reason is the methodology of teaching. In the private schools there is no overbearing national force that forces the education of students to fall in line with preapproved standards. What I mean by that is that the NEA, one of the most evil organizations on earth, has warped education so much in the name of expanding their union that it is impossible to instruct now.

You make a really good point with that.

For example:

The Illinois school system drives the idea of the 5-paragraph essay form into students' heads from an early point. That is basically the ONLY writing style many students are taught, throughout their entire pre-college career. The bad thing is, most college instructors do NOT see it as an acceptable format.

Why do they do this?

Because of preapproved standards set by the Prarie State Exam. A meaningless test, whose only use is to secure funding for schools.

In the end, it boils down to money.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
A very widely held fallacy.

Did you know that on average private school teachers make the same or less then public school teachers? Yet those schools almost always outperform the public schools by leaps and bounds. The reason for that isn't that the private school teachers make more, because they don't. The reason is the methodology of teaching.

A very widely held fallacy. To repeat my above post why can't you guys let the facts lead you to the proper result? You must let aaron_mag with his public education show you the way.

Again you say that public school teachers make more. Again you say that public school teachers have more benefits. Yet you fail to follow to the logical conclusion that the more qualified teachers ARE the public school teachers. Case in point. I have a cousin who is a private school teacher. His goal was to be a public school teacher but he hasn't met his education requirements. He keeps finding excuses for not meeting those requirements until it has become, "I prefer teaching at private schools for less money and lower benefits."

So once again why do the private schools outperform public schools? It is all about DEMOGRAPHICS. Private schools are naturally going to have kids from MORE affluent families who have more resources to devote to the kids learning, more stable home life (on average), etc. etc.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

So once again why do the private schools outperform public schools? It is all about DEMOGRAPHICS. Private schools are naturally going to have kids from MORE affluent families who have more resources to devote to the kids learning, more stable home life (on average), etc. etc.

So basically you are saying that dumber people teaching smarter kids will outperform smarter people teaching dumber kids?



Wanna compare IQs?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


So basically you are saying that dumber people teaching smarter kids will outperform smarter people teaching dumber kids?



Wanna compare IQs?

Don't need to compare IQs. I have never needed a test to validate the fact that I am a moron. I figured out I was a moron LONG before I knew about tests that prove/disprove that sort of thing. So I suppose that makes me smarter than people who had to wait for a test to tell them such things....

BTW I'm not saying that the kids who attend public school are DUMBER just because they are on average less affluent. I'm saying that those that attend private school typically come from a subset of socieity. This is being from families that can and are willing to invest more money into their kids. These are also the parents that are willing to spend MORE TIME with their kids ("Dad I don't understand my calculus homework...."). So why is there a surprise if they outperform the general populace (on average).

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

"Dad I don't understand my calculus homework....".

Neither do I son!

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
So once again why do the private schools outperform public schools? It is all about DEMOGRAPHICS. Private schools are naturally going to have kids from MORE affluent families who have more resources to devote to the kids learning, more stable home life (on average), etc. etc.

Not a completely unfair point, but also not totally accurate.

For one, it's been demonstrated that the private schools tend to educate kids to a higher standard for usually 1/2 - 2/3 the cost per pupil. That means that although they have the resources at their disposal to spend more they aren't doing it. The private schools run more efficiently and therefore are able to do more for less money. And frankly that's the way they have to be. Because private schools need to attract customers in order to survive they have to keep the price tags as low as possible and still produce results that are better then the competition. And it's tough to compete with the public systems low low price of free, so they really have to accomplish a lot to be attractive.

And the more affluent kids may have a more stable envirnment then probably the low income kids, but I imagine its pretty comparable to the middle class kids, although I couldn't prove it. But all that really means is that those are the families that the parents are fufilling their role in. Plenty of rich kids can't pass basic skills tests and their parents (despite spending the money) are just ignoring them and not participating the way they're supposed to just like in a lower income family. Plus it is sheer lunacy to assume that wealth somehow translates to a innately better student.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Not a completely unfair point, but also not totally accurate.

For one, it's been demonstrated that the private schools tend to educate kids to a higher standard for usually 1/2 - 2/3 the cost per pupil. That means that although they have the resources at their disposal to spend more they aren't doing it. The private schools run more efficiently and therefore are able to do more for less money. And frankly that's the way they have to be. Because private schools need to attract customers in order to survive they have to keep the price tags as low as possible and still produce results that are better then the competition. And it's tough to compete with the public systems low low price of free, so they really have to accomplish a lot to be attractive.

I would argue the "higher standard" portion. ON AVERAGE the private school kids may perform better but once again the public school kids are from a larger demographics pool. The vast majority of the kids go to public school. I have even known parents, exasperated by the lack of motivation shown by their kid, pull their kid from private school and put them in public school. These are not bad parents....you would be hard pressed to find parents that spend more time taking their kids to activities and actually staying there during the activities. They just got tired of poring money into a private school when their kid wasn't taking advantage of it. He isn't a bad kid, just having some temporary motivation difficulty at the moment.

So what happens when average test scores are taken? The test scores of kids like the one above are included with the public school average score. This of course lowers the total score. I'll bet that a high percentage of the top individual scores come from public schools.

I won't argue that they do it cheaper? Of course they don't handle things like special education cases. We had a story here in Portland of a Rose Festival Princess and her brother with Down's Syndrome. The father had went to a certain private school in the area (the same as the daughter), had coached at a private school in the area, but would not take his son even though he was willing to pay for a personal tutor for him. Either they didn't have the resources to handle it and wisely advised the father to put him in public school (where the father later admitted he thrived) or they are simply priestly hypocrites who didn't want a kid with down's syndrome at their school. I'm more inclined to believe the former but the bitterness of the father (in the article) said he believed otherwise.

