Perhaps this belongs in the Public Private forum, but because of the politics involved, I put it here.

 

It seems that there are more and more kids attending private schools and more private schools opening in the state. Using simple logic, there must be some compelling reasons for parents to foresake free public transportation and free tuition and choose private schools with the disadvantages of thousands of dollars in tuition and the need to provide private transportation. I honestly don't think athletics is a major reason. Rather, I think it is concerns (well founded or not) about the quality of education, discipline problems and teachers being required to use valuable teaching time to become surrogate parents for unprepared students and students that quite frankly don't want to be there. While AP classes help, I think parents also worry about the dumbing down effect.

 

If those concerns are legit, is it time we consider the German high school system? I realize there are concerns about the German system, the primary one being that they determine what high school track a kid is going to be placed in at too early of an age and that the system is unfair to those kids that are "late bloomers", but would the efficiencies and improvements gained under such a system be great enough to outweigh the disadvantages? I've attached a summary of the German system: http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.html

 

Would the testing to determine tracks force parents to play more of a role in a kid's education at an early age? Would students in the college prep track be better prepared if all the other kids in that track had similar abilities and post high school plans?

 

I see problems looming for our public education system and think we need to start focusing on dramatic changes. Having heard Wilson Sears talk about the private school issue, while it was at an athletic related event, if I correctly interpreted what he was really saying, I interpreted his message to be more along the lines that private schools are a definite threat to the public school system in general. I feel that he is only pushing the athletic separation issue because he believes such will make the private schools less attractive to kids/parents and will thus keep them at the public schools. I think he's afraid that the public schools could someday become the school system for discipline problems and kids not interested in going to college, with the rest of the kids going to private schools. And if that is his concern, I agree with that concern as it would be bad for our country.

 

While I'm interested in everyone's thoughts, I'd really like to know how teachers feel about this and the concept of the German high school system.

I honestly don't think athletics is a major reason. Rather, I think it is concerns (well founded or not) about the quality of education, discipline problems and teachers being required to use valuable teaching time to become surrogate parents for unprepared students and students that quite frankly don't want to be there.

 

You forgot the MAJOR reason: God has been "kicked out" of the government schools (Thank you, ACLU).

 

 

There are many of us parents that think that viewing life and education from a "theistic" point of view makes sense. Those of us with the means (and many who can barely afford it) are willing to make the sacrifices necessary.

 

For the Blutarsky family, this was the ONLY reason we were willing to forgo the FREE education offered by the state.

I think Bluto is right about a big reason (though I would definitely disagree with the statement "God has been kicked out of the schools"). For some the religious instruction they themselves can't do as well or choose not to provide is provided in private, religious schools.

 

Many parents I have known have sent their children to private schools because they do not like the element in some of our public schools. There are some schools in our small community that are filled with difficult children who come from difficult homes and lives. They are a problem area for good students feeling positive about their education. (Who wants to go to school as a young person everyday knowing that something could go wrong with a classmate(s))

 

Another reason is the depth that an education has. For many private institutions the teacher-student ratio is very low while at public schools the teacher-student ratios are much higher. This allows less time for my child with the instructor and that means that the depth and quality might be a little less than some private schools bring. I don't believe the quality of teachers are that much better in private schools, I believe the setting and those ratios afford the quality to perhaps be a better experience.

 

Along those lines, a factor in private's favor is that they don't have to admit problem students or students with severe learning issues. The publics must do that and provide for them. That is where a lot of dollars go. (Hear me, I'm not against that policy, just stating a difference of problems that private and publics face)

I think Bluto is right about a big reason (though I would definitely disagree with the statement "God has been kicked out of the schools"). For some the religious instruction they themselves can't do as well or choose not to provide is provided in private, religious schools.

 

Many parents I have known have sent their children to private schools because they do not like the element in some of our public schools. There are some schools in our small community that are filled with difficult children who come from difficult homes and lives. They are a problem area for good students feeling positive about their education. (Who wants to go to school as a young person everyday knowing that something could go wrong with a classmate(s))

 

Another reason is the depth that an education has. For many private institutions the teacher-student ratio is very low while at public schools the teacher-student ratios are much higher. This allows less time for my child with the instructor and that means that the depth and quality might be a little less than some private schools bring. I don't believe the quality of teachers are that much better in private schools, I believe the setting and those ratios afford the quality to perhaps be a better experience.

 

Along those lines, a factor in private's favor is that they don't have to admit problem students or students with severe learning issues. The publics must do that and provide for them. That is where a lot of dollars go. (Hear me, I'm not against that policy, just stating a difference of problems that private and publics face)

 

Hatz, do you think the German system would solve some of those problems?

Hatz, do you think the German system would solve some of those problems?

 

From what I read on your link it is a good idea but wonder how it would rank around "these parts."

 

One thing going for Germany is the historic value of education that German culture has placed on studies. There are parts of our country (more than I care to think about) that so undervalue education or are outright hostile to those who pursue advanced learning that it might be hard to help those students advance. There needs to be strong parent support regardless of the system but therein lies a lot of the issue. For some parents who maybe want their child to further his/her education, they just don't have the skills to help them in their formative years. (Kind of like I Am Sam without the severe mental handicap.)

I don't like it (the German system). I don't like how they tell you what you are going to be when you grow up. If you put kids in the slower learning school, they will give up IMO. It would be like building a proletariat. Keep them working and uneducated until they beg the government for change.

I don't like it (the German system). I don't like how they tell you what you are going to be when you grow up. If you put kids in the slower learning school, they will give up IMO. It would be like building a proletariat. Keep them working and uneducated until they beg the government for change.

