What is the big deal with private schools and tuition?

[Fastbreak]

I understand that getting a scholarship with room and board, books, tuition, etc. to a university is a big deal. Public or private, universities require all non-scholarship athletes to pay for these expenses. Not everyone is able to afford a college education.

 

BUT

 

Every American child is entitled to a High School education. Free tuition, free books, in many cases free transportation and free food. There is not one thing in this regard that any private school is able to offer students and their families that goes above and beyond this basic privilege that has become a right in America.

 

In this regard, even if every private school offered a full scholarship to every private school student (which I assure you is quite impossible) where is the incentive? What makes a private school so much more desirable than a comparable public school that this makes for an uneven playing field?

 

The fact that every tax paying parent of a child in private schools is also paying a percentage of the cost of educating children in public schools is never appreciated. By not having all the private school kids in public schools, demands on resources at the public schools are reduced. The same pool of public school funding is essentially spread among fewer students in public schools. Class sizes are reduced, more attention and more money is available to enhance the public school experience for every child.

 

Why is this a bad thing?

 

It would seem to me that everyone affiliated with public schools would be thankful for the sacrifice of those involved with private schools that allow the public schools to share greater resources per capita than would be possible without private schools.

 

I am sincere in asking this question. I have no hidden agenda to spring upon anyone who responds. I genuinely want to understand how the issue of tuition at a private school is even worthy of consideration.

[woodsrider]

I understand that getting a scholarship with room and board, books, tuition, etc. to a university is a big deal. Public or private, universities require all non-scholarship athletes to pay for these expenses. Not everyone is able to afford a college education.

 

BUT

 

Every American child is entitled to a High School education. Free tuition, free books, in many cases free transportation and free food. There is not one thing in this regard that any private school is able to offer students and their families that goes above and beyond this basic privilege that has become a right in America.

 

In this regard, even if every private school offered a full scholarship to every private school student (which I assure you is quite impossible) where is the incentive? What makes a private school so much more desirable than a comparable public school that this makes for an uneven playing field?

 

The fact that every tax paying parent of a child in private schools is also paying a percentage of the cost of educating children in public schools is never appreciated. By not having all the private school kids in public schools, demands on resources at the public schools are reduced. The same pool of public school funding is essentially spread among fewer students in public schools. Class sizes are reduced, more attention and more money is available to enhance the public school experience for every child.

 

Why is this a bad thing?

 

It would seem to me that everyone affiliated with public schools would be thankful for the sacrifice of those involved with private schools that allow the public schools to share greater resources per capita than would be possible without private schools.

 

I am sincere in asking this question. I have no hidden agenda to spring upon anyone who responds. I genuinely want to understand how the issue of tuition at a private school is even worthy of consideration.

 

Many people view a private school education as a better education. And satistically they are probably right. Any education is only as good as you make it. Any kid can get just as good of an education from a public school as they can a private school. You get out of it what you want to get out of it. A private school education is no better.

[Fastbreak]

Many people view a private school education as a better education. And satistically they are probably right. Any education is only as good as you make it. Any kid can get just as good of an education from a public school as they can a private school. You get out of it what you want to get out of it. A private school education is no better.

I appreciate your opinion, but if you read any of the many threads already posted on this topic, the public school proponents insist that across similar socio-economic groups the test scores are indistinguishable.

 

Either the publics admit that a private school education is superior, and therefore an incentive in and of itself, OR that a public education and a private education are equal, thus eliminating tuition as an incentive.

 

It can't be both ways.

[SilverShadow]

Fastbreak, your economic model is all wrong. You are making the wrong assumption the financing of public education is a static amount. The more students enrolled in a school the higher amount from the state. Also, you have growth financing that would kick in if the increase were to hit a certain amount. Also, federal money would be increased under a number of different options.

 

I do not know of any public school district that is thankful not to have more students enroll in their schools vs. many private schools I know that cap and limit the amount of students they are able/willing to accept.

[SilverShadow]

I appreciate your opinion, but if you read any of the many threads already posted on this topic, the public school proponents insist that across similar socio-economic groups the test scores are indistinguishable.

 

Either the publics admit that a private school education is superior, and therefore an incentive in and of itself, OR that a public education and a private education are equal, thus eliminating tuition as an incentive.

 

It can't be both ways.

 

 

You fail to acknowledge the fact that public education is MANDATED by law and private education is created by self serving groups.

[rockmom]

You fail to acknowledge the fact that public education is MANDATED by law and private education is created by self serving groups.

 

 

I assume you mean self serving in that there are components in private school education not offered in public school education (i.e. Religious instruction). I really am hoping that's what you mean, as I would really hate to think you'd posted that as a negative comment about the Private schools.

 

Fastbreak, I don't think many people either understand, or believe, that at least for religiously affiliated private schools, people would pay for the privilage of having religious instruction, and religiously focused activities for their children.

 

I also don't believe that most believe the education is better in respect to the core curriculum per se, but that it does exist in that the Private schools are able to maintain stricter disciplinary policies, and other tangible and intangible ways.

[SilverShadow]

I assume you mean self serving in that there are components in private school education not offered in public school education (i.e. Religious instruction). I really am hoping that's what you mean, as I would really hate to think you'd posted that as a negative comment about the Private schools.

 

Fastbreak, I don't think many people either understand, or believe, that at least for religiously affiliated private schools, people would pay for the privilage of having religious instruction, and religiously focused activities for their children.

 

I also don't believe that most believe the education is better in respect to the core curriculum per se, but that it does exist in that the Private schools are able to maintain stricter disciplinary policies, and other tangible and intangible ways.

