NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why?

As for me, I would choose a Private School. Because well, let's face it, Public Schools suck. I've seen the incompetent of Public School administration (like suspending a 13 year old kid for drawing a picture of a gun.) and I've seen some of the worse public school ever when I was looking at school in Charlotte, NC. I've also seen private schools, and really Private Schools seem to be better run. There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools and kids are actually learning stuff instead of just learning how to take a test, (thank you No Child left Behind.) In my humble opinion, private school just seems a lot better than Public Schools.

If I'm still in this state, I'll say public.

If I'm anywhere else, probably private.

My kid was in private school and I pulled her out. Too much emphasis on test scores and not about learning. They bragged about getting 1/2 hour a week for music. One session of art and how they had so much homework the kids would be exhausted.

For the amount of money I paid, I expected more.

Hmmm...

Ok, for elemntary school in the states, probably public, possibly private. In Japan, public.

For junior high, public for the US, private for Japan.

For high school, Maybe private for the US, but given Japan's system, private for Japan.

Public. There is only one private school that is close enough to reasonably send my kid there. More (ie vast majority) parents send their kids there as a punishment, than based on the quality of education.

Personally, I would rather send my kid to a public school than a private school. Alright, yes a private school may provide a better education, however, the people that generally go through private schools end up thinking of themselves more highly and acting more pompous as a result. In Auckland, we have two schools, Diocesan and St Cuthberts, where the chicks from there are so pompous that I just cannot get along with the ex pupils that I come across

Home school, no question.

I would, of course, work on finding the best resources and support I could, and look into things like auditing college courses (for older kids) and special programs offered by museums, libraries etc. I would also make sure that the kid was involved in community activities like sports and clubs so that they got all the socialization that public school provides. I like the plan that some people use where they form a home school co-op so that a person who knows more about a particular subject teaches a group of kids on that subject, and all the parents in the co-op share teaching responsibilities. This allows for socialization as well.

Someone should clarify what public and private means, because don't they call "private" schools in England "public" or something?

Anything but home school. You cannot recreate socialization that is found at a public school. Of course there are some unsavory types there, but it is a reflection of reality which cannot be experienced at home school and, to some extent, even private school.

My cousin, who want to an elite church-sponsored private baptist school was dumped into public school system in the 7th grade scared of anyone who wasn't white and baptist. I specifically remember her being too scared to go to the bathroom by herself. All of these fears, of course, are nonsense but is an extreme example of some of the drawbacks of not being educated in an environment which exposes students to others of all races, creeds, classes etc.

I would send my kid to Public School. Unless I had so much money that I didn't know what to do with it all. But not Home School. Think about it the only friends you would make would be your Mum....

Someone should clarify what public and private means, because don't they call "private" schools in England "public" or something?

Public is as the word implies. Schools funded by the public through taxes. They can't turn away anybody.

Private does not get federal/state money and can limit attendance. The only thing that is expected is that the children be taught certain things.

I would never put my kids in a public school in the US, they would probably get sniped by some lunatic f-ers when they are standing in lunch line. On the other hand I would never put my kids in a private school in Sweden since the principal is most likely to run of with all the money and tha only frineds one would make there is stuck up snobby punks. :D

Public is as the word implies. Schools funded by the public through taxes. They can't turn away anybody.

Private does not get federal/state money and can limit attendance. The only thing that is expected is that the children be taught certain things.
In the UK we have public (or independent) and state schools. Public schools were originally called that to differentiate them from private education - ie. home-schooling.

Public, they need to know how to put up with bullshit teachers, jerks and bullies. If the school is really incompetant then tutoring once or twice a week in either a subject that they are horrible or really good at to either catch them up or excel.

Public. I went to public school. I'm fine. I had excellent teachers, except for one, but you can't win all the time. There was a wide selection of classes, and good (though underfunded) arts programs, including an excellent music program (most important to me).

There were kids who did drugs, but it was big enough of a place so that if you didn't want to be a part of that scene, you could go through totally oblivious to it.

My best friend's parents sent him to a small private school. Apparently, the teachers sucked (not having to meet public school requirements), the class selection sucked. The music and arts programs were a total joke.

Not to mention, it was so small that there was only one student culture, and the place was a total drug den. And if you didn't follow that, you got singled out, because you were all alone. I rather liked high school. My best friend hated it. Sure, there were people I didn't like in a lot of my classes, but they were different people each period. My poor friend had to see the same dickwads for hours on end.

Over the last few decades, there has been a continuing effort to demean public schools as if they are all inferior to private ones. This is a commonly believed falsehood generated by the fact that some public schools are crappy, and private schools have a vested interest in making people believe all public schools suck. This, however, simply isn't true. The schools in my town are quite good, except for the private school, ironically. Of course, Alameda's a pretty decent place. To a large extent, schools reflect the populations who attend them. Alameda has a very economically diverse population, but they're not grouped in one area or another, you have small apartments often cheek to cheek with large victorians. The students at Alameda's schools generally come from educated families.

Oakland public schools of course, are not all that spectacular. Oakland is not a completely poor city, but a very large portion of its populace is. Many of the students who attend Oakland schools come from uneducated families. Additionally, Oakland does not attract as many teachers, because let's face it, it's kind of a dangerous place. So to a teacher looking for a job, an opening in Alameda, or Berkeley, or Walnut Creek, or Lafayette, all much more well-off locales, is a much more attractive proposition.

Anyway, that's my little rant. Sorry for getting long-winded.

Edit: Additionally, as someone pointed out, public schools are a cross-section of the community a kid lives in. Sometime in their life, they're going to have to deal with people other than just those who can afford to go to private schools. Even if I end up rich, I want my kids to have friends who are poor, so they get an understanding of what exactly that means. Of course, in my family we don't believe in sheltering kids from reality.

I went to public school and honestly have no complaints whatsoever.
And schools around here seem to be perfectly ok. I don't see the point in spending thousands for sending my kid to get exactly the same education as in a public school...

Maybe it depends where you are living.

But home school is the worst choice. The child would have a serious lack of social interaction.