And the more affluent kids may have a more stable envirnment then probably the low income kids, but I imagine its pretty comparable to the middle class kids, although I couldn't prove it. But all that really means is that those are the families that the parents are fufilling their role in. Plenty of rich kids can't pass basic skills tests and their parents (despite spending the money) are just ignoring them and not participating the way they're supposed to just like in a lower income family. Plus it is sheer lunacy to assume that wealth somehow translates to a innately better student.

There can be no doubt that some wealthy families use private boarding schools to warehouse their kid for them. I met plenty of these types in college. Some mature and well adjusted over those of us with a traditional family upbringing and others socially stunted. One guy told me that he could tell his parents felt inconvenienced during the holiday seasons because they actually had to deal with him during that time of the year.

I never said that wealth translates into an innately better student. It can, however, help. Hired tutors can help. Having time to study rather than working at Taco Bell to afford school clothes helps. It is sheer lunacy to assume that having money DOESN'T help a student apply themselves to their studies if they are so inclined.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
I would argue the "higher standard" portion. ON AVERAGE the private school kids may perform better but once again the public school kids are from a larger demographics pool. The vast majority of the kids go to public school. I have even known parents, exasperated by the lack of motivation shown by their kid, pull their kid from private school and put them in public school. These are not bad parents....you would be hard pressed to find parents that spend more time taking their kids to activities and actually staying there during the activities. They just got tired of poring money into a private school when their kid wasn't taking advantage of it. He isn't a bad kid, just having some temporary motivation difficulty at the moment.

But so what it's a larger demographic pool? Are you saying that only rich kids can learn and that we need to have lower standards for poor kids and minorities thus condemning to a lower standard of living for the rest of their lives? We can't go around saying "well he's poor, we can't expect much from him". To a very limited extent is the kid's own desire to learn relevant. It is the responsibility of the educators to "force teach" if need be. I will of course recgnize that there are some kids that just can't be reached due to a variety of factors and a higher percentage of those may come from public schools, but that doesn't excuse the school from performing

So what happens when average test scores are taken? The test scores of kids like the one above are included with the public school average score. This of course lowers the total score. I'll bet that a high percentage of the top individual scores come from public schools.

Again, so what? We're not talking about the difference of a few points in scores from private schools to public schools, we're talking about some public schools that actually fail, with graduation rates under half. Maybe the kid from your example does sway the final score by a tiny fraction, but the more important statistics really don't have much to do with him.

I won't argue that they do it cheaper? Of course they don't handle things like special education cases. We had a story here in Portland of a Rose Festival Princess and her brother with Down's Syndrome. The father had went to a certain private school in the area (the same as the daughter), had coached at a private school in the area, but would not take his son even though he was willing to pay for a personal tutor for him. Either they didn't have the resources to handle it and wisely advised the father to put him in public school (where the father later admitted he thrived) or they are simply priestly hypocrites who didn't want a kid with down's syndrome at their school. I'm more inclined to believe the former but the bitterness of the father (in the article) said he believed otherwise.

Again, so what? You just admitted the kid thrived, so how can he be brining down the overall score? He'll probably graduate with decent marks. Also, there are literally mountains of private schools that do cater specifically to special education students. In fact I have a buddy who has both her daughters in one of those schools, where I might add the attention they receive and the quality of their education is leaps and bounds ahead of their affluent public school.

I never said that wealth translates into an innately better student. It can, however, help. Hired tutors can help. Having time to study rather than working at Taco Bell to afford school clothes helps. It is sheer lunacy to assume that having money DOESN'T help a student apply themselves to their studies if they are so inclined.

But it is hardly a determining factor. Are you seriously suggesting that part time jobs, and not a failure in the education system is to blame for poor student performance?

[aaron_mag]

I think we have an east coast/west coast miscommuniction. Who says the public schools are failing to provide an education? I teach Taekwon-do and I so I see alot of kids in high school come through. Some go to private school, some go to public school, some are homeschooled. In no way have I noticed a difference in intelligence and maturity between them. It all comes down to the individual kid.

Can you not understand the law of averages? The greater the population the more the overall average scores are going to move towards the average. You guys can't accept the fact that these statistics you love to quote on average test scores throughout the nation is EXACTLY what one would expect. Private schools, through their exclusiveness (and I don't mean by that that they segregate by anything other than it takes money and effort from the parents to get them enrolled) you would expect them to perform better.

Are you saying that only rich kids can learn and that we need to have lower standards for poor kids and minorities thus condemning to a lower standard of living for the rest of their lives?

[sarcasm]Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. You figured me out.[/sarcasm] Of course my entire discussion had nothing to do with either having lower standards for poor kids or a lower standard of living. Isn't changing the subject and being offensive a famous Bill O'Reilly tactic? Once again I was just trying to show you the law of averages. The greater the demographic pool the more you would expect the score to be AVERAGE!!!!

Again, so what? You just admitted the kid thrived, so how can he be brining down the overall score? He'll probably graduate with decent marks. Also, there are literally mountains of private schools that do cater specifically to special education students. In fact I have a buddy who has both her daughters in one of those schools, where I might add the attention they receive and the quality of their education is leaps and bounds ahead of their affluent public school.

In that section my point was not about test scores. It was about cost. Special education, of course, costs more and public education must have those programs while private schools on average do not. Your buddy probably pays more for the school he sends his daughters to. In a voucher system that you envision would he get more money than most parents due to the special needs of his child? I ask this as a discussion point and out of curiosity.

But if you remember I totally agree with you that administrative costs are eating the funding of our public schools. See earlier posts. These quotations of the statistics of private school average test scores versus public school average test scores, however, are stupid.