/dev/null Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577465413553320588.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Heretics! Burn them!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics). DING DING DING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics). DING DING DING!!! Well that's because private school is racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Well that's because private school is racist. yup, and those private schools have all those off shore accounts too. Freakin racists!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 As you are no doubt aware from reading Obama/DNC handouts (and their stenographers in the media) Any cuts, to any federal or state program, will only effect teachers, fireman and police. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 10 short years ago... This was the republican sacred trinity after 911... When did cops and fire become dems? Teachers I can see... But cops and fire? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 10 short years ago... This was the republican sacred trinity after 911... When did cops and fire become dems? Teachers I can see... But cops and fire? LOL. You (purposely ?) misunderstand. No one is saying all firemen and policemen are dems, but the democrat party, supported by their unions, drag the poor workers in to block ANY cuts in government spending. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 You (purposely ?) misunderstand. No one is saying all firemen and policemen are dems, but the democrat party, supported by their unions, drag the poor workers in to block ANY cuts in government spending. . Unless you are Scott Walker, R WI... Then you just make the fireman and police exempt... I guess that's the Holy Duet in Wisconsin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics). DING DING DING!!! Even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics? I don't see how that is possible. It is not as simple as dismissing the outliers. Students do not exist in a vacuum. A few students can have an impact beyond their own grades. Private schools and charters kick out "bad" kids and they wind up in public schools. Some other things to consider in about what is reported in that article: First about the "stagnation" of student performance; Could it be possible that without all those hires and resources devoted to education that student performance would be worse? I'm not saying that's the case but it sure seems like a correlation and not causation. Second, I don't understand what the author is proposing. It seems like public schools = bad and private schools = good. Why is that? Couldn't public schools just do what private schools do? Wat is that exactly? Have fewer teachers and smaller class sizes? It doesn't work that way. Private schools have limited enrollment, the more students that apply, the more selective the schools can be with their admissions. I'd wager that private schools succeed more because of small class sizes and parental involvement (financial and/or actual). For public schools to create a similar environment, MORE teachers and staff should be hired. Teachers (and support staff) to keep class sizes down, and counselors and groups like the Buffalo Police Department's task force (essentially truant officers) to get more parents invested in their children's futures (at the very least getting the kids to school, and hopefully with an appropriate attitude toward their education). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Unless you are Scott Walker, R WI... Then you just make the fireman and police exempt... I guess that's the Holy Duet in Wisconsin. Those are the politics of passage. Walker wanted to go after all the unions, but couldn't if he wanted his effort to succeed and his agenda to pass. Once this is revisited by the Wisconsin State Court, the provisions exempting police and fire are likely to be struck down, and Walker will get the whole sale change he wanted in the first place. If you don't like how the sausages are made, stay out of the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics? I don't see how that is possible. It is not as simple as dismissing the outliers. Students do not exist in a vacuum. A few students can have an impact beyond their own grades. Private schools and charters kick out "bad" kids and they wind up in public schools. Some other things to consider in about what is reported in that article: First about the "stagnation" of student performance; Could it be possible that without all those hires and resources devoted to education that student performance would be worse? I'm not saying that's the case but it sure seems like a correlation and not causation. Second, I don't understand what the author is proposing. It seems like public schools = bad and private schools = good. Why is that? Couldn't public schools just do what private schools do? Wat is that exactly? Have fewer teachers and smaller class sizes? It doesn't work that way. Private schools have limited enrollment, the more students that apply, the more selective the schools can be with their admissions. I'd wager that private schools succeed more because of small class sizes and parental involvement (financial and/or actual). For public schools to create a similar environment, MORE teachers and staff should be hired. Teachers (and support staff) to keep class sizes down, and counselors and groups like the Buffalo Police Department's task force (essentially truant officers) to get more parents invested in their children's futures (at the very least getting the kids to school, and hopefully with an appropriate attitude toward their education). There are private schools that specialize in taking on the troubled students. You know, the ones that have no parental support and are failing in the public school system. They do this at less cost than what it is for the public school student. Play up the liberal teacher's union schtick all you want but the facts aren't with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There are private schools that specialize in taking on the troubled students. You know, the ones that have no parental support and are failing in the public school system. They do this at less cost than what it is for the public school student. Play up the liberal teacher's union schtick all you want but the facts aren't with you. I know that there are private schools like that. I just saw a piece on one of them on PBS last weekend. However, the basis for schools like that are small class sizes and specialized student and family counseling. Even then, not all of them work. I'm not trying to play up a schtick- I'm asking legit questions that aren't answered by you or the article. What is it exactly that makes private schools better than public schools? To me, it seems the obvious answer is predicated on small class sizes and selective admission and selective hiring of teachers/staff. I'm saying I don't see that as practical on a scale as large as the entirety of school-age children. Like I asked in my earlier posts, what exactly are the "facts?" Is it really $ per student? If so, how is that money spent differently than in public schools? I find the "adjustment" for socio-economic factors dubious. I'd like to know how the adjustment is made; Which actual factors contribute to this adjustment, and which factors are ignored? And again, there is a lot of correlation in that article being passed off as causation. I think a great deal of the problems with education are due to society as a whole rather than specific policies. Where is the adjustment for that? I ask these questions simply as part of a general question: If it is so easy for private schools, why aren't public schools already following the same model? If your answer is, "Unions," you will have to do better than that. If you think unions are the only problem, wouldn't student performance be the same, but simply cost more? Time to do a little more critical thinking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 What is it exactly that makes private schools better than public schools? They are not run by the government. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 They are not run by the government. :wallbash: No actually the answer is they're run for profit. Teachers have to perform or their out of a job. Interesting how that motivates people to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 No actually the answer is they're run for profit. Teachers have to perform or their out of a job. Interesting how that motivates people to be successful. Not to mention, private schools make their pitch off the fact that they only keep xx number of children per classroom, and if that number is exceeded, they bring in an assistant. It's a more balanced approach that allows the teachers to give the individual attention to students based on their capabilities, not based on some idiotic model that was put in place by a union. You want your child in a class with 35 other kids run by one person who can never be fired? No chance in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Not to mention, private schools make their pitch off the fact that they only keep xx number of children per classroom, and if that number is exceeded, they bring in an assistant. It's a more balanced approach that allows the teachers to give the individual attention to students based on their capabilities, not based on some idiotic model that was put in place by a union. You want your child in a class with 35 other kids run by one person who can never be fired? No chance in hell. Are you kidding me... My daughters class has 36 kids in it... We send her to a private school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are you kidding me... My daughters class has 36 kids in it... We send her to a private school. And if I remember correctly you sending them to the Private School for Cheapskates. What the hell do you expect for $30 a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are you kidding me... My daughters class has 36 kids in it... We send her to a private school. Why the hell would you pay money to send your kids to a school with class sizes like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are you kidding me... My daughters class has 36 kids in it... We send her to a private school. That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Why the hell would you pay money to send your kids to a school with class sizes like that? Because the public schools are worse... Parents don't give a !@#$! At least there is parental innvolvement with the Catholic schools. And... They school district can use the money with having to worry about my kids... We are a poor working class parish. That was last year's class... They closed one Catholic school and combined it with ours... Really bizarre because about 15 more 4th graders were combined with the 5th grade class last year, bringing that class to almost 30. This up coming year she will be going to another school... They will have two 5th grade classes with about 25 kids in each. Tuitution is about 4500 bucks. You gotta figure, in my district most houses go easily for a 100 grand... My was built new 17 years ago for 150. The tax base is just not there. I don't even want to see the numbers after the housing crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts