public versus private schools

[2win]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was reading the MUSC thread and I was wondering why in South the public schools are not so good. Can you guys share some thoughts?
What's the downside to have your kid in a private school?
2win

 

[usnavdoc]

There are actually some decent public schools down here. Just not usually in the metro areas. I would think that is the same in other areas as well.

The only downside I can think of in a private school is that most of their athletic programs arent as strong. I wouldnt really think that is an issue though. Oh and I guess the cost. Some are quite pricey.

 

[Dogdaze]

I think the issue with public schools in the (parts) of the South is the (lack of) parental expectations from a great percentage of those procreating. Many take no interest in the education of their children, believe that it is the exclusive responsibility of the schools to teach, and then get angry at schools for expecting too much. As you might imagine, the curve gets established very low. When my son was in kindergarten at the 2nd ranked elementary school in the state of SC, he was asked to TUTOR other 5 yos. in his class!!! We said you've got to be kidding, he's FIVE. We pulled him out the next week and started him at a private school in Charleston. Can you say student loans?

Even highly intelligent kids are left languishing in public classrooms teaching to the middle of the pack. To try to get around this, districts have developed "magnet" schools, "science" schools, and "art" schools. So instead of solving the problem they elevate a few (lucky) kids to a better education.
Private schools are then filled by all families who can afford the tuition. Some are dazzling expensive while some parochial schools are "reasonable". Despite loving Charleston, part of our reason for leaving for residency was the idea of spending college tuition amounts of cash on primary education when there are excellent public schools in other parts of the country.

Love the South; hate the public schools in much of it.

 

[RAToronto]

My take on it would be public schools might not be as well funded as compare to private school. Education wise, I don't believe a private school would be better as compared to a public school.

 

[cfdavid]

My take on it would be public schools might not be as well funded as compare to private school. Education wise, I don't believe a private school would be better as compared to a public school.

Be serious. I guess just throwing good money after bad is your mantra?

Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception. It is what it is, but it's gernerally NOT because of "lack of funding".......

 

[usnavdoc]

I think the issue with public schools in the (parts) of the South is the (lack of) parental expectations from a great percentage of those procreating. Many take no interest in the education of their children, believe that it is the exclusive responsibility of the schools to teach, and then get angry at schools for expecting too much.

Somewhat agree with you but this is not exclussive to the south. There are dumb****s all over the country that shouldnt have a dog let alone a child.

Anyway too much to talk about and i gotta get to work.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Be serious. I guess just throwing good money after bad is your mantra?

Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception. It is what it is, but it's generally NOT because of "lack of funding".......

I tend to agree with RA, though the issues are clearly thorny and likely all interrelated.

If you look at per capita income in the southern states, they're uniformly at the bottom of the ranking. SC is #40 in the states, with Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi all ranking even lower.

Most school funding comes from property taxes and with a larger impoverish population, those taxes are significantly less per student than in richer counties/areas.

I found this graph which shows per pupil spending. It shows the southern states as generally spending less per student than northern states.

As opposed to cfdavid, I don't really think all poverty can be ascribed to people wanting to suckle off the public teat. I think the majority of poorer people would jump at the chance to earn $30K-$40K if a job was offered to them. However, those types of jobs are hard to come by without a college degree.

 

[hoyden]

I am sorry if anybody will feel offended, but secondary education in this country sucks big time...

 

[Eta Carinae]

I am sorry if anybody will feel offended, but secondary education in this country sucks big time...

👍👍

 

[loveoforganic]

I went to public schools (non-magnet) K-12 in a Louisiana suburb, and honestly, the teachers I had were by and large fantastic. I think that had a lot to do with my parents researching the schools beforehand, with some inside intel (mom's a school SW). At any rate, my point is there are at least some acceptable public schools in the south. Are you gonna find many in inner city New Orleans? Probably not.

 

[deleted126335]

I was reading the MUSC thread and I was wondering why in South the public schools are not so good. Can you guys share some thoughts?
What's the downside to have your kid in a private school?
2win

Originally Posted by hoyden:
"I am sorry if anybody will feel offended, but secondary education in this country sucks big time..."


-As a country we don't cherish education the way that we used to. For whatever reason this phenomenon hits the South a little harder.
-Teaching and nursing used to be the big two "acceptable" fields for women. As the glass ceiling has been broken, top tier women who previously went into teaching now go into medicine, law, business, etc. Plenty of exceptions to the rule, but generally true.
-The rise of teacher's unions haven't helped the effectiveness of public schools.
-I spend big bucks on my kids private school. The one bill that I don't mind paying.

 

[Bertelman]

I am sorry if anybody will feel offended, but secondary education in this country sucks big time...

