Why is private school performance better than public school

[Mr. D]

Well, maybe to an extent. What I am talking about more is the things you don't need. For instance, at my school they make you take health and gym. I don't think this is right because I think you should be able to decide if you are going to be healthy or not. Another thing is math, why should you have to take math beyond the basics? Few people use things beyond basics. History, now that is something I think can be valued, as learning from history works us to solutions in the future.

Schools should try to get kids started in good health habits! I always thought more emphasis needs to be put on sports that can be carried on in the average adult's life and less on football! You are missing one of the main, if not the most important, purposes of a good education. To expose you to different possibilities, choices and ideas! Different classes should be seen as food! How do you know if you like it unless you "really" try it!

Many poor decisions, including ones that cause people's lives, are because of lack of education and understanding! The main thing a good, broad education gives you is CHOICES! The less you learn, the less you know about your choices!

I'm a retired school teacher and a self made millionaire because I was interested in why things were the way they were, curious! I didn't get along in school well at all, but I was curious! Keep learning!
:2wave:

 

[Axismaster]

Schools should try to get kids started in good health habits! I always thought more emphasis needs to be put on sports that can be carried on in the average adult's life and less on football! You are missing one of the main, if not the most important, purposes of a good education. To expose you to different possibilities, choices and ideas! Different classes should be seen as food! How do you know if you like it unless you "really" try it!

Many poor decisions, including ones that cause people's lives, are because of lack of education and understanding! The main thing a good, broad education gives you is CHOICES! The less you learn, the less you know about your choices!

I'm a retired school teacher and a self made millionaire because I was interested in why things were the way they were, curious! I didn't get along in school well at all, but I was curious! Keep learning!
:2wave:

It's great to be curious and have choices, but it isn't great to have your "human rights" (as the left thinks it is) to comprehensive health and physical education shoved down your throat. What if I don't want to take part in human rights and choices?

 

[Mr. D]

It's great to be curious and have choices, but it isn't great to have your "human rights" (as the left thinks it is) to comprehensive health and physical education shoved down your throat. What if I don't want to take part in human rights and choices?

There is no absolute freedom! If requiring kids to take a P.E. class or study how to understand their body and be healthy is taking away human rights you may be missing the real point of "human rights"! We all have our absolute freedom restricted for our own good and societies. It's a matter of degree!

Allowing children to grow up without discipline and parental control is true child abuse! Kids pay dearly for that kind of so called freedom when they become adults! There is a difference between being a liberal and wanting a total and immature vision of complete freedom!

 

[Mikkel]

There is a difference between being a liberal and wanting a total and immature vision of complete freedom!

That difference is exactly the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.

 

[Axismaster]

There is no absolute freedom! If requiring kids to take a P.E. class or study how to understand their body and be healthy is taking away human rights you may be missing the real point of "human rights"! We all have our absolute freedom restricted for our own good and societies. It's a matter of degree!

Were you a member of the Bolshevik party at any point?

 

[Axismaster]

And another thing. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Not, "Give me the common good or give me death!" It is the realization that liberty is more important than the "common good" or security and that liberty is the one thing that this country was founded on (sorry liberals, this nation was not founded to be a socialist paradise, if you want that, go to Europe). This is what seperates the libertarians (true Constitutionalists) from the liberals (idealistic dreamers) from the conservatives (complete idiots).

 

[Mikkel]

And another thing. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Not, "Give me the common good or give me death!" It is the realization that liberty is more important than the "common good" or security and that liberty is the one thing that this country was founded on (sorry liberals, this nation was not founded to be a socialist paradise, if you want that, go to Europe). This is what seperates the libertarians (true Constitutionalists) from the liberals (idealistic dreamers) from the conservatives (complete idiots).

Regardless of YOUR interpretation of what the country was founded on, I think most people would agree that the libertarian extreme, where all personal liberties go unchecked, would fall under the 'idealistic dreamers' section as well. Most people, as well as most interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers, would probably fall under the John Locke social contract spectrum, whereby we give up some of our liberties to our government, in order to secure other things, such as property and the right to privacy.

I'm not trying to say that socialism is without its flaws. Just that libertarianism isn't as ideal as you attempt to suggest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. On a side note, in an effort to build bridges, I completely agree with your assessment of conservativisim.