And no you can’t replace or mimic this one by sending them to scouts, sports or whatever group.
Don’t forget that children go to such groups, which are at a regular school as well.

You are at school for 7 – 8 hours every weekday. I want to see if you can catch that one up with sending them to ballet.

There’s another reason why home school is a bad choice.
You are not a professional. If you don’t know anything about repairing a TV then don’t do it.

So why would you teach your own child while you didn’t learn how to teach?
And please don’t start that your teachers don’t know anything and that you know it better, etc, because most of the time, you don’t.

I’m living in Belgium and almost everybody is following public schools. Those schools are excellent, so why sending them to private schools?

Well, some people go to some private schools because they are easier to attend. And even if that one is not enough parents can buy the qualification. We call that kind of guys fils à papa.

Some people go to some private schools just because they are misled by the excellent reputation or for the network.

As an example, I followed private courses at Vlerick Management School.

It has an excellent reputation. You will receive and can build your own interesting network. But the courses were just average. I ‘learned’ stuff, I already received at high school.

Since government schools (sorry, but I won't refer to an organization run with stolen money as "public") are immorally funded, indoctrinate in socialist propaganda, and are filled with drug addicts (yes, I went to a "public" school), there is no way I'd send my kids there. Since the curriculum at private schools isn't much better and they usually teach the unAmerican idea of conformity, I wouldn't send my kids there either.

Because it is impossible to criticize the results of homeschooling (homeschoolers always win the Spelling and Geography Bees and actually reach their potential), the socialists who propagandize for government schooling can only plausibly use the socialization lie. What socialization occurs in the schools that is worthwhile (I don't count the nihilistic disrespect for yourself that mind-altering substances and sex for the sake of sex represent or the social engineering to promote obedience to the government)? Personally, I believe in unschooling, which is a form of self-led homeschooling (this was the educational method that led to the rise of the smartest generation of all time during the Age of Libertarian Revolutions, among them were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington).

I think the choice of school would depend on the character and personal choices of the child itself. If I had a shy child that needed a lot of attention and feedback I think I would make the choice of having that child home-schooled until he or she would be ready to 'advance', so to speak. I don't think home-scholing is a bad thing. Like with public school and private school it has its pro's and con's.
Otherwise I would send him or her to a public school. I've attended a number of public schools as I moved several times before the age of ten and though there were some schools I thought overcrowded and lacking in studying material I still came out fine.
Though as I said, a child would want to be involved in the choice of schooling too. I would not force my child to attend home-school if he or she prefers the company of other children in a 'normal' school.

Studies have shown there's not much difference (if any) between private and public schools re: exam results.
Any differences there are come from the fact private schools can pick and choose who attends and, importantly, of those who do attend who sits the exams - to the point of preventing those whom the school thinks will fail from sitting(and thus sullying the good name of the school). Hence their 'outstanding' exam results.

I was privately schooled since early high school.

My son/daugher will be homeschooled, once he or she is born.

But home school is the worst choice. The child would have a serious lack of social interaction.

You know that is a myth, right?

My parents were teachers in the NYC Public Schools.
I was sent to Public School.
I made Phi Beta Kappa and my GPAs were 3.77 Undergrad, 3.91 Grad.
I became a teacher.
I teach in Public School.

There's nothing wrong with the public school education as long as you care to be educated. Those students who are serious about it or even normally apathetic do well -- those who don't want to be there should be found alternative methods for being able to find a decent job.

I think the choice of school would depend on the character and personal choices of the child itself. If I had a shy child that needed a lot of attention and feedback I think I would make the choice of having that child home-schooled until he or she would be ready to 'advance', so to speak. I don't think home-scholing is a bad thing. Like with public school and private school it has its pro's and con's.
Otherwise I would send him or her to a public school. I've attended a number of public schools as I moved several times before the age of ten and though there were some schools I thought overcrowded and lacking in studying material I still came out fine.
Though as I said, a child would want to be involved in the choice of schooling too. I would not force my child to attend home-school if he or she prefers the company of other children in a 'normal' school.

Putting a shy child at home???

And what will you do when he/she is a young adult and would go to the office for the first time and (s)he's still shy?

Keeping him/her at home as well?

I don't think one can 'cure' shyness by avoiding meetings with other little humans.

I've gone to private school for about, 11 or 12 years. It's not really too bad at all.

You know that is a myth, right?

I would say not. I had a friend at Uni who was home schooled, and he had some of his friends who, to put it bluntly, his parents had selected as friends for him to socialise with because they were also home schooled, come up to visit. Talk about trapped in their own little worlds. He had no idea what hit him when he reached university.
Very intelligent lad, sadly dropped out because he couldn't cope. Shame really.:(

In the UK we have public (or independent) and state schools. Public schools were originally called that to differentiate them from private education - ie. home-schooling.
I thought they were called that because the were open to the general public (so long as you paid), whereas before that schools were only available for those training to join the clergy.

There's nothing wrong with the public school education as long as you care to be educated. Those students who are serious about it or even normally apathetic do well -- those who don't want to be there should be found alternative methods for being able to find a decent job.
apprenticeships are good. Shame that they're so out of vogue these days.
Back in NZ, I'd really push some students to join the armed forces, mainly because the only thing holding them back was a complete lack of discipline in their lives (both inside and outside school). They definitely weren't going to get it in their current social situations and the army was the most convenient place they could get that from.
A few did do as I suggested and meeting them a few years later the transformation was astounding.

You know that is a myth, right?

Is it?

Who will be in general more verbal and know better to interact with other people?

* A child getting his education from mama whole day long.
* A child that learn, play, (learn to) team together with little people of his/her age.

Btw, there is more than social interaction alone...

What about parents that are giving a one-sided view of things? They really could block easily access to opinions and information. Think about parents that are extremist in something…

School is also a watchdog for children in trouble. Children that were sexual abused or molested are often signaled by school first...

In some countries and occasions, home school is the only option (by the distance to school). I saw once a documentary about an Australian family living in the outback. The closest school was 800 miles away...

Why keep parents their children at home? Face it, most of the time…for religious reasons.

Public.