 

No, it is not meant as a negative but a point of position. Public schools are MANDATED to offer and accept the entire community. ANY private school can choose its rules and grounds for acceptance and operation. It is a "self serving" enterprise. Just like a public golf course vs. a private country club.

 

That does not take away its value to those who participate in its programs or the many good works such performs. It is simply a parameter of difference between the two.

[rockmom]

No, it is not meant as a negative but a point of position. Public schools are MANDATED to offer and accept the entire community. ANY private school can choose its rules and grounds for acceptance and operation. It is a "self serving" enterprise. Just like a public golf course vs. a private country club.

 

That does not take away its value to those who participate in its programs or the many good works such performs. It is simply a parameter of difference between the two.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying. I was a little taken aback by my initial intrpretation of your statement.

[Rock85]

Many people view a private school education as a better education. And satistically they are probably right. Any education is only as good as you make it. Any kid can get just as good of an education from a public school as they can a private school. You get out of it what you want to get out of it. A private school education is no better.

 

 

You may be right, then again, you may be wrong. My freshman and sophomore classes at college ( core classes) were much easier than classes I took at Trinity. My sister went to public school. I was vastly more prepared for college curriculum than she was.

[Fastbreak]

SilverShadow

 

My economic model is not that far off when you consider the added infrastructure (i.e. - school buildings) that would be necessary to accommodate the increased enrollment, added teachers, added books and curriculum materials, etc. We're talking increased taxes for everyone, especially when you consider that all the current private school kids would need to absorb their fair public share.

 

As to whether the school is “mandated” or created” the fact remains that every child has reasonably equal access to a high school education.

 

I acknowledge RM's points and add to the choices that either:

 

The public schools admit that a private school education is superior, and therefore an incentive in and of itself, thus making tuition a valid issue.

 

OR

 

A public education and a private education are equal, but private schools are better equipped to discipline children and to teach them about God, therefore private schools are better than public schools, thus making tuition an incentive.

 

OR

 

A public education and a private education are equal, thus eliminating tuition as an incentive.

 

OR

 

Everyone knows that public schools are vastly superior to private schools in every way. We just don’t like the idea of inferior schools with fewer resources beating us at our own game, so they must be punished for achieving.

 

It can only be one.

[SilverShadow]

I am sincere in asking this question. I have no hidden agenda to spring upon anyone who responds. I genuinely want to understand how the issue of tuition at a private school is even worthy of consideration.

 

See, I must have made a mistake. Took your comment of hidden agenda and made a bad assumption that may mean no foregone conclusions by your part. But, thanks for making it clear.

 

And as to your multiple choice options you left quite a few off the table. So, just add one to it. Private schools have been suggestion their financial aid only covers "up to 50%" of the cost of tuition. OK, so if you had 100 students apply and had absolutely no ability to pay, would they get a waiver of the 50% or not. And if they would, then the 50% financial aid arguement is not valid. If they would not, then thank the Lord for public schools for many in our country and there, public schools is significantly better.

[Frances Bavier]

To me, a private school has one HUGE, immutable advantage over a public school - it can (and does) reject any student that does not behave in class.

 

Since not all privates are religiously based, the "religious education" advantage is not universal. That said, I'm sure that there is a percentage of students in every private school that do not attend for the sake of the religious offerings.

 

Frances

[woodsrider]

You may be right, then again, you may be wrong. My freshman and sophomore classes at college ( core classes) were much easier than classes I took at Trinity. My sister went to public school. I was vastly more prepared for college curriculum than she was.

 

I understand what you are saying but the classes are there (in public schools) if you want to take them. Where the problem comes in is what may be a required class in private school is just an option in public. The public schools have to offer a base education. Now most, if not all, offer an education above and beyond that. But unless you are very motivated kid with your head on straight thinking about 10 years in the future you will never see the inside of those class rooms. Or if your parents don't push you into those classes.

[Frances Bavier]

...A public education and a private education are equal, but private schools are better equipped to discipline children and to teach them about God, therefore private schools are better than public schools, thus making tuition an incentive.

 

In most cases you may be correct, but in light of the fact that just under 25% of all private schools are nonsectarian, the "God" angle would hold no water (at least for that portion).

 

Overall, your entire post that I culled this from commits the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance (mind you, I am not calling you ignorant). Just because those are the only 4 situations that you can concieve of, it does not mean that one of them must be true. It is possible that there are alternative answers that you have not presented. A lot of that would depend on the premises that you have assumed, to build your argument. With those very premises being open to debate, your four possible conclusions are artificially limited.

 

Thanks,

Frances

[woodsrider]

SilverShadow

 

My economic model is not that far off when you consider the added infrastructure (i.e. - school buildings) that would be necessary to accommodate the increased enrollment, added teachers, added books and curriculum materials, etc. We're talking increased taxes for everyone, especially when you consider that all the current private school kids would need to absorb their fair public share.

 

As to whether the school is “mandated” or created” the fact remains that every child has reasonably equal access to a high school education.

 

I acknowledge RM's points and add to the choices that either:

 

The public schools admit that a private school education is superior, and therefore an incentive in and of itself, thus making tuition a valid issue.

 

OR

 

A public education and a private education are equal, but private schools are better equipped to discipline children and to teach them about God, therefore private schools are better than public schools, thus making tuition an incentive.

 

OR

 

A public education and a private education are equal, thus eliminating tuition as an incentive.

 

OR

 

Everyone knows that public schools are vastly superior to private schools in every way. We just don’t like the idea of inferior schools with fewer resources beating us at our own game, so they must be punished for achieving.

 

It can only be one.

 

I think is not that one is superior over the other but what they are perceived as being. Again the education is not superior but the environment probable is.