No one's offended. We know it could be much better.

 

[tucker27705]

I think we all know why, but are afraid to say it. I grew up in the midwest and went to public school through HS. There was no pvt school in rural WI. Of course in Milwaukee there was a well known catholic school that I prob would have gone to if we lived there.
Now I live in GA. My kids go to public school, but only because I live in a particular school district. If I lived in Atlanta, or even different part of Cobb county, they'd go to pvt. This is, and every knows this, because in the south two "separate but equal" sets of public schools developed. When this institution was put to end judicially, it continued by most white kids going to pvt schools, leaving the public schools mostly black (and now also latino), and coming from homes that for what ever reason don't have as high expectations. I will be moving in about 4 or 5 years when my kids reach middle school age to ensure they go to a "good" public middle school and high school. I do not want to pay for pvt school, but I also do not want my kids to go to schools where the scores are low, the kids are acting up, and expectations are lower.
Our neighborhood is right next to the elementary school that just scored highest in the county. Unfortunately our location dictates going to a jr high with more a diverse population from "across the tracks." Almost every family in our neighborhood either moves when their kids are 10 or sends them to pvt school. There are a few lobbying for everyone to stay in the public school system to "lift" the jr high. This may work, over several years, and it may not. I'm not going to risk my kids' education to see if it works.
That's why the public schools in the south generally suck.

Tuck

 

[cfdavid]

I tend to agree with RA, though the issues are clearly thorny and likely all interrelated.

If you look at per capita income in the southern states, they're uniformly at the bottom of the ranking. SC is #40 in the states, with Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi all ranking even lower.

Most school funding comes from property taxes and with a larger impoverish population, those taxes are significantly less per student than in richer counties/areas.

I found this graph which shows per pupil spending. It shows the southern states as generally spending less per student than northern states.

As opposed to cfdavid, I don't really think all poverty can be ascribed to people wanting to suckle off the public teat. I think the majority of poorer people would jump at the chance to earn $30K-$40K if a job was offered to them. However, those types of jobs are hard to come by without a college degree.

A meaningful contribution. However, I still believe that personal responsiblity has a lot to do with it. We have a CULTURE of mediocrity in many areas of the U.S.

Regarding decent paying jobs, we MUST build back our industrial/manufacturing base. This is critical to our future success as a nation.

cf

 

[cchoukal]

Be serious. I guess just throwing good money after bad is your mantra?

Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception. It is what it is, but it's gernerally NOT because of "lack of funding".......

Some of the states with the best public school systems in terms of test scores, college attendance, etc. have among the lowest per student expenditures. Not a perfect measure, but I bet you can find data on this on Google. Iowa seems to keep coming to mind as the lowest per-student cost and they always fare well. I agree w/ CF that funding seems not to be the only predictor of quality.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm from SC and went 1-12 in our public school system, so I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the subject.

First, the differences between rural and urban schools are huge. Rural schools pay much less and are in very undesirable locations. If you don't like Columbia, SC how appealing would a place like Due West, SC sound? So the better teachers end up inside our "cities" while others end up in the rest of the state.

Second, as someone has already mentioned, even good schools can't make up for parents who don't give two ****s about their kids' education. I did some long-term substituting in a local Jr High school, and you could really tell the difference between the kids who valued education and the ones who didn't.

Third, there are strengths to both private schools and (decent) public schools. The public schools usually offer more advanced placement classes, better athletics, diversity (if you think your kids need it), and are basically free. Private schools offer more personalized learning, smaller classes, and parents who care and are involved.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

A meaningful contribution. However, I still believe that personal responsiblity has a lot to do with it. We have a CULTURE of mediocrity in many areas of the U.S.

Regarding decent paying jobs, we MUST build back our industrial/manufacturing base. This is critical to our future success as a nation.

cf

I agree that a lot of it comes down to personal motivation and responsibility. In my mind, a hard-working person using lots of common sense can make a dramatic change in their life in the US, and as such, the American dream can still be realized.

But when you grow up in a culture of poverty, violence, and drug use, I think it's harder to find that right road than we give credit for. I grew up in an upper-middle class family in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Except for the occasional scuffle, violence was a non-issue in my high school. Drug use was mild and mostly involved pot. Both my parents have graduate degrees, and college was the de facto choice after high school. I suspect it was the same for many reading this.

So, in my mind, to say someone growing up with all those other factors is just making poor choices and should be scorned seems unduly harsh and gives no credit to the difficult circumstances they have to beat to find a way out of poverty.

