# Should we hold public school to private school standard



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Now public education has gotten bad and people are acknowledging that. Instead of dealing with the fact kids are not learning teachers are now saying "Go online and learn, that will help you catch up". Which honestly if the system was not so broken, and you tuaght better you would not have enough kids so behind that they needed outside assistance online. Another issues to be that alot of parents you think would help kids but they dont really remember a lot of what they learned into HS, which why would they? That was years ago. 

A lot of the kids in private/Charter/Home schooling programs are far ahead of the HS and have a different learning stragety. Why not instead of putting more money into a broken system we know is failing, we instead look at private education and see what they do right? I mean the only reason we have a public school system is that a long time ago they said it was unfair to only let the rich go to school. However if we have public schools that are at low standards and high standards what are you doing? You are saying you dont deserve an education for not being from rich parents. Private schools are still going to get business regardless, but we should at least have the basic standard for public schools and our standard is so low.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

I think both systems are highly broken, and it is way more complex than "learning methods". Most of it has to do with college and the expectations employers have of who they want to hire. 

We force students to take APs. 
We force students to go to clubs. 
We force students to volunteer. 
We force students to do sports.
We force students to care more about a grade than actual learning. 
We force students to take subjects they're not interesting in that don't benefit them (do you really need abstract maths when you don't plan on going into a related field?).

And why is it forced? Because these are the expectations you have to fill to get into college then college is an expectation for a job now.

Ugh, I can go on and on. It has nothing to do with public vs private besides maybe private schools have a little more freedom in how they teach, but coming from someone who's been in private school, it's all about how much money you have. If you give the school money, they'll change grades, give you more time/recognition in sports/clubs, they'll give you more awards, etc. So, yes you learn a little more, but it isn't that less shitty.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> I think both systems are highly broken, and it is way more complex than "learning methods". Most of it has to do with college and the expectations employers have of who they want to hire.
> 
> We force students to take APs.
> We force students to go to clubs.
> ...


"How they teach" would fall under "Learning/teaching methods" so you contridicted yourself. Also we dont force kids to do any of that. You might hate AP classes, hate clubs, hate volenteering, and despise sports but not everyone else does. Saying we should take them away since you personally hate them is a little ridiculous. What we should do is teach more effectivley with methods better proven to work, and design the classes to fit the students not force the students to fit the class. If a student decides "I want to be a chemist" let them take chemistry based classes. You might not realize this but generally the clubs are students who found a teacher to sponser them and worked to get members. Its optional.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

/


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

EddyNash said:


> "How they teach" would fall under "Learning/teaching methods" so you contridicted yourself. Also we dont force kids to do any of that. You might hate AP classes, hate clubs, hate volenteering, and despise sports but not everyone else does. Saying we should take them away since you personally hate them is a little ridiculous. What we should do is teach more effectively with methods better proven to work, and design the classes to fit the students not force the students to fit the class. If a student decides "I want to be a chemist" let them take chemistry based classes. You might not realize this but generally the clubs are students who found a teacher to sponsor them and worked to get members. Its optional.


I didn't say I hate extracurriculars (I have done 3 sports, 2 clubs, and over 200 hours of volunteer service) nor did I say we should take them away. I stated we force children into taking these because, yes, in fact to get into a good college you have to, on top of having good grades, have volunteer work, clubs and sports. I have heard it countless times again from seminars that my school has advised us to go to and from guidance counselors. Colleges want to see these things, and AP classes (which I've taken 3 and will take 2 more this coming year) are more than just encouraged (at least in my school it is literally forced upon students where parents have to fight with guidance counselors if the teacher put them in an AP class next year that the student doesn't want), but nevertheless it's always advised to take them and it looks better/boosts your chances of acceptance. 

My point is that we force kids into learning how to work a system as opposed to just learning, along with that we waste our time mandating kids take typically in high school 3-4 math classes through their 4 years when in reality, past algebra, it's abstract math you're not going to use unless you're going into a relative field. I learned more in personal finance, business law, and economics classes that are going to help me with real world problems than I ever did in a math class. Most students don't choose those classes (not to say I'm a special snowflake, but "business law" didn't sound so appealing to the people I told that I was taking it nor was there a lot of kids in that class), yet those are the classes we should be making mandatory. Also considering that STILL in college there is repetitive core classes you have to take before you really get into your major is what's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you improve "learning methods" or "how they teach" whatever, kids are still going to be working the system and going for that grade and what makes them look good to colleges and employers rather than their passions and really diving into what they want to learn instead of forcing some poor kid to sit through a history class his third year in high school that just goes more in depth in WW2 instead of teaching him something new when he wants to go into computer science, or forcing a future English major to sit through a calculus class.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

EddyNash said:


> Now public education has gotten bad and people are acknowledging that. Instead of dealing with the fact kids are not learning teachers are now saying "Go online and learn, that will help you catch up". Which honestly if the system was not so broken, and you tuaght better you would not have enough kids so behind that they needed outside assistance online. Another issues to be that alot of parents you think would help kids but they dont really remember a lot of what they learned into HS, which why would they? That was years ago.
> 
> A lot of the kids in private/Charter/Home schooling programs are far ahead of the HS and have a different learning stragety. Why not instead of putting more money into a broken system we know is failing, we instead look at private education and see what they do right? I mean the only reason we have a public school system is that a long time ago they said it was unfair to only let the rich go to school. However if we have public schools that are at low standards and high standards what are you doing? You are saying you dont deserve an education for not being from rich parents. Private schools are still going to get business regardless, but we should at least have the basic standard for public schools and our standard is so low.


