In the midst of all the debate, I've never heard anyone ask what, to me, is the most obvious question: Why would a parent/family who is paying their full share of property taxes (home, auto, securities, utilities, insurance, etc) going to support the public schools, agree/decide to send their child to a private school and pay, in addition to the above taxes, the tuition and fees of the private. What are they looking for in the private they can't get from the public system (exclude the obvious of relegion)?

 

The main two things I've gathered, besides a religious based education, are:

1) Discipline

2) College prep curriculum opposed to teaching to the test

 

Amittingly I'm not a private school parent but this is the impression I get...

Is there any reason why Beechwood cannot have tuition assistance? I kinda understand the money following students from out of district, and assume that would have something to do with it.

 

 

LBBC, isn't this something that would be a good example to go to educational vouchers?:sssh:

 

As you probably remember, I am 100% for vouchers in this country. A person should be allowed to use the money their child receives from the state to educate their child at any school they see fit.

 

WITH STRICT GUIDELINES.

 

Because I would definitely see some yahoos setting up a scam to get the tuition money while not educating their child in any way, shape or form. And then after 3-4 years of getting by with it before they are caught, the child who is 3-4 years behind getting dumped onto the doorsteps of the local public school.

The main two things I've gathered, besides a religious based education, are:

1) Discipline

2) College prep curriculum opposed to teaching to the test

 

Amittingly I'm not a private school parent but this is the impression I get...

 

This is a huge misconception. Guess what is on the test. Those things that a student should know to better prepare themselves for college.

 

Do private schools get slammed for teaching material that happen to be on the SAT or the ACT?

This is a huge misconception. Guess what is on the test. Those things that a student should know to better prepare themselves for college.

 

Do private schools get slammed for teaching material that happen to be on the SAT or the ACT?

 

I was, and always have been, under the impression that colleges are more willing to accept a kid from a private school because of this. Actually, my Exec. Director is the one who mentioned it. He has kids in private schools and said that when applying for schools, people from admissions reassured him of this.

The main two things I've gathered, besides a religious based education, are:

1) Discipline

2) College prep curriculum opposed to teaching to the test

 

Amittingly I'm not a private school parent but this is the impression I get...

 

 

1) Discipline in behavior.

2) Discipline in studies.

3) The teachings of the basic tenets of our faith can't be left out of the equation.

4) Tradition.

 

Believe it or not, fielding powerhouse athletic teams doesn't really factor into the reasoning. The athletic teams are a by product of other factors coming together. Believe me, I'm not going to pay $5,500+ per year just to say my son and daughter played on a good high school sports team.

This is a huge misconception. Guess what is on the test. Those things that a student should know to better prepare themselves for college.

 

Do private schools get slammed for teaching material that happen to be on the SAT or the ACT?

 

That's what I've always heard too LBBC. People (generally teachers and administrators at the schools that don't do well on the test) love to say how wrong it is that they have to teach to the test and how much time that takes away from other things they would be testing. From what I'm told, the test material focuses on the things students should know to prepare themselves for college. So in other words, they should be teaching to the test as it is, as Martha says, "a good thing".

That's what I've always heard too LBBC. People (generally teachers and administrators at the schools that don't do well on the test) love to say how wrong it is that they have to teach to the test and how much time that takes away from other things they would be testing. From what I'm told, the test material focuses on the things students should know to prepare themselves for college. So in other words, they should be teaching to the test as it is, as Martha says, "a good thing".

 

All of us have been to class with maybe the exception of sticky.

 

Would you be perturbed if in your class the questions on the test had NOTHING to do with what you had been doing in class for the past 2 weeks?

 

What do you want us to teach? I teach Business. Should I test on nuclear physics? Or should I test on what I am teaching?

 

Here is a secret, every single private school teacher teaches the test too. They have subject matter they are going to teach on. That subject matter was decided upon by someone. In the public school's case, it is core content decided by Frankfort and to a lesser degree the local district of teachers.

 

They say, this is what a kid in World Civ, HS, should learn. Guess what the teacher teaches? That content.

 

Guess what they test over? That content.

Guess what is on the CATS testing over World Civ? That content.

I'll inform my Exec. Director that his admissions buddy is clueless...

Here is a secret, every single private school teacher teaches the test too. They have subject matter they are going to teach on. That subject matter was decided upon by someone. In the public school's case, it is core content decided by Frankfort and to a lesser degree the local district of teachers.

 

 

That would be correct. Our private HS focuses heavily on taking the ACT, because your score on that test is the basis for most scholarship money in college. Get a schollie and you're more likely to attend college and be successful. They don't wait until your senior year, then cram it all in. As a freshmen, you buy your $95 ACT prep book, :mad: and use it ALL FOUR YEARS. A little here, a little there. This on top of your normal education plan, not in place of it.

 

Myself, I started having my daughter take the ACT in 5th grade, which is allowed, just so she will not be freaked when she takes the big one. Her score goes up quite a bit every year, as it should. SHe likes to see the progress, especially since the 1st one was VERY low. It gives her goals and motivation. She also took the SAT in 8th grade, since this test in used in the NE part of the country. So, I think it is wise to prepare for these test, which are the gateway to their college choices and open many doors.

Does not come from the school.

 

Diogenes was accurate in his posts. But left out that the advantages tilt the playing field back to level and then to the privates side. Imagine how uneven it would be if the advantages Diogenes points out didn't exist.

 

The source of the funding is irrelevant. The coach's salaries do not come from the school either, but from the district and Frankfort.

Knight, I think the biggest key is the environment of the school.

 

Environment plays a role as in all schools, but I think the keys are four:

 

1 A good education (also achievable at most all public schools)

2 Safety-not that problems don't occur at private schools, but they deal with them much more expeditiously than the public sector

3 A successful high school experience (the last several years that I've kept track, LC has had a 100 % graduation rate vs 81% for the five public high schools here

4 Preparation for the next level-this is among the biggies.97-99% of graduates go on to college, 88% accepted to their first choice college

 

Now, I know there are many "but they can do this because ..." rationales, but the fact is they accomplish these things, and their ability to do so gives parents a choice. Although every parent/family operates from their own motives, notice the absence of athletics. I'm not saying it isn't considered, but it doesn't dominate the decision.