I also heard a radio broadcast one time (a couple months ago now) that talked about how by the time a child is like 8 years old, the core personality traits that allow them to succeed or not have already been established. Things like curiosity, open-mindedness, anger management, and others are all pretty much established by that early age. So, if you have a kid who's been raised in a bad home, by the time he or she is old enough to get out (what, maybe 15-16?), they're going to have a much harder time making the right choices because of the foundation the rest of their life is based on.

Like I said, it's a hard issue.

 

[Pilot Doc]

It's very simple. The public schools in many parts of the south are mediocre because the white community abandoned them after integration, both physically and financially. Has nothing to do with any lack of responsibility in the black students and families that were left behind.

Essentially the only places you'll find "good" public schools are where the school district boundaries enclose a reasonably affluent, homogenous population.

 

[2win]

I agree that a lot of it comes down to personal motivation and responsibility. In my mind, a hard-working person using lots of common sense can make a dramatic change in their life in the US, and as such, the American dream can still be realized.

But when you grow up in a culture of poverty, violence, and drug use, I think it's harder to find that right road than we give credit for. I grew up in an upper-middle class family in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Except for the occasional scuffle, violence was a non-issue in my high school. Drug use was mild and mostly involved pot. Both my parents have graduate degrees, and college was the de facto choice after high school. I suspect it was the same for many reading this.

So, in my mind, to say someone growing up with all those other factors is just making poor choices and should be scorned seems unduly harsh and gives no credit to the difficult circumstances they have to beat to find a way out of poverty.

This is the situation:
1) Yes - we do spend time with the kid .
2) Yes- the other kids are not so lucky (financially) like mine.
3) Yes - i grew up in a poor country and not only that - I graduated elementary to one of the "worst" school.
4) Yes- my parents were working 12 hours a day to provide basic food...
5) Yes- I was happy to get an orange for Christmas so imagine there wasn't a present for a good grade. There wasn't an incentive to get better. Except maybe the hope for a better future. I respected my teachers - as I respected my attending later in residency.
6) Yes - they taught me to stand up when a lady steps in the room.
7) And YES - I believe that if you want to have a champion horse - it has to run with other great ones. Otherwise will believe that is the best and she's competing with turtles. Therefore the other kids in the school are important.
I had motivation and Great parents - her motivation so far is Hannah Montana. Regarding the parents - i am still working to be a better one.

 

[Stitch]

Our neighborhood is right next to the elementary school that just scored highest in the county. Unfortunately our location dictates going to a jr high with more a diverse population from "across the tracks." Almost every family in our neighborhood either moves when their kids are 10 or sends them to pvt school. There are a few lobbying for everyone to stay in the public school system to "lift" the jr high. This may work, over several years, and it may not. I'm not going to risk my kids' education to see if it works.
That's why the public schools in the south generally suck.

Tuck

My sister ran into this type of thing with her daughter. They live close to a pretty good public school, but the county wanted to 'further diversify' the other schools, so they were going to ship her 45 minutes away. At that particular school they don't separate out the classes by performance or academic level in the hopes that the smart kids will help and set an example for the slower ones. The result was that my neice now goes to an expensive private school, as do most people with any money in the area.

On the other side of the coin, I have a good friend who is a high school teacher at a private school. Her complaint is that many parents feel that their kid is 'entitled' to a grade because they're paying for the education. She has pretty clear expectations and makes them known, but even if a kid doesn't do the work, the parent is in her office having a fit. She feels it's not her job to give out good grades, but to teach.

The entitlement complex knows no socioeconomic boundaries. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die...

 

[proman]

It's very simple. The public schools in many parts of the south are mediocre because the white community abandoned them after integration, both physically and financially. Has nothing to do with any lack of responsibility in the black students and families that were left behind.

Essentially the only places you'll find "good" public schools are where the school district boundaries enclose a reasonably affluent, homogenous population.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Atlanta city public schools spend an average of $9,800 per student per year. That's more than most private schools.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

This is the situation:
1) Yes - we do spend time with the kid .
2) Yes- the other kids are not so lucky (financially) like mine.
3) Yes - i grew up in a poor country and not only that - I graduated elementary to one of the "worst" school.
4) Yes- my parents were working 12 hours a day to provide basic food...
5) Yes- I was happy to get an orange for Christmas so imagine there wasn't a present for a good grade. There wasn't an incentive to get better. Except maybe the hope for a better future. I respected my teachers - as I respected my attending later in residency.
6) Yes - they taught me to stand up when a lady steps in the room.
7) And YES - I believe that if you want to have a champion horse - it has to run with other great ones. Otherwise will believe that is the best and she's competing with turtles. Therefore the other kids in the school are important.
I had motivation and Great parents - her motivation so far is Hannah Montana. Regarding the parents - i am still working to be a better one.

