Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That is because they are paying for the service. If the parent gets something for nothing or at least they get that impression the parent will most likely not be involved in it. All in all, that is how people work and that is not different in education.
In a way they do teach differently. With smaller class sizes and the pressure from the parents the teachers and schools will take greater care in the individual learning of each student. With a mass of students and no obvious incentive for the parent the public schools have little chance of matching the success.
You know nothing of my understanding of education.
The fact remains that private schools can be exclusive when public schools cannot.
As I said earlier, parents who take the time to apply and pay for private school are going to be more involved in their child's education. Comparing private school results to public school results is not a fair comparison.
Also, there is no guarantee that a private school education is a good education. It varies from state to state but private schools don't have to abide by the same standards as public schools.
How very defensive
State to state? Try to school to school.
Standards mean nothing in the large scale of things
1- you attack teachers unions and fail to document any of your charges against them but think they are too powerful
2- so your point is that teachers unions are not powerful enough because they could not help your buddy
can you please make up your mind?
can you please provide some documentation for your charges about teachers and unions?
Sure they do. Standards only mean nothing when they don't work.
power has nothing to do with it. the union chose not to help him. as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about
How very defensive.
The fact that some private schools are exclusive does not necessarily imply what you said.
It would seem to me what makes people involved and what doesn't is in play.
State to state? Try to school to school.
Standards mean nothing in the large scale of things.
Of course there are going to be schools with low dropout rates, never said there wasn't. Although it's off topic, I'm sure privates are much much lower than publics. Why do you think there is an increased need for special education teachers? ...take a guess.from Dontdoit on his criticism of the public schools
There are many school districts with an extremely low dropout rate. There are many school districts with very high standards. There are countless people in many school districts who have no trouble meeting the requirements. And why is the increase in special education teachers any indication of anything other than that we need more special education teachers?
Here is some information I found interesting that relates to this topic.
Private Schools Versus Public Schools | Private Vs Public
"Private schools are allowed to expel students and can choose not to allow certain students admittance. In fact, many private schools are difficult to get into. Public schools allow all students, regardless of religious creed, academic abilities or any other factor. "
Public Schools vs. Private Schools: New Study Says There is No Difference
"Many people assume that students enrolled in private schools perform better academically than do students attending public schools. The Center on Education Policy (CEP), however, disagrees. According to a new CEP study released this week, private school students and public school students perform equally on achievement tests in math, reading, science, and history."
Percentage distribution of students ages 5 through 17 attending kindergarten through 12th grade, by school type or participation in homeschooling and selected child, parent, and household characteristics: 1999, 2003, and 2007
NAEP Studies - 2006461: Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
Causal relationship error. Any prefroming better is more likely linked to a the student population and not unions.
All unions serve their members. Students are not memebers, just a auto unions are not for the car buyer. However, this doesn't make either anti students or car buyers.
You don't care about the education of our children, you just want unions to exist. Do you even have children?
Boo said:All unions serve their members. Students are not memebers, just a auto unions are not for the car buyer. However, this doesn't make either anti students or car buyers.
Thanks for proving we don't need unions. Pass this info along to haymarket.
Given the state of education in our country, it's not too surprising that the best answer isn't an option in the poll. We need to change our curriculum from top to bottom, rolling back the liberal reforms of the 1920s forward. Elementary schools should teach:
Basic mathematics through pre-algebra
Elementary Greek (Attic, and perhaps Koine)
Elementary Latin (Ancient and Medieval)
English and one other foreign language, such as French or German
Athletics
Basic composition and critical thinking (identifying premises and conclusions, main ideas, telling the difference between an argument and an explanation, knowing the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, some knowledge of the scientific method, etc.)
No need to teach Science, Philosophy, Classics, or Literature. Bottom line at this level: give students the building blocks.
Middle and High School should teach (emphasized in this order):
1) The Classics (along with continued instruction in either Latin or Greek, with opportunity for students to study both)
2) Philosophy and Logic
3) Mathematics
4) Athletics
5) History
6) Science
7) Other literature (Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Rumi, The Grail Romances, etc.--less emphasis on American authors though some should be taught)
We should add back in what those subjects are really about. Currently, we don't allow much in the way of reference to religion, sex, politics, or drugs in the literature we teach. We don't teach Philosophy because many of the positions with which it is important to be familiar have clear theological, religious, and ethical implications. This sort of censorship was and has been very foolish--we've taken out of the curriculum three-fourths of what it means to be human and what education is about.