 

[Axismaster]

Regardless of YOUR interpretation of what the country was founded on, I think most people would agree that the libertarian extreme, where all personal liberties go unchecked, would fall under the 'idealistic dreamers' section as well. Most people, as well as most interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers, would probably fall under the John Locke social contract spectrum, whereby we give up some of our liberties to our government, in order to secure other things, such as property and the right to privacy.

I'm not trying to say that socialism is without its flaws. Just that libertarianism isn't as ideal as you attempt to suggest. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. On a side note, in an effort to build bridges, I completely agree with your assessment of conservativisim.

Civil liberties going unchecked is anarchy. I just think we should put civil liberties first.

 

[Kelzie]

And another thing. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Not, "Give me the common good or give me death!" It is the realization that liberty is more important than the "common good" or security and that liberty is the one thing that this country was founded on (sorry liberals, this nation was not founded to be a socialist paradise, if you want that, go to Europe). This is what seperates the libertarians (true Constitutionalists) from the liberals (idealistic dreamers) from the conservatives (complete idiots).

In regards to freedom and children's choice not to be "fit" and take PE: children don't have normal rights. They are not full citizens, they cannot vote. They have to go to school until they are 16. That's the way it goes. You can't deny rights to a group that didn't have them in the first place.

 

[Mr. D]

Were you a member of the Bolshevik party at any point?

It seems like I would have remembered that!

By the way, talking like a hippie is so 60's! I know! I was there! No one loves individualism more than I, but responsiblity and curbing your need for freedom to increase your neighbor's freedom is important too! Individualism can be extended to the point where a person is just a self centered anus!

Like the man said to the individualist, "How would you describe yourself in three words?" "Me, me and me!"

 

[Mikkel]

Civil liberties going unchecked is anarchy. I just think we should put civil liberties first.

And on social issues, many liberals would agree with you there. If you concede that there needs to be some check for civil liberties, then hopefully you can understand that the main difference of opinion here is a matter of what degree liberties should be checked, not what the final societal outcome should be.

 

[SHodges]

Why is private school performance better than public school performance? The teachers usually get paid less due to lack of government funding. However, istep and SAT show a dramatic differences in favor of the private school.

Competition. Thread over.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Competition. Thread over.

How about less chance of being shot, mugged, rolled or beaten. OK and competition

 

[vergiss]

How about less chance of being shot, mugged, rolled or beaten.

:neutral:

What kind of ghetto school did you go to?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

:neutral:

What kind of ghetto school did you go to?

Umm... I didn't go to a getto school. But when I did go to school there wasn't the threat of shootings or weapons or guns. No not in all schools but in many. You still had the normal fights. But now adays kids and violence seem to escalate a lot faster to a lot higher degree, least in my opinion

 

[Engimo]

Umm... I didn't go to a getto school. But when I did go to school there wasn't the threat of shootings or weapons or guns. No not in all schools but in many. You still had the normal fights. But now adays kids and violence seem to escalate a lot faster to a lot higher degree, least in my opinion

Yeah, that's untrue. If you look at the statistics, the crime rate has been the lowest that it's been since the 1970's, and it continues to go down. The idea of "violent teenagers" is largely the product of isolated incidents and media fearmongering.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Yeah, that's untrue. If you look at the statistics, the crime rate has been the lowest that it's been since the 1970's, and it continues to go down. The idea of "violent teenagers" is largely the product of isolated incidents and media fearmongering.

In 2002, more than 877,700 young people ages 10 to 24 were injured from violent acts. Approximately 1 in 13 required hospitalization (CDC 2004).

Homicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24 overall. In this age group, it is the leading cause of death for African-Americans, the second leading cause of death for Hispanics, and the third leading cause of death for American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Asian Pacific Islanders (Anderson and Smith 2003).

In 2001, 5,486 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day (CDC 2004).

In 2001, 79% of homicide victims ages 10 to 24 were killed with firearms (CDC 2004).

Between 1994 and 1999, 172 students ages 5 to 18 were killed on or near school grounds or at school-related activities (Anderson et al. 2001).

More than 50% of all school-associated violent deaths occur at the beginning or end of the school day or during lunch (Anderson et al. 2001).

In a nationwide survey, 17% of students reported carrying a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) on one or more days in the 30 days preceding the survey (Grunbaum et al. 2004).

Among students nationwide, 33% reported being in a physical fight one or more times in the 12 months preceding the survey (Grunbaum et al. 2004).