Hey, 2win. I hope I didn't come off as personalizing my thoughts toward you. I had no intention of aiming my comments at your family! I agree that kids really need to be challenged to excel. I still remember my mom quizzing me on multiplication tables when I was 8 or 9. Probably why I ended up a math major in college... 😛

Obviously you need to do what you feel is best for your child. But it's clear to me that he/she already has a huge advantage, since you're taking the time to consider these issues.

 

[cfdavid]

I agree that a lot of it comes down to personal motivation and responsibility. In my mind, a hard-working person using lots of common sense can make a dramatic change in their life in the US, and as such, the American dream can still be realized.

But when you grow up in a culture of poverty, violence, and drug use, I think it's harder to find that right road than we give credit for. I grew up in an upper-middle class family in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Except for the occasional scuffle, violence was a non-issue in my high school. Drug use was mild and mostly involved pot. Both my parents have graduate degrees, and college was the de facto choice after high school. I suspect it was the same for many reading this.

So, in my mind, to say someone growing up with all those other factors is just making poor choices and should be scorned seems unduly harsh and gives no credit to the difficult circumstances they have to beat to find a way out of poverty.

I also heard a radio broadcast one time (a couple months ago now) that talked about how by the time a child is like 8 years old, the core personality traits that allow them to succeed or not have already been established. Things like curiosity, open-mindedness, anger management, and others are all pretty much established by that early age. So, if you have a kid who's been raised in a bad home, by the time he or she is old enough to get out (what, maybe 15-16?), they're going to have a much harder time making the right choices because of the foundation the rest of their life is based on.

Like I said, it's a hard issue.

I understand this arguement. I think it's valid in many ways. I guess my feeling is that we're heading towards a CULTURE of dependents in our society.

In the past, economically poor did NOT automatically mean that one was destined for failure. Not in the least. There was a different culture that permeated the ranks of the economically disenfranchised.

Look at what the various entitlement programs have REALLY done to the African American community in many areas. After decades of supporting the Democrats (though i personally feel that the Red/Blue chasm is false in many ways), what has happened to the AA community, in general?? We see record illegitimacy rates, record levels of disenfranchisement, record levels (compared to all other races) of unemployment, record levels of high school drop out rates.....

I've said this over and over again, the most successful societies/countries/groups of people will uniformly have a CULTURE of SELF-RELIANCE. That is, not waiting for the government to offer EVERY solution to one's various personal problems. They take RESPONSIBILITY and INITIATIVE for their own well being and future.

Perhaps my arguement is more philosophical. But, I feel our country is at great risk of becoming dominated by dependents. This will be our downfall as a 1st rate nation if this happens.

This may seem like a deviation from the original thread, but it's very much related, IMHO.

cf

 

[pgg]

7) And YES - I believe that if you want to have a champion horse - it has to run with other great ones. Otherwise will believe that is the best and she's competing with turtles. Therefore the other kids in the school are important.

This is true.

My kids were recently in a public elementary school in Virginia. About 1/2 the students were from the middle class / affluent side of town, and about 1/2 were from the ghetto side of town. Fortunately the kids were (mostly) young enough that outright violence was rare.

The teachers were outstanding. Facilities were great. My wife volunteered in our kids' classes almost weekly. My kids did great academically.

The school had awful disciplinary problems with lots of the kids from the poor side of town. Those kids had single parents, got a lot of their calories from free breakfast/lunch at the school ... and many were terribly disruptive and/or bullies. Not to divert any responsibility from the kids for their actions, but it's easy to understand how kids starting out so far behind in life can be less than model citizens.

The school administrators were so desperate to cling to bare accreditation that very little effort was put into stimulating and leading the high achievers.

Again, my kids did very well academically, but it was a difficult time for them ... and we could tell that the pathetic culture of mediocrity that saturated their school was starting to affect them. Had I chosen to remain at the same hospital post-residency, we would have put them in private schools.

They're still in public schools, but in an excellent district with absolutely NONE of the "social" problems the Virginia school had.

 

[pgg]

I feel our country is at great risk of becoming dominated by dependents. This will be our downfall as a 1st rate nation if this happens.

Yeah, we're screwed. It's gone too far, there's too much debt. I don't buy into the doomsday collapse apocalyptic fiction, but we're headed for a national recalibration, and a lot of people in certain regions are going to go down the road of homeless, starving, desperate, violent, and dead.

At this point my hope is that it'll hold together long enough for me to finish my Navy obligation, get out, and move to a rural area of a state where the culture still leans in the direction of somewhat self reliant people.

I hate cold weather, I mean really really hate it, but I think we're destined to wind up somewhere in the Idaho to Nebraska corridor. Why are all the warm places full of lazy people? It pisses me off.