Bottom line at this level: show students how to build a mind and why it is important to do so. Show how each subject relates to the others. To graduate high school, students ought to demonstrate basic familiarity with the the main body of each subject and relate it to the others. A high school graduate ought to know, for instance, that both language and mathematics are related in that they are systems of symbols. They ought to be able to discuss intelligently the basic positions about how those systems relate to the world. They ought to be able to place ideas in the context of history. A high school graduate ought to be able to solve complex mathematical problems involving trigonometry and differential calculus. A high school graduate ought to be able to do simple formal proofs in logic. A high school graduate ought to have read and mastered some of the great works of literature.
Proficiency in either Latin or Greek ought to be required for admittance to College (both for elite universities), as well as basic thinking skills illustrated above, and proficiency in mathematics and some form of athletics (with obvious, common-sense exceptions in the case of people who are handicapped--though anyone fit for College ought to be able to learn some competitive game, like chess).
College curricula ought to require at least 9 hours of philosophy (3 hours of logic, 3 hours survey of contemporary philosophy, 3 hours elective) with a 4.0 required in that coursework. A College graduate ought to be fluent in at least three languages (English, Latin or Greek, and one other language, ancient or modern). A College graduate ought to have completed at least 3 hours each in trigonometry and calculus, with at least a 3.5 required in that coursework. A graduate ought to be conversant with the major discoveries of science, and be able to intelligently discuss their relationship to our body of knowledge as a whole. That would probably also take at least 9 hours of coursework, and a 3.5 in that coursework. A graduate ought to have translated at least one of the major Classical works in either Latin or Greek (i.e. one of Plato's dialogues, a few of the books of Herodotus' Historia, at least a few books of Virgil's Anaeid, etc.).
The only thing I'd change in Graduate and Post Graduate studies as they currently stand is that someone seeking an advanced degree in Humanities, Literature, Philosophy, or related fields should be required to complete at least an undergraduate minor in either physics or biology. Someone seeking an advanced degree in one of the Sciences should likewise be required to complete at least an undergraduate minor in a major area of the Humanities (philosophy, literature, religious studies, etc.).
Just another reason for me not to like you, you're a Saluki. Go LeathernecksWow, what a silly response. Let me repeat, I've belonged to any union. Ever. And I have a son and a daughter. My daughter is in her twenties, going to school in Southern Illinois. My son is just now 21. He's going to a communiy college and working full time. I attended their classes while they were in school, at all levels, to see what was going on.
Now, none of that matters at all to what I said, and you didn't give any serious or logic response to what I did say, so I'll repeat it to see if you can give a logical and coherent response:
Thanks for proving we don't need unions. Pass this info along to haymarket.
power has nothing to do with it. the union chose not to help him. as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about
Of course there are going to be schools with low dropout rates, never said there wasn't. Although it's off topic, I'm sure privates are much much lower than publics. Why do you think there is an increased need for special education teachers? ...take a guess.
All unions serve their members. Students are not memebers, just a auto unions are not for the car buyer. However, this doesn't make either anti students or car buyers.
Cars are not a necessity, nor is there an intrinsic monopoly as there is in education. If I don't want to buy an overpriced union-made car, I'll either buy one somewhere else or I'll just do without a car. Neither of those options are possible/acceptable in education.
You're right that teachers' unions have their own members' interests in mind, and not the students. It doesn't make them "anti-students," but it leads them to advocate policies that will benefit their members regardless of whom it hurts (like the students). Our schools would be better off if these archaic institutions died a quick death.
Sure they are. Home school. By all means, pay for private school.
Boo Radley said:And frankly, I see no evidence unions hurt students. We don't have to keep poor teachers. You can still get rid of them. All you have to do is document and make the case. I fail to see why so much energy is spent fighting the wrong fights when it comes to education.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?