Personally, I would rather send my kid to a public school than a private school. Alright, yes a private school may provide a better education, however, the people that generally go through private schools end up thinking of themselves more highly and acting more pompous as a result. In Auckland, we have two schools, Diocesan and St Cuthberts, where the chicks from there are so pompous that I just cannot get along with the ex pupils that I come across

Hmm, that's strange.
The private schoolgirls here in Wellington are awesome haha.. Some of my best mates are from private schools.
As for if I had a kid.. Well, if I had enough money, probably private.

In Ireland, Private is pretty much the only way to go for a good education and safe childhood. Although Dublin Private schools r famous for snobs and rich b***S I go to a private school and I would definetly send my child to a private school! But I think in America the difference between private and public schools is less obvious?!

Is it?

Who will be in general more verbal and know better to interact with other people?

* A child getting his education from mama whole day long.
* A child that learn, play, (learn to) team together with little people of his/her age.

Btw, there is more than social interaction alone...

There have been multiple studies of children at play, etc. it's generally proven that homeschooled kids perform normally when interacting with other children. And they grow up to be more socially involved then other children.

To quote wikipedia:

In 2003, the National Home Education Research Institute conducted a survey of 7,300 U.S. adults who had been homeschooled (5,000 for more than seven years). Their findings included:

* Homeschool graduates are active and involved in their communities. 71% participate in an ongoing community service activity, like coaching a sports team, volunteering at a school, or working with a church or neighborhood association, compared with 37% of U.S. adults of similar ages from a traditional education background.

* Homeschool graduates are more involved in civic affairs and vote in much higher percentages than their peers. 76% of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 24 voted within the last five years, compared with only 29% of the corresponding U.S. populace. The numbers are even greater in older age groups, with voting levels not falling below 95%, compared with a high of 53% for the corresponding U.S. populace.

* 58.9% report that they are "very happy" with life, compared with 27.6% for the general U.S. population. 73.2% find life "exciting", compared with 47.3%.[49]





What about parents that are giving a one-sided view of thing? They really could block easily access to opinions and information.

Schools do that as well. Everybody is biased.


Think about parents that are extremist in something…

Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Views that are "mainstream" in one country are seen as "extremist" in another. Besides, I do want to have an influence on my child's values and mindset. Perfectly legitimate IMO.

School is also a watchdog for children in trouble. Children that were sexual abused or molested are often signaled by school first...


So you are saying I should not homeschool my child because he might get sexually abused by me? :D


Why keep parents their children at home? Face it, most of the time…for religious reasons.

HORROR! RELIGIONS! PEOPLE HAVING DIFFERENT BELIEFS! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO!

For the record, I am an agnostic, and my fiancee is an atheist.

Private schools can afford metal detectors.

So do public schools.

But I think in America the difference between private and public schools is less obvious?!
Private schools can afford metal detectors.

So do public schools.

See, Kat. There's an issue I will never have with Boris Junior/Mechtild Junior.

You HOPE!

Why would I need to have a metal detector at the entrance to my own home? :D

See, Kat. There's an issue I will never have with Boris Junior/Mechtild Junior.
You HOPE!

Why would I need to have a metal detector at the entrance to my own home? :D


Repeated for timewarp.

Private schools are pretty awesome generally, and rarely are the members snobbish idiots as they are stereotyped. Public schools vary hugely, with the location and intelligence of your child helping him or her get into the good ones. If we were too far from a state school or my kids wernt smart enough then Private all the way. Probably private anyways. God the UK's youth culture sucks.

Home schooling is about the worst thing you can do to a child if you ask me (obviously ignoring abuse here).

Im unsurprised by the vote results considering the left wing lean of this community. This forum needs to move on.....

Is it?
Who will be in general more verbal and know better to interact with other people?

* A child getting his education from mama whole day long.
* A child that learn, play, (learn to) team together with little people of his/her age.
Or you could look at this way:
Who's better off?
* A child getting 1-on-1 tutoring 6 hours a day in a rewarding and stimulating environment
* A child being bullied and picked on relentlessly and stuck in a class with 30 others so has minimal contact with the teacher

Why would I need to have a metal detector at the entrance to my own home?:D
Entrance to the house no... Child's bedroom now... ;)

Or you could look at this way:
Who's better off?
* A child getting 1-on-1 tutoring 6 hours a day in a rewarding and stimulating environment
* A child being bullied and picked on relentlessly and stuck in a class with 30 others so has minimal contact with the teacher

Bullying sucks, but it does toughen up kids to resist bullying they will undergo in the office and in real life. Bullies arent just limited to the school playground.

And nothing is as stimulating than other children.

Bullying sucks, but it does toughen up kids to resist bullying they will undergo in the office and in real life. Bullies arent just limited to the school playground.

And nothing is as stimulating than other children.

Classrooms put children up to often unreasonable peer pressures, quite unlike an office environment.

And to quote Wiki:

Regarding socialization, it appears that very few home-schooling children are socially deprived. Critics who speak out against home schooling on the basis of social deprivation are actually addressing an area which favors home schoolers. Apparently, the research data indicates that it is the conventionally schooled child who is actually deprived.

Or you could look at this way:
Who's better off?
* A child getting 1-on-1 tutoring 6 hours a day in a rewarding and stimulating environment
* A child being bullied and picked on relentlessly and stuck in a class with 30 others so has minimal contact with the teacher
Not addressing you specifically, DH, but just wanted to note for the yet again developing argument about whether homeschooling is good or not: it depends a great deal on the child and the child's teacher. Meaning one size doesn't begin to fit all.

Not addressing you specifically, DH, but just wanted to note for the yet again developing argument about whether homeschooling is good or not: it depends a great deal on the child and the child's teacher. Meaning one size doesn't begin to fit all.

Happily this isn't a thread abot what we should do with education, but about what each of us, individually, plans to do with his child.

There have been multiple studies of children at play, etc. it's generally proven that homeschooled kids perform normally when interacting with other children. And they grow up to be more socially involved then other children.

To quote wikipedia:






Schools do that as well. Everybody is biased.



Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Views that are "mainstream" in one country are seen as "extremist" in another. Besides, I do want to have an influence on my child's values and mindset. Perfectly legitimate IMO.