 

[tucker27705]

I'm not sure it's that simple. Atlanta city public schools spend an average of $9,800 per student per year. That's more than most private schools.

Actually, the cost of pvt school in Atlanta is much more than that quoted above for the amt spent per pupil in public schools. Go to the websites of Pace Academy ($20,200), Walker (Marietta) ($16,500), Lovett ($19,830) and Westminster ($19,750). These are the four schools people in my neighborhood typically send their kids to after elementary school. Some go to christian centered schools that cost less--not an option for my kids. They will not learn about creationism in their science classes unless I'm dead first.
The spending per student in Cobb county is $8,545 (2008). The amts for pvt school are upper school amts, it is slightly to substantially less for lower school depending on which school.
Tuck

 

[cfdavid]

Yeah, we're screwed. It's gone too far, there's too much debt. I don't buy into the doomsday collapse apocalyptic fiction, but we're headed for a national recalibration, and a lot of people in certain regions are going to go down the road of homeless, starving, desperate, violent, and dead.

At this point my hope is that it'll hold together long enough for me to finish my Navy obligation, get out, and move to a rural area of a state where the culture still leans in the direction of somewhat self reliant people.

I hate cold weather, I mean really really hate it, but I think we're destined to wind up somewhere in the Idaho to Nebraska corridor. Why are all the warm places full of lazy people? It pisses me off.

I agree on all points except that I'm pretty used to cold weather and it doesn't really bother me.

 

[deleted126335]

Why are all the warm places full of lazy people? It pisses me off.

Who wants to work inside when the weather is nice outside? Duh.

 

[hoyden]

This is the situation:
1) Yes - we do spend time with the kid .
2) Yes- the other kids are not so lucky (financially) like mine.
3) Yes - i grew up in a poor country and not only that - I graduated elementary to one of the "worst" school.
4) Yes- my parents were working 12 hours a day to provide basic food...
5) Yes- I was happy to get an orange for Christmas so imagine there wasn't a present for a good grade. There wasn't an incentive to get better. Except maybe the hope for a better future. I respected my teachers - as I respected my attending later in residency.
6) Yes - they taught me to stand up when a lady steps in the room.
7) And YES - I believe that if you want to have a champion horse - it has to run with other great ones. Otherwise will believe that is the best and she's competing with turtles. Therefore the other kids in the school are important.
I had motivation and Great parents - her motivation so far is Hannah Montana. Regarding the parents - i am still working to be a better one.

Agree with every word of the above, since I grew up in a very similar environment - in a poor country, with rationing of the food in the family - with both parents full time working all their life.
However, since there was no entitlement programs in that country, just survival of the fittest( which is a norm in a socialist country 😀 ), therefore everybody knew growing up which road leads to misery and which one will get you to relative comfort - relative - since it can not even be compared to the comfort of those in this country, leaving on welfare and food stamps and labeled as poor. There are no poor people in the US - there are lazy ones, but that is a totally different story

 

[Hamhock]

Be serious. I guess just throwing good money after bad is your mantra?

Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception. It is what it is, but it's gernerally NOT because of "lack of funding".......

if it is not about "lack of funding" and mostly about having "no responsibility for their own and the education of their children", would you then, or do you now, send your kids (hypothetical or otherwise) to a "poor school"?
and, if not, why not?
do you "throw money" at the problem by sending your kids to private school? or by moving to an area with better public schools?

HH

 

[cfdavid]

if it is not about "lack of funding" and mostly about having "no responsibility for their own and the education of their children", would you then, or do you now, send your kids (hypothetical or otherwise) to a "poor school"?
and, if not, why not?
do you "throw money" at the problem by sending your kids to private school? or by moving to an area with better public schools?

HH

You're miopia is causing you to confuse the issue. If you've read the posts of those that DO send their kids to private schools it's mostly because of teaching towards the mean (which can be very low), and NOT because those schools are necessarily receiving less funding. I've also taken from said threads that there is a desire to keep their kids from the more disruptive (socially and scholastically) student body in order to maintain a more productive learning environment.

IMO, most people send their kids to private schools because of a real (or perceived) difference in rigor or standards. Surely some of this is measurable as well.

Just because most private schools are more expensive (versus "free" public schools) is not necessarily correlated with $'s/student spent on the student. It's BECAUSE they are private (and thus don't receive state funding) that necessitates a higher per parent contribution, the notable exception being parochial schools that are partially subsidized by the church.

Surely, some private schools charge an exorbitant sum simply because they can.

To answer your question (i don't currently have kids though), I'll do whatever will give my kids the best chance for success. There are many good public school systems in my area, but you never know.