 

 

Why would the student give up in the slower learning school? Special Ed teachers that I know and LD teachers do not give up on kids now, why would they do so if they are within an environment of peers who can nurture them through at the level of growth they have shown a tendency towards?

Why would the student give up in the slower learning school? Special Ed teachers that I know and LD teachers do not give up on kids now, why would they do so if they are within an environment of peers who can nurture them through at the level of growth they have shown a tendency towards?

Maybe you are right. IMO, if there were three schools, and I were a 13, 14 year old kid, and I was in the slowest one, I don't think I'd work my butt off (especially knowing that there was little chance to move up). And it doesn't seem like this system could reward the top students of the lower school for their hard work.

 

Like you said, maybe if we (as a country) had a stress on education it could. It would be similar to the failure of the Swedish model- it took an entire generation for the effects of new, socialist policies to truly take effect on the population, because the previous generation had grown up with excellent work ethic. But I think that eventually, those that were placed in the slow school would not care about education at all.

I have been advocating a German system on this site for a year. There are too many kids who do not want to learn being forced to learn and teachers who do not want to teach them being forced to teach them.

 

I look at education as a privilege, not a right. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to provide you with a free education. The Courts disagree with me. However, it doesn't specify what type of education. I think we are free to tell little Johnny and his parents that he does not want to learn to go to college, so here is some money to spend on vocational training. We want you to learn how to handle nuclear waste. Go do that and make good money. God speed.

 

I agree, LN.

It's an interesting approach--much different than U.S. schools. The Realschule and Hauptschule German schools emphasize vocational apprenticeships, and they must do a very good job at preparing a skilled workforce for manufacturing. We really have nothing comparable here in the U.S. and as a result, people involved in manufacturing here are often unskilled labor and incapable of performing complex manufacturing operations (at least without $$$ training).

Edited June 11, 200818 yr by H

Maybe you are right. IMO, if there were three schools, and I were a 13, 14 year old kid, and I was in the slowest one, I don't think I'd work my butt off (especially knowing that there was little chance to move up). And it doesn't seem like this system could reward the top students of the lower school for their hard work.

 

Like you said, maybe if we (as a country) had a stress on education it could. It would be similar to the failure of the Swedish model- it took an entire generation for the effects of new, socialist policies to truly take effect on the population, because the previous generation had grown up with excellent work ethic. But I think that eventually, those that were placed in the slow school would not care about education at all.

 

I think you missed the part that allowed top students in the less intensive schools to "move up" to the intensive school.

 

This country does suffer terribly from parents not stressing education enough. That's one of the reason I like the German system. Why adversely effect the education of those kids ready, willing and able to take their studies seriously or force them to attend a private school? Eventually some parents might just realize that unless they start taking their children's education seriously, certain doors would be closed. And if they didn't, there neglect would not hold other kids back. Harsh to some and adversely impacts some kids no doubt, but at some point we have to start puting the best interests of society ahead of things and we have to start making parents and kids personally responsible for their actions and inactions. I'm tired of the village being forced to raise the kids of other parents, bringing the whole village down. And I think there is a valid argument that the neglect of parents to stress education to their kids is bringing our public school system down.

I have been advocating a German system on this site for a year. There are too many kids who do not want to learn being forced to learn and teachers who do not want to teach them being forced to teach them.

 

I look at education as a privilege, not a right. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to provide you with a free education. The Courts disagree with me. However, it doesn't specify what type of education. I think we are free to tell little Johnny and his parents that he does not want to learn to go to college, so here is some money to spend on vocational training. We want you to learn how to handle nuclear waste. Go do that and make good money. God speed.

 

I agree, LN.

 

 

I don't think I have ever agreed more emphatically with anything you have ever posted.

 

There are many reasons that I chose to put my kids in Catholic schools. I also feel education is a responsibility. It's a responsibility that should fall squarely on the family to ensure their child gets the most of their educational opportunity, whether through public or private schools. The current legislative restrictions remove the responsibility from the families and from the children, and place it on the schools. And there are no limits, it seems. In the United States today, we who are born Americans take education for granted. I don't think the education one can receive in public schools is less than that one can receive in a private school, in some cases. But when teachers are forced to try and educate a classroom mixed with kids who want to learn, and kids who don't, and kids with mixed abilities simply because the law requires that all things be equal, it does nothing to enforce the value of education.

 

One of the greatest strengths of the private schools that I am familiar with is that they "track" students. They place students into classes based upon their abilities, and move them up or down based upon their performance. And kids can be in different "tracks" in different classes.

One of the greatest strengths of the private schools that I am familiar with is that they "track" students. They place students into classes based upon their abilities, and move them up or down based upon their performance. And kids can be in different "tracks" in different classes.

 

Love the avatar (& location), RM!!

Love the avatar (& location), RM!!

 

Thanks, Bluto!

I won't be popular with my more conservative brethren for saying this, but I think that a lot of the contention that private schools provide better quality teaching/curriculum/results is a lot of perception, and not necessarily reality. I happen to be in a position to know what the standardized test score averages are for a lot of private schools, and they aren't all that much better than the public schools in general. Across the whole spectrum, private school student performance may be stronger, and that is a reflection of the flexibility that they have when not bound by state regulation. I think that is where the strong point lies, along with the ability to teach from a Christian perspective if they so choose.

 

I can also tell you from first hand experience that, per capita, I see just as many juvenile offenders from the private schools as I do from the publics, so I think the "behavior" benefits is at least slightly exaggerated as well.