So you are saying I should not homeschool my child because he might get sexually abused by me? :D



HORROR! RELIGIONS! PEOPLE HAVING DIFFERENT BELIEFS! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO!

For the record, I am an agnostic, and my fiancee is an atheist.


The ‘National Home Education Research Institute’ sounds as trustworthy source about Home Education. 

In Belgium you, as a parent have influence about what is being taught at school. A racist teacher would not be a teacher for a long time. You can even interact about the learning issues if you want to.

But you are making a joke of it, probably because you are practicing home schooling and thus have a closed mind.

No you don’t have to send them to school to prevent sexual abuse. You could always abuse them.

But if you are doing that, it would take much more time to detect the abuse in case your child is home schooled.

And we don’t have to be as extremist like that.

It’s not only about abuse, but also about opinions and even practical things.

What about parents which never give fruits to their children?
At school, they receive at least an apple/orange/banana a day.

About your source:

“According to a 2003 U.S. Census survey, 33% of homeschooling households cited religion as a factor in their choice. The same study found that 30% felt school had a poor learning environment, 14% objected to what the school teaches, 11% felt their children were not being challenged at school, and 9% cited morality’


Religion on top...

The ‘National Home Education Research Institute’ sounds as trustworthy source about Home Education.

Do you have any idea of the research methodology involved? Biased=/=untrustworthy.

But you are making a joke of it, probably because you are practicing home schooling and thus have a closed mind.

Do you know me at all that you are stating this?


And we don’t have to be as extremist like that.

What is an extremist?

We should evaluate ideas on their merits, not on whether they are ‘extreme’ based on some changing, arbitrary definition imposed by society. Don’t you agree?


It’s not only about abuse, but also about opinions and even practical things.

What about parents which never give fruits to their childrn?
At school, they receive at least an apple/orange/banana a day.

Again this is not a thread about whether public schooling/private schooling/homeschooling is BETTER. It’s about what each individual poster plans to do.

I assure you I have no plans to malnourish or sexually abuse my own children.

“According to a 2003 U.S. Census survey, 33% of homeschooling households cited religion as a factor in their choice. The same study found that 30% felt school had a poor learning environment, 14% objected to what the school teaches, 11% felt their children were not being challenged at school, and 9% cited morality’

Face it, most of the time…for religious reasons.

33% is not “Most of the time”. Not even in the most generous definition of “most”.

And what the hell is wrong with religion?

Do you have any idea of the research methodology involved? Biased=/=untrustworthy.
True, but they are a bit suspect. This one is a bit more on the level: http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/home.htm

*I can already hear Kat laughing at me as soon as she reads ERIC*

True, but they are a bit suspect. This one is a bit more on the level: http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/home.htm

*I can already hear Kat laughing at me as soon as she reads ERIC*


Hehehe, lookie here:


Stough (1992),looking particularly at socialization, compared 30 home-schooling families and 32 conventionally schooling families, families with children 7-14 years of age. According to the findings, children who were schooled at home "gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children." The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that "insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children."

This echoes the findings of Taylor (1987). Using one of the best validated self-concept scales available, Taylor's random sampling of home-schooled children (45,000) found that half of these children scored at or above the 91st percentile--47% higher than the average, conventionally schooled child. He concludes: "Since self concept is considered to be a basic dynamic of positive sociability, this answers the often heard skepticism suggesting that home schoolers are inferior in socialization" (Taylor, 1987).

Why would I laugh, NERVUN? ERIC was a resource I used in my secondary education classes for researching theory, as well as a resource for lesson planning. Good stuff there.

Not addressing you specifically, DH, but just wanted to note for the yet again developing argument about whether homeschooling is good or not: it depends a great deal on the child and the child's teacher. Meaning one size doesn't begin to fit all.
That's pretty much what I was aiming for in my answer to the NSII's post.

I don't have a nice methodology on the shelves.

But please, some tobacco companies stated once that cigarettes are good for you.

And no I don’t expect a neutral opinion about an institute that already directed into a direction.

Well, are you practicing home schooling or not?

What is an extremist? I’m not your dictionary boy, don’t be lazy and take one by yourself.

Please, I am not stating that all home school teachers are abusing their children. Most of them do not. So I am prepared to believe you are not.

33% is not 50%, but it is still on top of the list.

And like all surveys, they do not match reality but close:

• Some parents don’t dare to say it is because religious reasons…
• or are not aware.

What’s wrong about religion? Nothing and a lot. It depends.

But maybe it’s not that bad that your child is opposed to different cultures and religions. That way, it could make its own opinion. But maybe that’s what is frighten you. Like most home school teachers…


Do you have any idea of the research methodology involved? Biased=/=untrustworthy.



Do you know me at all that you are stating this?



What is an extremist?

We should evaluate ideas on their merits, not on whether they are ‘extreme’ based on some changing, arbitrary definition imposed by society. Don’t you agree?



Again this is not a thread about whether public schooling/private schooling/homeschooling is BETTER. It’s about what each individual poster plans to do.

I assure you I have no plans to malnourish or sexually abuse my own children.



33% is not “Most of the time”. Not even in the most generous definition of “most”.

And what the hell is wrong with religion?

Why would I laugh, NERVUN? ERIC was a resource I used in my secondary education classes for researching theory, as well as a resource for lesson planning. Good stuff there.
Just because of that. What is the first thing every teacher checks when needing something? ERIC. ;)

Public. I don't think most are as bad as people seem to make out, a child's development in education is based more on the parents than anything. Homeschooling could have great advantages, but takes a great deal of time and effort that most parents don't have.

Both my children attend public school.

I sent my daughter to private school for one year and then pulled her out. Her dad went to private school as a child, and was willing to pay, so I conceded to give it a try. About half way through the school year, we’d made up our minds that the school was crap, they weren’t adjusting the classroom materials to meet her needs (she came in a fluent reader, and wasn’t being given reading materials to her instructional level, much less material to challenge her.) We moved her to the public school, and suddenly she was receiving individualized instruction based on her abilities, and I am far better engaged and informed about what’s going on with her education. My son will be starting Kindergarten next week, going half days to public school, where I am confident he’ll receive a far better education than the private school we sent my daughter to.