out of the people i know that went to both public and private school (catholic school) they said the public school was better. one actually started out in catholic school then had a hard time catching up when he transferred to public school.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> I didn't say I hate extracurriculars (I have done 3 sports, 2 clubs, and over 200 hours of volunteer service) nor did I say we should take them away. I stated we force children into taking these because, yes, in fact to get into a good college you have to, on top of having good grades, have volunteer work, clubs and sports. I have heard it countless times again from seminars that my school has advised us to go to and from guidance counselors. Colleges want to see these things, and AP classes (which I've taken 3 and will take 2 more this coming year) are more than just encouraged (at least in my school it is literally forced upon students where parents have to fight with guidance counselors if the teacher put them in an AP class next year that the student doesn't want), but nevertheless it's always advised to take them and it looks better/boosts your chances of acceptance.
> 
> My point is that we force kids into learning how to work a system as opposed to just learning, along with that we waste our time mandating kids take typically in high school 3-4 math classes through their 4 years when in reality, past algebra, it's abstract math you're not going to use unless you're going into a relative field. I learned more in personal finance, business law, and economics classes that are going to help me with real world problems than I ever did in a math class. Most students don't choose those classes (not to say I'm a special snowflake, but "business law" didn't sound so appealing to the people I told that I was taking it nor was there a lot of kids in that class), yet those are the classes we should be making mandatory. Also considering that STILL in college there is core repetitive core classes you have to take before you really get into your major is what's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you improve "learning methods" or "how they teach" whatever, kids are still going to be working the system and going for that grade and what makes them look good to colleges and employers than that their passions and really diving into what they want to learn instead of forcing some poor kid to sit through a history class his third year in high school that just goes more in depth in WW2 instead of teaching him something new when he wants to go into computer science, or forcing a future English major to sit through a calculus class.


Well to get into community classes you need the correct classes taken by the end of graduation and a grade piont average of 2.0. If you want to get in yale for example, yes you might need these classes. Its not forced though, so that argument is not valid. Secondly just becuase you dislike these "Options" does not mean everyone is like you. Some students like these options even if you totally hate it.

Now as for the "Mandotory college classes" yes that is a valid complaint and a lot of people have argued we should take away mandotory classes. Also yes I agree mandotory disorginized classes we force everyone to learn is not really effective at the HS level either. I also said that I think kids should be able to pick the classes they want to speacalize in.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

EddyNash said:


> Well to get into community classes you need the correct classes taken by the end of graduation and a grade piont average of 2.0. If you want to get in yale for example, yes you might need these classes. Its not forced though, so that argument is not valid. Secondly just becuase you dislike these "Options" does not mean everyone is like you. Some students like these options even if you totally hate it.
> 
> Now as for the "Mandotory college classes" yes that is a valid complaint and a lot of people have argued we should take away mandotory classes. Also yes I agree mandotory disorginized classes we force everyone to learn is not really effective at the HS level either. I also said that I think kids should be able to pick the classes they want to speacalize in.


I don't know if you ever like, applied to a college before, but ivy league schools aren't the only ones that require you to have those pretty much to get accepted. Many schools above the community level (which really community college is a joke in my opinion no one is going to take that degree seriously, and to get a 2.0 in high school you pretty much have to be seriously lazy) look for those things. Your basic 60%-80% acceptance rate school is going to look for that, and below that acceptance rate you have to have way more than some sports/clubs and a good GPA. You gotta be like top in your class GPA wise and have all AP classes and like kickstart your own like save the homeless program in your community to get into ivy. 

Nonetheless, my point is the issues in the education system spand way beyond learning methods and I would say should be more targeted towards revealing systematic pressure off students (I can't tell you how many people I know who have contemplated suicide over GPA or college stress because they believe if they fuck up their chances to get into a good college and or bomb their GPA they'll never achieve any success or happiness in life which isn't all that much of a lie considering even people who do decent in HS and college don't get a job in their field and end up in some awful retail job or office job and or are still living with their parents).

We should make teaching more of a high class job, make it more of a competitive, high paying job, and section off high schools related to intended majors (STEAM vs humanities) and lower the costs of college as well as the unspoken expectations for acceptance (which I have to say again, I don't hate having sports/clubs/volunteering/AP, etc, I have done all, I just don't like it as an expectation). 

And, yes, I know this would never happen. But my point is "teaching methods" ain't going to solve shit.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

/


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

starrykitty said:


> out of the people i know that went to both public and private school (catholic school) they said the public school was better. one actually started out in catholic school then had a hard time catching up when he transferred to public school.



Coming from someone who spent years and years in private school, it's utter shit. Money gets you everything. And, yes, (at least from my experience), they teach you very single perspective wise where public school covers more perspectives so it seems like you're ahead, but you just skipped a shit ton of material and were told what they wanted you to know (which usually since private school are typically catholic, they teach you a conservative opinion or don't talk about certain parts of science or history).