 

[pgg]

if it is not about "lack of funding" and mostly about having "no responsibility for their own and the education of their children", would you then, or do you now, send your kids (hypothetical or otherwise) to a "poor school"?
and, if not, why not?
do you "throw money" at the problem by sending your kids to private school? or by moving to an area with better public schools?

See my post above - my kids were in a "poor" public school and did well, but we were going to move them to a private school for what mostly amounts to cultural reasons.

The great thing about the expensive private schools isn't the expensive facility or the superb teachers, but the parents who value education enough to be willing to throw their discretionary money at it, and the lack of disruptive kids from broken families.

I am sympathetic to the ordeals suffered by the 1/2 of my kids' Virginia school who came from the poor side of town. At the risk of sounding classist (or worse), at the end of the day they were largely a bunch of disruptive hoodlums, and they were ruining that school district. Their failing test scores led to a perfectly good school losing its accreditation, and their bad behavior frequently made school an unpleasant, sub-optimal learning environment for everyone.

Private schools have students that perform well because not because of money, but because they have responsible parents, kids used to structure and at least SOME discipline, and a relative lack of disruptive students.


Money is a distantly secondary issue. That said, every public school my kids have ever attended (four states now) has had shortages of basic supplies. Whether its underfunding, mismanagement, or useless high paid administrators (my belief) there's something wrong with a public school that can't function unless teachers spend portions of their own salary and solicit parent donations to pay for staples, paper, and other supplies.

 

[deleted126335]

if it is not about "lack of funding" and mostly about having "no responsibility for their own and the education of their children", would you then, or do you now, send your kids (hypothetical or otherwise) to a "poor school"?
and, if not, why not?
do you "throw money" at the problem by sending your kids to private school? or by moving to an area with better public schools?

HH

I send my kids to private school because they are far more likely to be surrounded by a group of people that value scholarship and academic achievement. Kids are influenced almost as much by their peers as their parents. That to me is the overwhelming reason to do so.
Also they are less likely to get stuck with loser teachers who can't be dumped because of union issues. If I had access to a Boston Latin or Bronx Science or other first class public school, I would be more than happy to send my kids there.

 

[Hamhock]

If I ever have kids and am faced with this situation, I will probably make a similar decision to those described by the previous posters.

However, I will acknowledge the prominent role that a lack of funding plays in the failing schools (while not dismissing the often equally important effects of mismanagement, culture of failure, etc) and I will not forget that the method I am able to use to not be like the "Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception" is to "throw money" at the problem (ie pay for a private school or move to an area with a better public school).

Furthermore, I will not then profess that "individualism", "personal responsibility", or other such nonsense is the reason my child will be successful while the children peforming less well in poor schools are doing so because the children or their parents lack these qualities (which, I admit, some probably do, but to an unknown and unmeasured extent). Rather, the reason is that I and my child may have these qualities but without my "throwing money at the problem" (be that by transfering schools, pumping money into the poor-performing school, or directly contributing to the school with my time - which is possible secondary to my money) the success would not be possible. I honestly believe both money and the previously described qualities must be present.

I am certain I can find many students in poor-performing schools who may be doing fairly well in a poor performing school, but would excell if I were able to "throw money" at the problem...certainly not all (again, BOTH money and "the qualities" must be there), but many.

This viewpoint is in contrast to the idea that not taking "responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children" is the primary problem >>>>>>>> money.

[Of course, the above is in general. That is, I am sure some documentary-worth anecdotes of walking miles in the snow will be used to dismiss my thoughts, but I guess I will take that chance...]

Cheers, HH

 

[Hamhock]

Addendum to previous post:

Please not that my first post in this thread was in response to the quoted post from cfdavid:

"Be serious. I guess just throwing good money after bad is your mantra?

Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception. It is what it is, but it's gernerally NOT because of "lack of funding"......."

 

[rsgillmd]

GoodmanBrown posted a graph. I think it's too generic, if not outdated. Memphis City Schools has many poor performing schools, although it does have some good ones as well. According to an article I saw on Google News for my zipcode, Memphis City Schools apparently spends approx. $10,000 per student.

I was surprised also when my mentor here told me to send my kids (when I have them) to a private school, or move out to the suburbs. Having gone to a public school as a kid along with most people I knew, I asked her why. Her comment was about disruptive behavior at schools (apparently many have metal detectors) and poor quality teachers.

I don't buy the theory of underpriveleged community performing worse because of their socioeconomic status. Personal responsibility and parental involvement both play a role.