I suppose homeschooling is fine for some, but I’ve yet to meet a person who homeschools that does something that I’m not already doing with my kids. I just call it parenting.

Ultimately, I think it’s most important to do what is best for your child, so while I am a huge advocate of public education, I recognize that there are some children who are better served by a private school that meets a specific need.

Disregarding the price factor, and allowing me to live in, say, North Canton, Ohio, I would easily choose the public school system. Here in the town I was raised in we have some of the best schools in the state, and actually they're far better than the local private schools.

If I was in downtown Detroit though, I might reconsider.

Given the state of British state schools, with the exception of selective schools, private education wins any day.

I homeschool my children.

*ducks*

I homeschool my children.

*ducks*

More power to you.

I know that it's unlikely I'd be sufficiently patient (knowing my history with the education of others) to homeschool any potential future children of mine.

More power to you.

I know that it's unlikely I'd be sufficiently patient (knowing my history with the education of others) to homeschool any potential future children of mine.

Once you teach them to read, you can make them go to their room and do it *nod*, we are very active in co-ops and such so we get out of the house for a few hours daily.

Private, because in Britain you have a much better chance.

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why?

As for me, I would choose a Private School. Because well, let's face it, Public Schools suck. I've seen the incompetent of Public School administration (like suspending a 13 year old kid for drawing a picture of a gun.) and I've seen some of the worse public school ever when I was looking at school in Charlotte, NC. I've also seen private schools, and really Private Schools seem to be better run. There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools and kids are actually learning stuff instead of just learning how to take a test, (thank you No Child left Behind.) In my humble opinion, private school just seems a lot better than Public Schools.

I've done both, and private school seemed a lot better, I have no clue why. I did private at a school in Mississippi, that was actually very nice. And, I've always wanted to go to boarding school. I have no clue why, either. Oh, and in Canada, you can have your taxes that usually would go to public school go to a Catholic private school if you want. And, when you don't have to pick up the tab for private school...

Public ... I spent 7 years in the private school system I was happier in the public system when I got there.

I've done both, and private school seemed a lot better, I have no clue why. I did private at a school in Mississippi, that was actually very nice. And, I've always wanted to go to boarding school. I have no clue why, either. Oh, and in Canada, you can have your taxes that usually would go to public school go to a Catholic private school if you want. And, when you don't have to pick up the tab for private school...

Join the club. My cousins went and not only enjoyed academic success but also a wonderfully raucous social life.

Join the club. My cousins went and not only enjoyed academic success but also a wonderfully raucous social life.

My parents used to use it as a threat more than anything so i've always been terrified of the idea. My girlfriend went to boarding school for a couple of years and was bullied so badly (which the teachers ignored even when told directly) that she started to have hallucinations and was seriously depressed.

Join the club. My cousins went and not only enjoyed academic success but also a wonderfully raucous social life.


Ohh.

There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools
The replacement principle of the private school I went to prevented two students from returning that year or in the future because she didn't like the way they acted.

Yeah private schools are great. Ability to withhold an education on whim is far better than zero tolerance :rolleyes:

Another reason why home schooling isn’t that good:

It is costing tons of efforts from the parents.

I have 2 children.
When I’m finished with my job and my regular home tasks, most of my spare time is all for those two.

I listen to their stories, I play with them, I do things together with them.

So I have already little little time for myself.

I’m wondering how you can be and a parent and a home teacher at the same time. You can’t.
And if you could, what’s the price you are paying?

You have the right for a life as well, no?

Home school is not common in Belgium, just a few parents are doing it.

• The schools are mostly excellent.
• Belgium is small, even if you live in the country ‘far’ away from a village, it’s worse case just a few miles away from a school.

Who is still doing it?

• A few witnesses of Jehova people and other religious lunatics.
• A few top-sport guys and girls (by instance tennis players that play games all over the world…)
• A few young performers, mostly it are local one-hit wonders, that actual quit their school.
• A few people from Arab origin. (In some schools, it is forbidden to wear a veil – if they can’t find a school in the neighborhood that is allowing those things then they do Home Schooling)

I don’t see any clear advantage for Home Schooling.

And sorry, I’m not convinced by the success stories style ‘I did home schooling and look at me now, I have friends and I am normal!’

Home School student are really behind in social interactions. For several reasons:

• You are making outsiders of your child, which is influencing their self-esteem. We all know what other children (and adults as well) do with outsiders…
• Less training! You have less the opportunity to interact with other children.
• You are influenced by fewer opinions which is resulting in a narrower mind.
• You are protecting your child too hard. The world isn’t nice, the world is a battlefield. Get them used to it, as young as possible.

Another reason why home schooling isn’t that good:

It is costing tons of efforts from the parents.

I have 2 children.
When I’m finished with my job and my regular home tasks, most of my spare time is all for those two.

I listen to their stories, I play with them, I do things together with them.

So I have already little little time for myself.

I’m wondering how you can be and a parent and a home teacher at the same time. You can’t.
And if you could, what’s the price you are paying?

You have the right for a life as well, no?

Home school is not common in Belgium, just a few parents are doing it.

• The schools are mostly excellent.
• Belgium is small, even if you live in the country ‘far’ away from a village, it’s worse case just a few miles away from a school.

Who is still doing it?

• A few witnesses of Jehova people and other religious lunatics.
• A few top-sport guys and girls (by instance tennis players that play games all over the world…)
• A few young performers, mostly it are local one-hit wonders, that actual quit their school.
• A few people from Arab origin. (In some schools, it is forbidden to wear a veil – if they can’t find a school in the neighborhood that is allowing those things then they do Home Schooling)

I don’t see any clear advantage for Home Schooling.

And sorry, I’m not convinced by the success stories style ‘I did home schooling and look at me now, I have friends and I am normal!’

Home School student are really behind in social interactions. For several reasons:

• You are making outsiders of your child, which is influencing their self-esteem. We all know what other children (and adults as well) do with outsiders…
• Less training! You have less the opportunity to interact with other children.
• You are influenced by fewer opinions which is resulting in a narrower mind.
• You are protecting your child too hard. The world isn’t nice, the world is a battlefield. Get them used to it, as young as possible.

you don't seem to be educated about what homeschooling is.

you don't seem to be educated about what homeschooling is.