I prefer my public school now as well.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> I don't know if you ever like, applied to a college before, but ivy league schools aren't the only ones that require you to have those pretty much to get accepted. Many schools above the community level (which really community college is a joke in my opinion no one is going to take that degree seriously, and to get a 2.0 in high school you pretty much have to be seriously lazy) look for those things. Your basic 60%-80% acceptance rate school is going to look for that, and below that acceptance rate you have to have way more than some sports/clubs and a good GPA. You gotta be like top in your class GPA wise and have all AP classes and like kickstart your own like save the homeless program in your community to get into ivy.
> 
> Nonetheless, my point is the issues in the education system spand way beyond learning methods and I would say should be more targeted towards revealing systematic pressure off students (I can't tell you how many people I know who have contemplated suicide over GPA or college stress because they believe if they fuck up their chances to get into a good college and or bomb their GPA they'll never achieve any success or happiness in life which isn't all that much of a lie considering even people who do decent in HS and college don't get a job in their field and end up in some awful retail job or office job and or are still living with their parents).
> 
> ...


I agree with that yes.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Finny said:


> I think both systems are highly broken, and it is way more complex than "learning methods". Most of it has to do with college and the expectations employers have of who they want to hire.
> 
> We force students to take APs.
> We force students to go to clubs.
> ...


I got tuition free into the best school instate by only taking the APs I cared about and joining no clubs, never selling my ideals for a grade, and never taking subjects I didn't want.

I kept me from getting into the universities honors college and kept my class rank relatively low (still top 7 percent) however I still did just fine. Not only did just being myself get me into a highly selective college but it got me in tuition free. So your analogy isn't that accurate. 

You have to do all above to get in an Ivy leuage or to get into a prestigious honors college. But test scores and a good enough gpa and a few APs (to be fair you arnt 4 year college material if not a single ap interest you) and you can get into most any public school in the country and shittier of all that's listed above can still get you an acreditted degree.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

BIGJake111 said:


> I got tuition free into the best school instate by only taking the APs I cared about and joining no clubs, never selling my ideals for a grade, and never taking subjects I didn't want.
> 
> I kept me from getting into the universities honors college and kept my class rank relatively low (still top 7 percent) however I still did just fine. Not only did just being myself get me into a highly selective college but it got me in tuition free. So your analogy isn't that accurate.
> 
> You have to do all above to get in an Ivy leuage or to get into a prestigious honors college. But test scores and a good enough gpa and a few APs (to be fair you arnt 4 year college material if not a single ap interest you) and you can get into most any public school in the country and shittier of all that's listed above can still get you an acreditted degree.


So if you had no AP and you do really well in your first two years at a community college is it reasonable to believe you can get into a four year after transfering? Since I thought that was how a lot of people did it.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

EddyNash said:


> So if you had no AP and you do really well in your first two years at a community college is it reasonable to believe you can get into a four year after transfering? Since I thought that was how a lot of people did it.


Absolutely, any idiot who half way pays attention in community can transfer anywhere in state. It's super easy to transfer anywhere.

Getting in as a freshmen is what's hard.... Once you go to community college anything in highschool doesn't matter anymore AP ACT scores and etc mean nothing you just need to pass a few community college basics and you can transfer.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

BIGJake111 said:


> I got tuition free into the best school instate by only taking the APs I cared about and joining no clubs, never selling my ideals for a grade, and never taking subjects I didn't want.
> 
> I kept me from getting into the universities honors college and kept my class rank relatively low (still top 7 percent) however I still did just fine. Not only did just being myself get me into a highly selective college but it got me in tuition free. So your analogy isn't that accurate.
> 
> You have to do all above to get in an Ivy leuage or to get into a prestigious honors college. But test scores and a good enough gpa and a few APs (to be fair you arnt 4 year college material if not a single ap interest you) and you can get into most any public school in the country and shittier of all that's listed above can still get you an acreditted degree.


I have taken 3 APs and will be taking 2 more next year. I have done 3 sports, 2 clubs, and over 200 hours of volunteer work. What I'm saying is there is without a doubt an expectation placed on students that shouldn't be there along with you can read the rest of my posts on this thread to understanding more of what I was getting at.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I don't hate or not want these programs, I'm just saying there shouldn't be an expectation when there is, and your experience isn't proof that there isn't these expectations because it's subjective. This is actually what I have been told by guidance counselors, during seminars from admissions counselors from various average colleges that my school brought in to speak with students/parents, and from visiting colleges.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

BIGJake111 said:


> Absolutely, any idiot who half way pays attention in community can transfer anywhere in state. It's super easy to transfer anywhere.
> 
> Getting in as a freshmen is what's hard.... Once you go to community college anything in highschool doesn't matter anymore AP ACT scores and etc mean nothing you just need to pass a few community college basics and you can transfer.


Which is totally bullshit and a flaw in the education system for the high school students who work their asses off to get in.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> Which is totally bullshit and a flaw in the education system for the high school students who work their asses off to get in.