I came to the U.S. at approx. 8.5 years of age. In India I was basically an academic slacker, and even in the U.S. while we were living with my aunt. What forced me to take personal responsibility was when we moved out into our own apartment, and I saw my mom working 2 jobs and my dad working long hours as well. I was forced to become responsible to take care of myself and my younger sister. I saw the many relative comforts my parents sacrificed in order to get us a better education, so I was compelled to become a better student. I learned my multiplications tables to 20x10 when I was in India. My mom made sure I never forgot them. Heck, most of the non-physician colleagues I interact with can't do simple math in their heads. My mom also went to the parent-teacher meetings, even when things were going well. She praised me when I did well, but always pushed me to do better. Basically, my own sense of responsibility plus my mom's involvement both compelled me to do well. People who expect to have everything handed to them on a platter are just setting themselves up for failure.

In the end it is probably a combination of factors. But if I thought my kid was going to be in an environment not conducive to learning, then I would spring for private school tuition.

 

[2win]

GoodmanBrown posted a graph. I think it's too generic, if not outdated. Memphis City Schools has many poor performing schools, although it does have some good ones as well. According to an article I saw on Google News for my zipcode, Memphis City Schools apparently spends approx. $10,000 per student.

I was surprised also when my mentor here told me to send my kids (when I have them) to a private school, or move out to the suburbs. Having gone to a public school as a kid along with most people I knew, I asked her why. Her comment was about disruptive behavior at schools (apparently many have metal detectors) and poor quality teachers.

I don't buy the theory of underpriveleged community performing worse because of their socioeconomic status. Personal responsibility and parental involvement both play a role.

I came to the U.S. at approx. 8.5 years of age. In India I was basically an academic slacker, and even in the U.S. while we were living with my aunt. What forced me to take personal responsibility was when we moved out into our own apartment, and I saw my mom working 2 jobs and my dad working long hours as well. I was forced to become responsible to take care of myself and my younger sister. I saw the many relative comforts my parents sacrificed in order to get us a better education, so I was compelled to become a better student. I learned my multiplications tables to 20x10 when I was in India. My mom made sure I never forgot them. Heck, most of the non-physician colleagues I interact with can't do simple math in their heads. My mom also went to the parent-teacher meetings, even when things were going well. She praised me when I did well, but always pushed me to do better. Basically, my own sense of responsibility plus my mom's involvement both compelled me to do well. People who expect to have everything handed to them on a platter are just setting themselves up for failure.

In the end it is probably a combination of factors. But if I thought my kid was going to be in an environment not conducive to learning, then I would spring for private school tuition.

I totally agree - the parent involvement is essential...
I noticed that most of the surgeons and anesthesiologist in my current practice don't have their kids in the "achievers" group. Useless to say that the rate of divorce is amazingly high. Most of them are at the third wife...
All of them though are professionally accomplished - private practice, great income, enough vacation and so on. There is a delicate balance there ...
How come Asians excel in school ? Indians too? I could come with only one answer - family values, hard work as a value, sacrifice.
So this is one of my goals - less time (and less money lol) in OR and more time with my daughter.

 

[IlDestriero]

.

 

[proman]

Actually, the cost of pvt school in Atlanta is much more than that quoted above for the amt spent per pupil in public schools. Go to the websites of Pace Academy ($20,200), Walker (Marietta) ($16,500), Lovett ($19,830) and Westminster ($19,750). These are the four schools people in my neighborhood typically send their kids to after elementary school. Some go to christian centered schools that cost less--not an option for my kids. They will not learn about creationism in their science classes unless I'm dead first.
The spending per student in Cobb county is $8,545 (2008). The amts for pvt school are upper school amts, it is slightly to substantially less for lower school depending on which school.
Tuck

Guess tuition climbed faster than the housing market. It's been a while since I was in Atlanta but the schools you mentioned could be among the best in the country (for reputation).

But Cobb schools are decidedly better than Atlanta city schools, yet they spend over $1,000 per student. Why would that be? Could the home and parenting be the difference?

 

[cfdavid]

If I ever have kids and am faced with this situation, I will probably make a similar decision to those described by the previous posters.

However, I will acknowledge the prominent role that a lack of funding plays in the failing schools (while not dismissing the often equally important effects of mismanagement, culture of failure, etc) and I will not forget that the method I am able to use to not be like the "Large segments of our population take no responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children is no exception" is to "throw money" at the problem (ie pay for a private school or move to an area with a better public school).

Furthermore, I will not then profess that "individualism", "personal responsibility", or other such nonsense is the reason my child will be successful while the children peforming less well in poor schools are doing so because the children or their parents lack these qualities (which, I admit, some probably do, but to an unknown and unmeasured extent). Rather, the reason is that I and my child may have these qualities but without my "throwing money at the problem" (be that by transfering schools, pumping money into the poor-performing school, or directly contributing to the school with my time - which is possible secondary to my money) the success would not be possible. I honestly believe both money and the previously described qualities must be present.