No? How can you see?

No? How can you see?

I see because you bring up the same lame non-arguments most "anti-homschooling" people do.

Socialization is a non-argument, study after study has proven that homeschooled children are as well adjusted if not better adjusted than their public and private school counterparts.

Quality of education might be an arguement depending on the area and the curriculum and the teachers, but that goes for any form of schooling. Studys have been done that show that homeschool children consistently outperform public and private school children in acedemics and are on average 2-3 grade levels ahead while most public school children (in my country) struggle to even be on grade level.

As far as the education of the parent, most homeschool parents have a higher education level than parents who send their children to public school. It has been shown that whether or not a parent has a teaching certificate has no bearing on the success of the homeschooled child.

As far as "protecting" children from the world, it has been shown that homeschool children on average have more time outside of the house than public school children, are involved in more extra curricular activities and interact more with the world at large than children who are in a school for 8 hours a day.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

Public school. I want my kid to be normal.
Plus, it's Connecticut. Besides No Child Left Behind, our public schools are like your private schools.

Public school. I want my kid to be normal.
Plus, it's Connecticut. Besides No Child Left Behind, our public schools are like your private schools.

are children who don't go to public school abnormal? Judging from the majority of people you meet in a day, do you want your child to be average?

Really I think it depends on the kid. I attended Catholic School for my entire life and I think I turned out pretty well. The thing about Private school is that they push you, whether you want to learn or not is irrelevant. In public school, they aren't going to push you as hard. If the teacher sees that you don't care, they aren't gonna waste their time. I know kids who just couldnt take private school, and they did fine in public school.

O and the rumor that public school kids are more hardcore is total BS. There were plenty of drugs around my school. I would say 90% of my class drank, and about 40% smoked weed on a regular basis. Other drugs were probably used as well, but I didnt really associate with any of those kids.

Amusingly, here in the UK, a Public School is indeed a Private School.



Anyway, I'd want to send my child to a state school, mainly because the people I've met who went to fee-paying schools largely got quite heavily into drugs and / or became utterly insufferable emo kiddies, as well as being horribly elitist.

Luckily, York has quite a lot of good state schools, the ones I went were pretty solid educational establishments. The same was also true of most of the other towns I lived in as a child, which was nice.

So I'd probably hope to return here later in life with my children, not only because of the educative aspect, but also because it's quite a nice place to live, if very expensive for housing, as far as the North goes.

Public school. I want my kid to be normal.
Plus, it's Connecticut. Besides No Child Left Behind, our public schools are like your private schools.

How original.:rolleyes:

The much overused "I want my child to experiance the real world" argument is frankly bollocks; private school kids, in the UK at any rate, are better spoken, better mannered and generally more affable than the average comprehensive school kid. Excuse me for wanting private education for myself and my children, how dare I want to be anything other than average.

In any case, your public schools are not as good as mine; selective education really is a superior system.

selective education really is a superior system.
Only educate the smart, nice kids.
I'm sure that will be better for everyone :rolleyes:

Chris is an excellent example of what selective education produces: upper crust racists who believe they are better than everyone else.

And who is funding those studies? Home school (religious) factories?

How can they be better adjusted? They actual see less other children...


And if those home school children have more time to play...

...then with who? Cause the other children are AT school...

With statistics you can proof anything of course.

Sure, I really believe that home school children get better test results.

It is not because they are smarter or received a better education but because the parents are involved!

I would like to compare the results of 'home school' children against 'regular school' childeren. But from the last group only the ones that are involved with their kids and their school.

In your statistics the crack (ok I'm using the extreme, just to express my point) mummy is also included. And hell no, she even will not consider doing home school stuff, she's even not involved with the school of their children at all.

The result is an unmotivated kid doing not a good job at school.






I see because you bring up the same lame non-arguments most "anti-homschooling" people do.

Socialization is a non-argument, study after study has proven that homeschooled children are as well adjusted if not better adjusted than their public and private school counterparts.

Quality of education might be an arguement depending on the area and the curriculum and the teachers, but that goes for any form of schooling. Studys have been done that show that homeschool children consistently outperform public and private school children in acedemics and are on average 2-3 grade levels ahead while most public school children (in my country) struggle to even be on grade level.

As far as the education of the parent, most homeschool parents have a higher education level than parents who send their children to public school. It has been shown that whether or not a parent has a teaching certificate has no bearing on the success of the homeschooled child.

As far as "protecting" children from the world, it has been shown that homeschool children on average have more time outside of the house than public school children, are involved in more extra curricular activities and interact more with the world at large than children who are in a school for 8 hours a day.

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

are children who don't go to public school abnormal? Judging from the majority of people you meet in a day, do you want your child to be average?
I would say so. Almost all the kids I've met who have been homeschooled aren't quite all there (this is from personal experience, not some silly study), and like I would pay for my kid to go to school when they can go to a school just as good for free (again, it's Connecticut).
And it's not that I want my kid to be average, I want them to fit in. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be unique, I don't want them to feel like they missed out on something.

How original.:rolleyes:

The much overused "I want my child to experiance the real world" argument is frankly bollocks; private school kids, in the UK at any rate, are better spoken, better mannered and generally more affable than the average comprehensive school kid. Excuse me for wanting private education for myself and my children, how dare I want to be anything other than average.

In any case, your public schools are not as good as mine; selective education really is a superior system.

Compared to a UK private school, I'm sure they aren't that great. But as for the United States, they really are just as good as the average private school.

I would say so. Almost all the kids I've met who have been homeschooled aren't quite all there (this is from personal experience, not some silly study), and like I would pay for my kid to go to school when they can go to a school just as good for free (again, it's Connecticut).
And it's not that I want my kid to be average, I want them to fit in. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be unique, I don't want them to feel like they missed out on something.

anecdotal evidence is more important to you than a scientific study? wow. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't around here.

I don't particularly want my children to "fit in" with the unwashed masses. We aren't stupid, they shouldn't have to pretend to be to "fit in".