Hey, I am sorry to break this to you but unlike you some of us didnt get a fair highschool expirence. A lot of what you can do in HS is based on if your parents are invovled, if your school helps you, if your teachers pay attention to thier students. I know you think you are superior for being privlaged enough to have a nice expirence but a lot of people might not have. That basically gives all those other people a chance instead of letting them hit a dead end after HS.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

My educational background has been that I've attended a private prep school, private Catholic school, and a public school. They each had their merits and drawbacks. The prep school had enormous resources (but cost an enormous amount) and was extremely insular - essentially all upper-middle-class to middle-upper-class white kids with white-collar or socialite parents. The public school was much more diverse, but still fairly segregated, and it had some excellent initiatives and did have good variety of offerings but it was on a fairly small public budget. My personal opinion is that the balance was the best at the Catholic school, which wasn't quite as insular as the prep school in terms of demographics - it was still fairly majority white upper-middle-class, but what diversity we had was more integrated and accepted - and we had smaller classes, more personal attention, and reasonable funding for resources. (Now, as an adult, I've also worked in a fairly-well-funded public school, which was most similar to my Catholic school experience.)

Like Finny, I agree that both systems are struggling, and my opinion is similar to his in that I believe that this failure is due to too great of a focus on forward pushing, empirical data, and "results", and not enough allowing for personal development, true academic interest, and giving teachers and school staff enough resources to do well at their jobs. Two members of my close family are teachers, and I have studied and spent time in schools in Northern Europe where the educational system is a bit different (and extremely highly rated), and we all have come to the separate conclusions that the US is far too concentrated on pushing kids through academics too quickly for a benefit that is unclear. 

As a writing tutor in college, I worked with many freshmen who couldn't actually write a standard argumentative essay; my fiance is forced by the state to pass children who are not academically ready to move to the next grade level. One year I proctored a standardized test where the sweetest student with Down Syndrome cried for literally two hours because the text questions were too hard for her to understand and she realized that, but the state policy is for all students to be judged on the same exams, whether they are realistically suitable for the students taking them or not. Such an incredible waste of time, energy, and these students' motivation. Recess is no longer allowed even as 7-year-olds are being increasingly diagnosed with "ADHD". I do believe a handful of those kids may have clinical-level attention deficits - but not most of them. Most of them are developmentally-normal 7-year-old boys who aren't biologically programmed to be able to sit still and adhere to multiple subjects, one subject at a time, for the equivalent length of an adult workday. 

Personally I think we would do well to model after Scandinavian and Nordic schools.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Finny said:


> Which is totally bullshit and a flaw in the education system for the high school students who work their asses off to get in.


Gotta agree with @EddyNash on this one. If you can prove at a tech school that you're worth your weight in classes that are usually the same books and grading scale as a 4 year college once on your own and independent of high school and "the system" then more power to you.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Private schools should be abolished, they're a scam anyway, as empirical evidence here in Australia demonstrates. The top 10 schools in the most populous state are all 100% public and government run. I attended one such school and today at university I leave all those upper class toffs who went to fucking Sydney Grammar, Kings College and Cranbrook eating my dust. I'm much better than them, but because they went to these elite private schools they made all sorts of connections and through the culture of corruption, nepotism, and cronyism that dominates the world they will end up in positions of influence over the genuinely brilliant and talented like myself and the rest of my cohort. What kind of insane system puts the incapable in charge of the capable! This is why private schools need to be abolished, they naturally lend themselves to corruption and furthermore actually provide a poorer quality of education when compared with the elite public schools.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

R.E. Amemiya said:


> Private schools should be abolished, they're a scam anyway, as empirical evidence here in Australia demonstrates. The top 10 schools in the most populous state are all 100% public and government run. I attended one such school and today at university I leave all those upper class toffs who went to fucking Sydney Grammar, Kings College and Cranbrook eating my dust. I'm much better than them, but because they went to these elite private schools they made all sorts of connections and through the culture of corruption, nepotism, and cronyism that dominates the world they will end up in positions of influence over the genuinely brilliant and talented like myself and the rest of my cohort. What kind of insane system puts the incapable in charge of the capable! This is why private schools need to be abolished, they naturally lend themselves to corruption and furthermore actually provide a poorer quality of education when compared with the elite public schools.


When the standard in public school is "Most of our graduates cant read" I dont think that shows we are better.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

EddyNash said:


> When the standard in public school is "Most of our graduates cant read" I dont think that shows we are better.


American public schools are worse than ours. I qualified in my post that I am not an American. This is a nonsensical objection.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

EddyNash said:


> Hey, I am sorry to break this to you but unlike you some of us didnt get a fair highschool expirence. A lot of what you can do in HS is based on if your parents are invovled, if your school helps you, if your teachers pay attention to thier students. I know you think you are superior for being privlaged enough to have a nice expirence but a lot of people might not have. That basically gives all those other people a chance instead of letting them hit a dead end after HS.


My parent's didn't help me (lol where did you get that idea), my school didn't help me (if anything my school is made it harder), and teachers will "pay attention" to you if you raise your hand or see them after class for help it's not like they're going to turn you down. Please don't assume I have some type of privilege considering you don't know my high school experience?