I am certain I can find many students in poor-performing schools who may be doing fairly well in a poor performing school, but would excell if I were able to "throw money" at the problem...certainly not all (again, BOTH money and "the qualities" must be there), but many.

This viewpoint is in contrast to the idea that not taking "responsiblity for their own behavior and the education of their children" is the primary problem >>>>>>>> money.

[Of course, the above is in general. That is, I am sure some documentary-worth anecdotes of walking miles in the snow will be used to dismiss my thoughts, but I guess I will take that chance...]

Cheers, HH

Seriously? You need to go back and read you own, scattered commentary.

Step away from the Ivory Tower for just a moment. Go out and get some experience, which you clearly lack (probably from being sheltered by the very "system" you may very well despise). Then, come back with some real world knowledge of how things REALLY work.

Wow.

 

[cfdavid]

I totally agree - the parent involvement is essential...
I noticed that most of the surgeons and anesthesiologist in my current practice don't have their kids in the "achievers" group. Useless to say that the rate of divorce is amazingly high. Most of them are at the third wife...
All of them though are professionally accomplished - private practice, great income, enough vacation and so on. There is a delicate balance there ...
How come Asians excel in school ? Indians too? I could come with only one answer - family values, hard work as a value, sacrifice.
So this is one of my goals - less time (and less money lol) in OR and more time with my daughter.

Have you considered genetics? While the Indian continent is not overwhelmingly intelligent (by modern methods) of measurement), there are MANY Indians that succeed and are superbly intelligent. This does not apply to the masses of India however. China is a different story however, if one believes in IQ's and methods of measurement.

Why are the Germans so successful? How about the Japanese?? Is "multiculturalism" really a benefit?? Tell that to the Swedes. If only the Swedes had more "diversity", they'd have a better society!

Again, we MUST start thinking for ourselves.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Have you considered genetics? While the Indian continent is not overwhelmingly intelligent (by modern methods) of measurement), there are MANY Indians that succeed and are superbly intelligent. This does not apply to the masses of India however. China is a different story however, if one believes in IQ's and methods of measurement.

Why are the Germans so successful? How about the Japanese?? Is "multiculturalism" really a benefit?? Tell that to the Swedes. If only the Swedes had more "diversity", they'd have a better society!

Again, we MUST start thinking for ourselves.

As much as I respect your opinion on many issues, your statements above have very dangerous leanings, especially with the cultural history I'm assuming you have based on your name.

I know about Godwin's law, but this is one instance in which valid comparisons can be made with Eugenics.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Originally Posted by cfdavid
Have you considered genetics? While the Indian continent is not overwhelmingly intelligent (by modern methods) of measurement), there are MANY Indians that succeed and are superbly intelligent. This does not apply to the masses of India however. China is a different story however, if one believes in IQ's and methods of measurement.

Why are the Germans so successful? How about the Japanese?? Is "multiculturalism" really a benefit?? Tell that to the Swedes. If only the Swedes had more "diversity", they'd have a better society!

Again, we MUST start thinking for ourselves.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Let us not so soon forget.

 

[Eta Carinae]

 

[pgg]

As much as I respect your opinion on many issues, your statements above have very dangerous leanings, especially with the cultural history I'm assuming you have based on your name.

I know about Godwin's law, but this is one instance in which valid comparisons can be made with Eugenics.

Whoa, hold on, I don't think he was advocating setting up camps for dumb people, as appealing and entertaining as that may be. The slippery slope and eugenics and Nazi references are a bit over the top.

I think the point he was raising is simply that despite what 'politically correct' people may argue, diversity might not be useful goal in and of itself. Clearly a racially diverse population isn't a prerequisite for a nation's success (he provided several examples), so maybe the United States doesn't need to shoehorn diversity into every aspect of everything we do.

What's so awful about aspiring to live in a meritocracy?

 

[Eta Carinae]

I don't think so.

I'm not so sure that basing your recognition of merit on "genetics" is too far from the assumptions of nazi germany.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Originally Posted by cfdavid
Have you considered genetics? While the Indian continent is not overwhelmingly intelligent (by modern methods) of measurement), there are MANY Indians that succeed and are superbly intelligent. This does not apply to the masses of India however. China is a different story however, if one believes in IQ's and methods of measurement.

I am a strong proponent of recognition based on merit, but to blindly assign merit based on your assumptions about "genetics" is to echo the theories of that ugly era in history.

 

[pgg]

I don't think so.

I'm not so sure that basing your recognition of merit on "genetics" is too far from the assumptions of nazi germany.

There's a huge, huge difference between 'basing your recognition of merit on genetics' (which he never suggested) and considering the possibility that genetics influences intelligence.

 

[hoyden]

Goodwin rules