Public school, becasue it builds character. You are exposed to more different kinds of people than in private schools, e.g. in public school you meet kids whose parents can't afford to send them to private school, especially minorities like blacks and hispanics. That is not to say that every private school is full of stuck-up, rich, white kids, but a lot more of private schools are that public schools. Going to a school of kids whose parents are just like yours and think that public schools are bad (which in many ways are) tends to divorce you from the rest of society. In public school you realize that not everyone cares about going to college, or has any other plan in life for that matter, not everyone has the money to send their kid to a private school, and that life isn't fair.

Also, I would never send my kid to a religious private school, regardless of the fact that I am an atheist. How could I be certain that they were teaching my child exactly what I wanted him to think about God, Nirvana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?:rolleyes:

I would say so. Almost all the kids I've met who have been homeschooled aren't quite all there (this is from personal experience, not some silly study), and like I would pay for my kid to go to school when they can go to a school just as good for free (again, it's Connecticut).
*shrugs*

Most homeschooled kids are alright, all things considered.
And it's not that I want my kid to be average, I want them to fit in.
Ah, but fit into where?

If you send them to a private school, then they'll be chatting and crushing up speed with credit cards with the rich and the privalaged.

If they're homeschooled or in public education, then the people they'll fit in with are going to be the 'common people'.

That's not a judgement of either side, it genuinely depends on who you want your children to be around for the rest of their lives. For me, I'd much rather have my own children around with the average man, doing what they can to help out other people and themselves.

Some, on the other hand, want their children to be more likely to get in with the 'right crowd'.
Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be unique, I don't want them to feel like they missed out on something.
Your children will always feel that they missed out on something. Even in a private school. Especially if they go to a pubic school, and possibly even more so if they're homeschooled.

It's just what kids are like.

Sure, I really believe that home school children get better test results.

It is not because they are smarter or received a better education but because the parents are involved!

Wins homeschool debate.

I voted private school but But my second choice would be home schooled.

anecdotal evidence is more important to you than a scientific study? wow. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't around here.

I don't particularly want my children to "fit in" with the unwashed masses. We aren't stupid, they shouldn't have to pretend to be to "fit in".

Anecdotal evidence? How about personal experience? Does personal experience means nothing now?
Those 'unwashed masses' are the people that your children are going to have to deal with on a day to day basis. And seriously, public school ISN'T THAT BAD. Amazingly enough, it doesn't turn children into brain eating zombies. You would have had to had an awful experience to even think so.


*shrugs*
Ah, but fit into where?

If you send them to a private school, then they'll be chatting and crushing up speed with credit cards with the rich and the privalaged.

If they're homeschooled or in public education, then the people they'll fit in with are going to be the 'common people'.

That's not a judgement of either side, it genuinely depends on who you want your children to be around for the rest of their lives. For me, I'd much rather have my own children around with the average man, doing what they can to help out other people and themselves.


I live in Connecticut. Whether I send them to private school or public school makes absolutely no difference in how rich there friends are.

Wins homeschool debate.
...

Because it's not like homeschooled children are externally examined, now, is it?

Anecdotal evidence? How about personal experience? Does personal experience means nothing now?
Those 'unwashed masses' are the people that your children are going to have to deal with on a day to day basis. And seriously, public school ISN'T THAT BAD. Amazingly enough, it doesn't turn children into brain eating zombies. You would have had to had an awful experience to even think so.

define normal.

Also, yes, I had a horrible public school experience, and the same people are in charge of the public schools that my children would now attend. As far as "fitting in" you don't need to "fit in" to be able to communicate and work with people. I don't fit in here at all, and yet I communicate with you people. The average person in my area is nothing like I want my children to be, and the public school here is all about making people average. My kid literally got suspended for reading because it "made the other kids feel dumb".

Wins homeschool debate.

how so?

define normal.

Also, yes, I had a horrible public school experience, and the same people are in charge of the public schools that my children would now attend. As far as "fitting in" you don't need to "fit in" to be able to communicate and work with people. I don't fit in here at all, and yet I communicate with you people. The average person in my area is nothing like I want my children to be, and the public school here is all about making people average. My kid literally got suspended for reading because it "made the other kids feel dumb".

And yet you choose this area to raise your kids in.
Wouldn't it be easier to move somewhere where you actually get along with people, like your neighbours and have a choice of good public schools?

How many crack mothers are doing home school?

Anyway, I am wondering why everybody is hoping that his child is smart and educated.

Well I am not. I wish in the first place that they are really happy and that they get along with their friends.

Sure, I do not hope they are dumb and get uneducated. But if so, that's not a disaster. If your child is dumb then accept it. It is like having an ugly child.
Most people are ugly, so what? It's not that hard.

Ugliness and dumbness, as a parent you don't have lots control about this issue.
But you certainly can influence their happiness rate.

And yet you choose this area to raise your kids in.
Wouldn't it be easier to move somewhere where you actually get along with people and like your neighbours?

there isn't anywhere.

there isn't anywhere.

Huh. I guess I must just have WAY more tolerance for people then. I can't say I ever felt like I was living among "unwashed masses" in any of the countries I lived in. *shrugs*

I might be in a really pissy mood today.

Considering that you didn't only start to homeschool your kids today, I guess you're in that mood quite a lot ;)

Huh. I guess I must just have WAY more tolerance for people then. I can't say I ever felt like I was living among "unwashed masses" in any of the countries I lived in. *shrugs*

I might be in a really pissy mood today. I can tolerate lots, doesn't mean I like it. I don't have this goal of "making my kids happy" at the expense of preparing them for life.......I was happy as a child, I was high all the time, the happiness didn't seem to do much for me in the real life department.

Wins homeschool debate.

No you are missing the point.

The children of these parents, if they would go to a regular school they would achieve the same test results and maybe even better.

The school results have nothing to do with the school system, but by the involvement of the parents.

Remember the crack mummies their children are lowering the average results. And since few crack mummies are doing home school...

Considering that you didn't only start to homeschool your kids today, I guess you're in that mood quite a lot ;)

meh. it really doesn't reflect the reason I homeschool anyway.