And yes, they should get a chance, but it shouldn't be any easier or harder for a high school student or transfer is what I'm saying. They should have to work the same amount for it.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

R.E. Amemiya said:


> Private schools should be abolished, they're a scam anyway, as empirical evidence here in Australia demonstrates. The top 10 schools in the most populous state are all 100% public and government run. I attended one such school and today at university I leave all those upper class toffs who went to fucking Sydney Grammar, Kings College and Cranbrook eating my dust. I'm much better than them, but because they went to these elite private schools they made all sorts of connections and through the culture of corruption, nepotism, and cronyism that dominates the world they will end up in positions of influence over the genuinely brilliant and talented like myself and the rest of my cohort. What kind of insane system puts the incapable in charge of the capable! This is why private schools need to be abolished, they naturally lend themselves to corruption and furthermore actually provide a poorer quality of education when compared with the elite public schools.


Whoa now. That's really really really dangerous thinking. Scam or not your threatening to force people's children into a system they may not want to be a part of. I wouldn't send my kids to a catholic school but parents should be allowed to send their kids to one if they want to on their own money and they should be opted out of school tax when and as they do attend a school outside of the public system.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

EddyNash said:


> When the standard in public school is "Most of our graduates cant read" I dont think that shows we are better.


I come from South Carolina of all places and more accurate would be "most our graduates can't think critically" everyone can read and do advanced algebra and tell you that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell lol. However I don't imagine that there is a single school in America where most grads can't read except for Florida.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/bugs-bunny-cutting-off-florida/


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm in favor of school credits allowing parents to pick the school their child attends. If a school does not provide an environment for adequate learning they should close. Also doing so would force parents to be more involved in their child's future. both effects help to solve the poverty and crime issues plaguing low income areas. Make schools compete for students.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

BIGJake111 said:


> I come from South Carolina of all places and more accurate would be "most our graduates can't think critically" everyone can read and do advanced algebra and tell you that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell lol. However I don't imagine that there is a single school in America where most grads can't read except for Florida.
> 
> Bugs Bunny Cutting Off Florida | Reaction GIFs


Try Tennessee


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Definitely here in America public schools have become very much underfunded and neglected, many in the poor inner city ghettoes but also in backwards rural areas. Due to the fact that here in America at least school receive most of their funding from property taxes this creates this a geographical class divide between areas with million dollar mansions and cheap flats. The ghettoes and the countryside, with only impoverished apartment blocks and scattered farms provided very little in terms of property taxes whereas the rich suburbs with their many acre homes provide thousands of dollars in revenue. If our public school system is ever going to be fixed I think that this system of property taxes paying for schools needs to be abolished and a system based more on income tax should be implemented with entire states diverting funds to pay to schools. This way you will not have the absurd condition of impoverished school district right next to rich ones created.

Also the idea that private schools are necessarily better than public ones is not always true, I live in an upper class neighborhood where our public school has a much higher quality of education than many of the nearby private schools. While those private schools may have smaller class sizes they do not have the massive resources that our public school system does, so our public school actually outperforms it.

Unfortunately I know for a fact that most public schools are no where near as good as the one in my town, due to the fact that my town is an upper class area with a major university as well, leading to massive educational resources and funding. If this massive concentration of wealth could be redistributed to the poorer inner city areas then while our school might not be able to get its umpteenth shipment of new Macbooks some kids in Camden might be able to get some more paper and pencils.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

ArmchairCommie said:


> Definitely here in America public schools have become very much underfunded and neglected, many in the poor inner city ghettoes but also in backwards rural areas. Due to the fact that here in America at least school receive most of their funding from property taxes this creates this a geographical class divide between areas with million dollar mansions and cheap flats. The ghettoes and the countryside, with only impoverished apartment blocks and scattered farms provided very little in terms of property taxes whereas the rich suburbs with their many acre homes provide thousands of dollars in revenue. If our public school system is ever going to be fixed I think that this system of property taxes paying for schools needs to be abolished and a system based more on income tax should be implemented with entire states diverting funds to pay to schools. This way you will not have the absurd condition of impoverished school district right next to rich ones created.
> 
> Also the idea that private schools are necessarily better than public ones is not always true, I live in an upper class neighborhood where our public school has a much higher quality of education than many of the nearby private schools. While those private schools may have smaller class sizes they do not have the massive resources that our public school system does, so our public school actually outperforms it.
> 
> Unfortunately I know for a fact that most public schools are no where near as good as the one in my town, due to the fact that my town is an upper class area with a major university as well, leading to massive educational resources and funding. If this massive concentration of wealth could be redistributed to the poorer inner city areas then while our school might not be able to get its umpteenth shipment of new Macbooks some kids in Camden might be able to get some more paper and pencils.


Paper and pencils seem to be the least of the worries and often I notice teachers themselves will pay for supplys in the class room or ask students to bring donnations. That generally how we did it and teachers are often very reluctant to complain to higher ups for something like "A New sharpener" in the classroom since they say it takes forever for anything to get done. I think we have to give the teachers some respect in that reguard. A lot of times they will operate on thier own and a lot of the stuff in the classroom comes straight from the teachers pocket. 

