Part I
I am, 100%, a product of United States public schools. At least, I have been for as long as I was in kindergarten. I went to a public elementary school through sixth grade, a junior high school for seventh and eighth and a public high school from ninth grade to my senior year. Now I am at a state university. This pattern may change if and when I go to grad school, considering my chosen path of study.
Because I feel that I have been well served by this system, despite what critics may say, I generally planned to send any children I may have to local, public schools, unless I felt there was a problem with the school, or the child required something different. But a child of mine in a private or home school would be the exception, and not the rule. But now that I have done a little more research on it, in addition to my own observations, I’m beginning to think a little differently.
For example, I wondered about the time or money required for either of these alternatives. I understand that homeschooled students have many options, such as classes that they can take, or groups they can join with their peers who are also homeschooled, but things like that require A LOT of parent involvement. This may seem selfish, but I do expect to have a career outside of raising and teaching my children. After all, extracurricular activities do require money and private schools are expensive.
Also, I dislike the idea that I will be choosing the people my children associate with. I would want them to be subjected to ideas I may not be crazy about. Just like in the real world, they would be working with all kinds of people, some I may not like or at least agree with. Private schools have a distinct student body, and atmosphere, that I suspect is generally unchanging. It can also be a lot of pressure starting at a young age. As for homeschooling, the most time my hypothetical children will spend with their peers will generally be with parents nearby, and kids are unlikely to open up then.
Look for part II of this blog, coming soon.
Ironically - I was homeschooled from fourth grade right on through high school. While there are some crazy-nut homeschooling parents who don't let their kids get out at all and keep them indoors at all hours of the day, my parents were cool. They realized that we were kids like everyone else, so why shouldn't we be allowed to go out and do stuff that "normal" kids would do.
I think it is fine for you to choose public schools for your children. It that's what works great. I think that the public is best served when they have lots of choices. Public schools are one choice, home schooling is another and private schools are another. Competition causes all of them to be better.
I live in Wyoming and the public schools here are quite good. We don't have much in the way of the typical urban problems and very few ESL problems. And we are a rich state because we produce lots of energy and we spend about $14,000 per student.
My daughter is in college now. When she was at the K-12 age I sent her to a private Catholic school. At that time Wyoming was spending about $10,000 per year per public school student. I chose that particular school because the students there consistently over a period of several years led the ENTIRE state on standardized testing. They also absolutely dominated the State Science Fair with a grossly disproportionate share of first places.They were obviously doing something right.
In addition to paying my property taxes to support the public schools, I coughed up an additional $1200 per year for tuition at private school. I thought it was unfair that I was being essentially made to pay for my daughter's education twice. I think I should have received a credit of some sort because taxpayers did not have to pay to educate my child.
I also found it interesting that a little Catholic school that was only charging $1200 per year could outperform schools that were spending $10,000 per year per student. I attributed this to a several factors: 1) They could be selective about which children they admitted. Public schools have to accept all comers including the stupid kids who drag down the average. 2) The parents were self-selecting. Only parents that were really concerned about education and who could afford it coughed up an additional $1200 per year. Other things being equal, parents who care about education are far more likely to make sure that their kids succeed in school. Also, other things being equal, kids from affluent families are more likely to succeed in school partially I think because their parents have achieved higher levels of education and better able to supplement the efforts of teachers. 3) They don't have to deal with the teacher's unions. 4) They run extremely lean administratively partly because they don't have to deal with all the DOE baloney and partly because they don't have money to waste on Administrators who are not front-line teachers. They depend a lot on parents to volunteer. 5) They did not have to provide services like school buses. The only part of a public education my daughter got was riding the public school bus. She walked to the private school from the public school which was almost next door.
I think parents deserve choices. I think having choices is particularly important in the parts of the country where the public schools are shamefully bad.
$100,000 (ballpark) of funding from the diocese, which is the equivalent of the catholic government. If you give to your church, pay your tuition, and pay your taxes, you are paying three times. If you don't give to a Catholic church, then someone there was subsidizing your child's education, which is the same as you paying taxes for public education. To be clear, I'm not saying you didn't give to a catholic church regularly..just saying that there are people who take advantage of private school educations, complain about paying taxes that fund public education, but don't think a thing of letting a Catholic congregation pay for their child's education. Basically, education costs money, and an educated populace is better than an uneducated one, so everyone pays because it's the right thing to do.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
...But not every private school is Catholic. Most are, yes, but not all of them. My ex went to a private yeshiva. And I'm sure there's at least a handful that are not religious....
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That's certainly true. But jack was talking about catholic schools, so I addressed that situation directly. In many cases, the non-religious private schools are partially funded by alumni donations and foundations, so regardless of where you go to school- private, parochial, charter, or public, it's almost always on someone else's dime. We pay because it's the right thing to do.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
He he... my bad. I totally missed the part about him sending his daughter to a Catholic school.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Tuition for Catholics at my daughter's school was $1000 and for non-Catholics was $1400.
I was raised as an Episcopagen and am pretty much agnostic and sometimes fluctuate towards being athiest.
My wife at that time was Catholic and my daughter was confirmed as a Catholic so we qualified for the lower tuition. I did not feel comfortable with the subsidy so it was my idea which I worked out with the school to split the difference between $1000 and $1400. I paid $1200 and the extra $200 went into their scholarship fund.
And while my daughter's education may have been subsidized by Catholics recall that I pay property taxes which go towards public schools and that my daughter did not impose any educational tax burden on those schools. A lot of Catholics go to those public schools and a lot of Catholic families have more than one child so I think that if anything both taxpayers and Catholics have gotten more than their fair share from me.
That's how it works. We all pay, but we are all subsidized at some point down the line.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You mentioned that the private school did not ave to accept kids that don't want to work. They also don't have to accept special ed sudents or ESL students like a lot of public schools do. Some public schools may send these students to other public schools, saying that they do not have the correct resources, and these are the ones that do better. That is a whole nother topic.
But yes, it is certainly about what you choose to do, and more choices creates competitiveness.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I hugely resent that our immigration laws are not enforced and that taxpayers and parents are forced to pay for and deal with the consequences of schools that are destroyed by ESL students. I think even legal immigrants should not be accepted as immigrants unless they already speak English.
We spend far too much on special ed students. I would far rather see these huge resources directed towards the top 10% of students rather than the bottom 10%. We might get a return on this massive investment rather than flushing it down the toilet like we are now.
The top 10% (and both myself and my youngest sister are in this group, at least in some areas) do not need any additional help. Your education is determined solely by how much you want to learn, how much you want to be there. I had plenty of opportunities available for me, despite going to some of the poorest schools in my district. And not all learning can be done in a classroom.
The bottom 10%, of which my two middle sisters tend to be a part of (both have been in special ed during their years in the public education system), need all the help they can get. They both can grow to become active members of society, they just need a little extra help. Why on earth should we ignore them and focus on people who don't need that extra help?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
There are of course different levels of Special ed. Some, like mvenus929 mentioned, just need extra help and will be functioning members of society. However, others are much lower. I know of students who read at elementary level and were in high school. Some of these students were even in their twenties. Some, whose handicaps include physical as well as mental, will not even live past the age of 25. My point is, every student deserves an education, even children of immigrants. However, not every student needs the same education, and that is one of the problems with public school.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
would love to read more about this subject, i sent my twin daughters to a private school, they have since graduated . but did they miss out on public school ? my youngest daughter is going to a public school where there is sports, field trips ... i started www.schoolparentsofamerica.com hope to get some great forums like this..