Data from a study of 8th and 9th grade students showed 25% had been victims of nonsexual dating violence and 8% had been victims of sexual dating violence (Foshee et al. 1996).

Nationwide, 9% of students reported being hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend in the 12 months prior to being surveyed (Grunbaum et al. 2004).

Seems like its alive and well to me....

By the way I think 93 had the highest youth murder rate...... so if its been going down since the 70's there must have been a whole lot of kids with automatic weapons

 

[Engimo]

Seems like its alive and well to me....

Maybe it still is, but like I said it is at its lowest rate in nearly 40 years.

By the way I think 93 had the highest youth murder rate...... so if its been going down since the 70's there must have been a whole lot of kids with automatic weapons

Did I say that? I said that it's the lowest that it's been since the 1970's, not that it has been steadily decreasing since then. It peaked in the 1990's yes, but it's been going down since then.

 

[Mikkel]

In 2002, more than 877,700 young people ages 10 to 24 were injured from violent acts. Approximately 1 in 13 required hospitalization (CDC 2004).

Homicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24 overall. In this age group, it is the leading cause of death for African-Americans, the second leading cause of death for Hispanics, and the third leading cause of death for American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Asian Pacific Islanders (Anderson and Smith 2003).

In 2001, 5,486 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day (CDC 2004).

In 2001, 79% of homicide victims ages 10 to 24 were killed with firearms (CDC 2004).

These are interesting statistics, but irrelevent to your point. Being a victim of violence is far different from being an advocate or perpetrator of violence. If you want to really support the argument that violence among students has gone up, please show some evidence of children commiting violent crimes, rather than being victimized by them.

 

[Mr. D]

Is it possible we live in a violent society? Ya think! You travel to most cities in the world including mainland China and you feel so much safer walking in their cities! It's not because we are easy on crime. It's because we only care about punishment, not changing people! How could any so called Christian allow our prison system of homosexual rape and having to join race gangs to survive! Thank you puritanical, fundamentalist religions! Again you have all the answers! Just find Jesus, while we look the other way!

 

[Calm2Chaos]

These are interesting statistics, but irrelevent to your point. Being a victim of violence is far different from being an advocate or perpetrator of violence. If you want to really support the argument that violence among students has gone up, please show some evidence of children commiting violent crimes, rather than being victimized by them.

In 1999, law enforcement officers arrested almost 2.5 million individuals under 18.
More than 103,000 of those arrests were for violent crimes.
One-third of those violent crimes were committed by individuals under 15.
Juveniles were involved in 16 percent of all violent crime arrests and 32 percent of all property crime arrests in 1999.

.

 

[Mr. D]

In 1999, law enforcement officers arrested almost 2.5 million individuals under 18.
More than 103,000 of those arrests were for violent crimes.
One-third of those violent crimes were committed by individuals under 15.
Juveniles were involved in 16 percent of all violent crime arrests and 32 percent of all property crime arrests in 1999.

.

Haven't you been paying attention! It's the fault of public schools! All these kids were little angels until the public schools turned them into criminal animals!

(Whoops! For those anti public school folks, I'm joking, I joking and being a smart @ss! I forgot you lay our childrens problems on the schools instead of our culture and their own families! So you might take me seriously!)
:shock:

 

[goligoth]

How about less chance of being shot, mugged, rolled or beaten. OK and competition

There was a shoooting at my scool and it didnt afect miy edumacasion at alll, I am a perfet ecample ov the publik scool sistme...


(this post was sarcasm, through and through)

 

[JOHNYJ]

As the strength of teachers unions has increased. The quality of Education especialy in Urban areas has gone down.
Unionized teachers want high pay, small classes and no responsibility.
If paents ever got realy involved in their childrens education in public schools the teachers woud be catching Hell for sure.

 

[Mikkel]

As the strength of teachers unions has increased. The quality of Education especialy in Urban areas has gone down.
Unionized teachers want high pay, small classes and no responsibility.
If paents ever got realy involved in their childrens education in public schools the teachers woud be catching Hell for sure.

Yeah, small classes would be a real crime :roll:
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If parents were more involved in their children's education teachers would have it so much easier! My aunt works in the Cleveland school system, and was recently given a class of half 4th graders and half 5th graders. If you had to deal with the kind of crap she does on a daily basis, you'd be wanting higher pay too. If parents paid attention to their childrens' education, she wouldn't have to put up with all of the backtalk she gets from her students who tell her to f*** off.