Though yes the fact that poorer cities have worse schools in general seems to be a trend. It also seems older/poorer schools will be using outdated methods vs new ones. Like instead of modern methods of teaching they just give everyone book work. I think we need to do a revamp of all the public school systems and see which ones are up to date first. Then build a model and orginize funds based on that. There are some great public school but its very rare to find a good one.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

The problem with education in the States is that quality abounds where there are resources - where there is wealth. Public schools in nicer neighborhoods are better schools. Private schools in nicer neighborhoods are better schools. Their teachers have more resources, lower class loads, and more planning time. Their administrators have less environmental stressors to deal with. Their parents can provide more and be more present and tend to place more emphasis on the importance of their kids' education. Their students tend to have been brought up in homes with abundant learning materials as well as enough resources to adequately address health concerns, physical, cognitive, behavioral, or emotional. Students come in better off. The school is better off. The quality of learning is therefore better off. 

The only real way to fix that is redistribution of wealth, and a huge population of Americans get their panties in a bundle whenever "their rights are threatened" - even when that includes their "right" to crappy education if they're not able to secure a school in an affluent area.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> I'm in favor of school credits allowing parents to pick the school their child attends. If a school does not provide an environment for adequate learning they should close. Also doing so would force parents to be more involved in their child's future. both effects help to solve the poverty and crime issues plaguing low income areas. Make schools compete for students.


I agree with the idea of being able to pick different schools. I also believe schools that are not performing up to code should be shut down. Though I dont believe in really depending on parents since a lot of parents are selfish. I think children should be able to choose. For example if you have football parents and you like science your parents will send you to a football school even though you hate and are terrible at football.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> I'm in favor of school credits allowing parents to pick the school their child attends. If a school does not provide an environment for adequate learning they should close. Also doing so would force parents to be more involved in their child's future. both effects help to solve the poverty and crime issues plaguing low income areas. Make schools compete for students.


I agree with the idea of being able to pick different schools. I also believe schools that are not performing up to code should be shut down. Though I dont believe in really depending on parents since a lot of parents are selfish. I think children should be able to choose. For example if you have football parents and you like science your parents will send you to a football school even though you hate and are terrible at football.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> My parent's didn't help me (lol where did you get that idea), my school didn't help me (if anything my school is made it harder), and teachers will "pay attention" to you if you raise your hand or see them after class for help it's not like they're going to turn you down. Please don't assume I have some type of privilege considering you don't know my high school experience?
> 
> And yes, they should get a chance, but it shouldn't be any easier or harder for a high school student or transfer is what I'm saying. They should have to work the same amount for it.


I went to schools where there was fights in the class rooms and the teachers ignored it, where to get into AP or move up classes parents had to sign off, To go down a class your parents had to sign off, To get into AP classes you had to pay for testing, and to make up classes any other way you had to have a teacher sign off or a parent sign off(Like to go to continuation). To get a job you also had to have a B average and get a permit from the school or you were not allowed to get a part time job. If you were 18 you did not need a permit to work.

So yes, its kind of hard to get anything done when you have to get your parents and teachers involved and no one care besides you about your future. 

I also moved schools several times as a child. So I went to more then one school. If for example the school wanted to do something with your child that a parent disagreed with they could simply threaten to get the courts to take your child away for child abuse. Which schools seem to like using against parents.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

EddyNash said:


> I agree with the idea of being able to pick different schools. I also believe schools that are not performing up to code should be shut down. Though I dont believe in really depending on parents since a lot of parents are selfish. I think children should be able to choose. For example if you have football parents and you like science your parents will send you to a football school even though you hate and are terrible at football.


At what age does a child a child get to make this choice? Obviously a kindergarten a kid would not be capable of making this decision. I do think the child should have some say in the matter, but even as fat as high school, most kids would be more worried about where their friends were going rather than what is best for their own future.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

That would be impossible..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

ShatteredHeart said:


> At what age does a child a child get to make this choice? Obviously a kindergarten a kid would not be capable of making this decision. I do think the child should have some say in the matter, but even as fat as high school, most kids would be more worried about where their friends were going rather than what is best for their own future.


It would make more sense to just let the kids decide or just test them to see what they have interest and mindset for. Vs saying Parents get to decide since parents have thier own interest and often do what good for them not whats good for children. You want parents to all be objective when making these decisions but a lot of parents are not like that. Also we tell kids to figure it out from a very early age if you realize it or not. We always ask kids what they want to be. 

Also that is an assumptions which might not apply to every single student, its also assuming there are children with freinds to begin with. There are a lot of kids who simply dont have freinds for most of school, you are going to say "Your parents get to choose becuse we think you were stupid enough to follow your freinds". How exactly is that fair? If people are going to screw up or succeed let them make that decision. We should not be punishing them since we assume they are all idiots. In order to make it fair we should either judge it by a test or else just give everyone the decision for what is going to happen to them instead of saying they dont matter.

Black and white logic wont work here. I do think it would be better to do a test figuring out where the kid is based on mindset/knolledge/interest too.

Assumption A.All kids will follow freinds and have freinds to follow 
Assumption B.All parents are great parents who know whats best for kids


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

@EddyNash I can go along with this for the most part, Testing is a wonderful idea. What would you say if at the end of each school year the child took an aptitude test as well as wrote an essay about what they wanted to be. Then the parents were given a choice of schools that would best align with the child's wishes and potentials. Note that each schools ratings would be grade specific, so if a school had excellent history teachers for say 4th grade but a bum at 8th, they would be judged separately. That way you could maximize learning from year to year.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

EddyNash said:


> I went to schools where there was fights in the class rooms and the teachers ignored it, where to get into AP or move up classes parents had to sign off, To go down a class your parents had to sign off, To get into AP classes you had to pay for testing, and to make up classes any other way you had to have a teacher sign off or a parent sign off(Like to go to continuation). To get a job you also had to have a B average and get a permit from the school or you were not allowed to get a part time job. If you were 18 you did not need a permit to work.
> 
> So yes, its kind of hard to get anything done when you have to get your parents and teachers involved and no one care besides you about your future.
> 
> I also moved schools several times as a child. So I went to more then one school. If for example the school wanted to do something with your child that a parent disagreed with they could simply threaten to get the courts to take your child away for child abuse. Which schools seem to like using against parents.


I go to a school where someone got stabbed to death (in the building). I go to a school where people almost die in fights. I go to a school where there's been 16 arrests in a semester. I go to a school where we had to have undercover cops. I go to a school where we too have to have our parents sign to move down a class and we have to pay for AP testing. I go to a school where we loose kids every year to deaths. I go to a school where some poor girl got slapped so hard by her boyfriend in the hallway, teachers came out because they thought a kid slammed a locker. I go to a school where a teacher ran out of the room because he heard someone yelling to get off them and he pretty much stopped a rape.

So yeah, I can play the pity card too, but that's not what our debate was about.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Finny said:


> I go to a school where someone got stabbed to death (in the building). I go to a school where people almost die in fights. I go to a school where there's been 16 arrests in a semester. I go to a school where we had to have undercover cops. I go to a school where we too have to have our parents sign to move down a class and we have to pay for AP testing. I go to a school where we loose kids every year to deaths. I go to a school where some poor girl got slapped so hard by her boyfriend in the hallway, teachers came out because they thought a kid slammed a locker. I go to a school where a teacher ran out of the room because he heard someone yelling to get off them and he pretty much stopped a rape.
> 
> So yeah, I can play the pity card too, but that's not what our debate was about.


Its not about pitty, its about the reality of things. If for example we say a kid needs certien classes and they cant get into them since parents and teachers were not invovled. Then that kid is not going to do well in school, and not be able to get ahead. So letting that kid make up for everything they were not allowed to take, that they are now allowed to take in college without restrictions is not somehow screwing over the kids who got all those classes in HS. That means that those people who did not get a fair expirence get a fair chance in college. The fact you are dellusional enough to believe that all the public schools are ran exactly the same and not heavily regulated by parent/teacher invovlement does not change that. I told you FACTS, I dont care if you feel sad about those facts. Its just shows that a lot of kids are not getting a fair chance becuase of these stupid regulations in public HS system. You are saying that you will get better classes if you try harder in school, fact is if you are not allowed by law to sign up for them you are not going to get them. If you want to have your little pitty party, good for you. Fact is what you are saying is not true. You have to follow the rules of the system, if the system is stupidly designed you follow that too.


----------



## Finny (Jul 17, 2015)

EddyNash said:


> Its not about pitty, its about the reality of things. If for example we say a kid needs certien classes and they cant get into them since parents and teachers were not invovled. Then that kid is not going to do well in school, and not be able to get ahead. So letting that kid make up for everything they were not allowed to take, that they are now allowed to take in college without restrictions is not somehow screwing over the kids who got all those classes in HS. That means that those people who did not get a fair expirence get a fair chance in college. The fact you are dellusional enough to believe that all the public schools are ran exactly the same and not heavily regulated by parent/teacher invovlement does not change that. I told you FACTS, I dont care if you feel sad about those facts. Its just shows that a lot of kids are not getting a fair chance becuase of these stupid regulations in public HS system. You are saying that you will get better classes if you try harder in school, fact is if you are not allowed by law to sign up for them you are not going to get them. If you want to have your little pitty party, good for you. Fact is what you are saying is not true. You have to follow the rules of the system, if the system is stupidly designed you follow that too.


Where did I say that all public schools are run the same?
Where did I say I was against parent/teacher involvement? 

Yeah, a lot of kids don't get a fair chance in high school. I didn't deny that. 

But you as a person do play a role in your high school experience. You don't get the classes you want? Well take the second best one and do your best in that. I don't get all the classes I want but that doesn't mean I fail the classes I have to take. You are still in control of if you do your homework, if you participate in clubs/sports, if you do volunteer work (which isn't easy to find in some communities, and it wasn't in mine either but I found it), if you study for test and such. You are in some control, so if you fuck up your schooling just because the teachers don't care or your parents don't care, well that just shows your dependency and you need to grow up and start getting to work because in life you aren't going to have parents or teachers helping you either.


----------



## Aressini (Jul 30, 2016)

For the record, I go to public school. My best friend is enrolled in private school, so I know quite a lot about how it works through her. Basically, both of our schools offer the same classes (with the exception of some language classes because the private school is more of a boarding school). Both my school and her school require you to take four years of math, four years of English or reading or whatever you want to call it, a few years of science, a few years of history, and at least one art class. Public school has phys ed and health required for two years whereas private school only has health for Freshman. In addition, both schools require that you learn some language other than English. In fact, I think the public school has a mandatory technology class whereas the private school doesn't offer any technology class (besides one computer programming class). However, this is kind of sad considering each year for private school is close to $15k. 

I do agree that high schools should focus more on what the kids want to learn rather than forcing them to sit through things that don't matter in the long run. Algebra I and some aspects of Algebra II are the only real math you'll ever use unless you enter into a specialized career field. Geometry was an absolute bitch to sit through for me, and my future career path has nothing to do with it, so that was time wasted I could have spent learning some beneficial. However, Geometry's a graduation requirement. What really sucks is because I'm considered a "gifted" student (basically I pay attention to grades, GPA, and score pretty well on tests), I'm highly recommended to sit through AP Statistics and AP Calculus even though I hate math. I'm highly pressured to join the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) program because I have good grades (also they're looking for more biological females). When I adamantly refused to join the program because none of those things interest me, I get confusion and disappointment from every teacher I have to tell, every guidance counselor, and every STEM-related teacher or coach or whatever they are. Just because I do well in school, I shouldn't be forced to do things with math and science. I like law, history, economics, art, and English. 

If I choose to follow what I want to do and work in law and politics when I graduate from college, then what will I need slaving away at Calculus for? Why should I take AP Calc in high school if I'm going to have to take another math class in college? It's bullshit. My high school is dirt poor, so they have to rely on what little state funding they get. And the only way to keep the school running is to follow what the state wants by implementing bullshit curriculum. Sure, it helps to get accepted into a good college, but you're not going to need most of that information after college. Why waste the time and money?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Not all private schools are better. And the public school depends on the district. 

Due to my ex husbands insisting I sent my eldest to private catholic school for her first year of school. Their set up was extremely extremely extremely outdated. Parents were definitely paying for their children to be in an isolated religious bubble because it definitely was not for the facility or education. This was not all that long ago in regards to technology. It was in lets see 2007. And they were still doing everything on fricken paper. I dont mean like art and work sheets. I mean like the school itself was doing their own recording and billing on paper. Uh thats very primitive if you consider it was 2007. Their classrooms were dark and still looked like a setting from 1950. 

The whole point in that little story was to point out not all private schools are better. Currently the public school district my children are in, is much much more equipped to teach and keep up with modern education. Also let me just really emphasize as someone who moved around quite alot growing up. Public schools vary greatly based on the area. The weller off the area usually the more that board is putting back into the school. I happen to live in a higher tax bracket area (on purpose). I purposely chose the second/third highest in our demographic. Why the 2nd/3rd highest, because I am not well off and did not want to put my kids by all the millionaires kids and isolate or alienate them from their peers and give them an unrealistic view of life by comparing to the silver spooned. I chose the 2nd/3rd rank in our area tho because I checked the crime rate, the graduation rate, the curriculum, how many tax dollars per student and community activity. I knew this community would be a good for my kids because it would exhibit inspiration and motivation but would not be too ostentatious for them to fit in. I am very glad my kids go to their public school 2nd ranked in our area as opposed to had I let them go their primary years at the run down, decades behind catholic school. Private is not always better.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Sensational said:


> Not all private schools are better. And the public school depends on the district.
> 
> Due to my ex-husbands insisting I sent my eldest to private catholic school for her first year of school. Their set up was extremely extremely extremely outdated. Parents were definitely paying for their children to be in an isolated religious bubble because it definitely was not for the facility or education. This was not all that long ago in regards to technology. It was in lets see 2007. And they were still doing everything on fricken paper. I don't mean like art and work sheets. I mean like the school itself was doing their own recording and billing on paper. Uh that's very primitive if you consider it was 2007. Their classrooms were dark and still looked like a setting from 1950.
> 
> The whole point in that little story was to point out not all private schools are better. Currently, the public school district my children are in, is much much more equipped to teach and keep up with modern education. Also, let me just really emphasize as someone who moved around quite a lot growing up. Public schools vary greatly based on the area. The better off the area usually the more that board is putting back into the school. I happen to live in a higher tax bracket area (on purpose). I purposely chose the second/third highest in our demographic. Why the 2nd/3rd highest, because I am not well off and did not want to put my kids by all the millionaire's kids and isolate or alienate them from their peers and give them an unrealistic view of life by comparing to the silver spooned. I chose the 2nd/3rd rank in our area tho because I checked the crime rate, the graduation rate, the curriculum, how many tax dollars per student and community activity. I knew this community would be a good for my kids because it would exhibit inspiration and motivation but would not be too ostentatious for them to fit in. I am very glad my kids go to their public school 2nd ranked in our area as opposed to had I let them go their primary years at the run down, decades behind catholic school. Private is not always better.


There are decent Public schools but the majority of them are garbage and overall the private school/home schooled kids to tend to do a lot better. Everytime we had a kid transfer in they were usually three grades above everyone else in the school and the schools often still placed them in classes lower then what they were taught. Also, some private schools teach harder/advanced classes earlier then public schools. Public schools also have a much much lower quality generally in the poor naihborhoods. 

However in the richer naihborhoods they tend to sometimes be too relaxed on security which is not always great either. I went to a school in a rich naihborhood with no security around campus becuase it was assumed everyone was safe and kids were well behaved, then I went to a school in the hood and they watched you like you were a prison inmate. Generally richer naihborhoods more likely to be open campus and have more luxurys for students, while poor areas tend to have a lot of security, less luxurys and generally poorer education.


----------