Only educate the smart, nice kids.
I'm sure that will be better for everyone :rolleyes:

Chris is an excellent example of what selective education produces: upper crust racists who believe they are better than everyone else.

Selective education allows those with the ability to excel to do so; my parents could never have afforded private school fees, hence, but for Grammar schools, I would have been consigned to the ignominy of comprehensive education. In short, selective education, in light of the continued existence and excellence of private education in the UK, is the best expedient for social mobility amongst the lower and middle classes. That some are, as it were, "left behind" is unfortunate, but life isn't fair; those who preach the merits of a "tough state education" seem to appreciate this.

I go to grammar in the UK. If I had a kid who wanted to, I guess I'd let them, but I'd warn them that it was among the worst decisions I ever made. Unless he could find a mixed-gender school, then I'd be cool ;) As far as I am concerned, I would do just as well no matter what schol I was to go. They'd probably have better teachers anyway *grumbles about gettign a low grade for asking a question my history teacher couldn't answer*

No you are missing the point.

The children of these parents, if they would go to a regular school they would achieve the same test results and maybe even better.

The school results have nothing to do with the school system, but by the involvement of the parents.

Remember the crack mummies their children are lowering the average results. And since few crack mummies are doing home school...

so, you will withdraw your point that homeschooled kids aren't getting as good an education as public/private schooled kids?

define normal.

Also, yes, I had a horrible public school experience, and the same people are in charge of the public schools that my children would now attend. As far as "fitting in" you don't need to "fit in" to be able to communicate and work with people. I don't fit in here at all, and yet I communicate with you people. The average person in my area is nothing like I want my children to be, and the public school here is all about making people average. My kid literally got suspended for reading because it "made the other kids feel dumb".

Then I genuinely feel sorry for you for living in such an awful place. I think we've come to a 'clash of cultures', and would probably agree with each other if we were in the other's situation.

Normal for my area = awesome. Seriously.

Selective education allows those with the ability to excel to do so; my parents could never have afforded private school fees, hence, but for Grammar schools, I would have been consigned to the ignominy of comprehensive education. In short, selective education, in light of the continued existence and excellence of private education in the UK, is the best expedient for social mobility amongst the lower and middle classes. That some are, as it were, "left behind" is unfortunate, but life isn't fair; those who preach the merits of a "tough state education" seem to appreciate this.

I feel selective education is a good idea up to a point. Regardless of status, public schools should be given equivalent funding and resources. Grammar schools need no extra benefits other than the intelligence of their pupils. However, teachers will always have a choice of where they work, and most likely will choose grammar schools.

Then I genuinely feel sorry for you for living in such an awful place. I think we've come to a 'clash of cultures', and would probably agree with each other if we were in the other's situation.

Normal for my area = awesome. Seriously.

ah........where do you live? *moves*

I applaud Smunkeeville for his educational choices.

I applaud Smunkeeville for his educational choices.

her. *nod* and thank you.

ah........where do you live? *moves*

Eastern Connecticut. Rich enough to not be white trash , poor enough to not be pompous. *glares at Fairfield county*

Only educate the smart, nice kids.
I'm sure that will be better for everyone :rolleyes:

Chris is an excellent example of what selective education produces: upper crust racists who believe they are better than everyone else.
Bollocks.

You don't need selective education to be a racist. Or to have a superiority complex. Those things are personality faults that have nothing to do with education.

As for "upper crust", that's also crap. Having experienced selective education myself, I can tell you that intelligent kids come from just about every strata of society.

Eastern Connecticut. Rich enough to not be white trash , poor enough to not be pompous. *glares at Fairfield county*

oh, yeah, I have heard about CT schools. If I lived there my kids would probably go to public school. If we move to Canada my kids will probably go to public school. As long as we live here, or around here though? it's a really bad idea.

Depending on what you count as "public" (in the UK sense), my school was either public or state. Didn't do me any harm. I'd send my kid to either, the state education system here's very good.

so, you will withdraw your point that homeschooled kids aren't getting as good an education as public/private schooled kids?

No.

Because I never said that one.

I said it is the worst system.

Look. I assume you like and love your kids a lot. Else you wouldn't care about their education. I think you are really concerned and involved. Correct me, if I'm wrong?

Cause your involved and concerned, the odds are very high that they will get nice results at school. Any school. Let it be home, private or public school.

If you were a crack mummy/daddy, then it would be different. Then in general they would drop of school soon. Any school. Let it be home, private or public.

Making sure, your children get nice results at school has nothing to do with the education system.

And there's more than only getting those nice results:

* Teaming together, playing and working in group to achieve a shared goal.
* Communicating with each other.
* Making sure they receive diverse inputs and opinions.

Selective education allows those with the ability to excel to do so
Where such facilities are available, this is one of my main gripes about it. If they'd have phased out the eleven-plus everywhere, or kept it on everywhere, I probably wouldn't have been fussed by it.

As it stands, not only do we have a tiered system of state and private almost everywhere in the country, we also have grammar schools thrown into the mix, which is a huge problem for people like myself who've done well out of a comprehensive education.

And I know you'll say "boohoo, I don't care", but that's how the situation is, and were it up to me, it'd be comprehensives all 'round.
I would have been consigned to the ignominy of comprehensive education.
You have the talent to get five A grades at A-Level. I don't really think that a comprehensive education would somehow ruin that for you.

And there's more than only getting those nice results:

* Teaming together, playing and working in group to achieve a shared goal.
* Communicating with each other.
* Making sure they receive diverse inputs and opinions.
*coughs*

Homeschooling Co-operatives are available.

And there's more than only getting those nice results:

* Teaming together, playing and working in group to achieve a shared goal.
* Communicating with each other.
* Making sure they receive diverse inputs and opinions.

my children are not lacking in these things.

I feel selective education is a good idea up to a point. Regardless of status, public schools should be given equivalent funding and resources. Grammar schools need no extra benefits other than the intelligence of their pupils. However, teachers will always have a choice of where they work, and most likely will choose grammar schools.

Indeed. Comprehensive schools should receive far more funding than they currently do; the axiom that support for selective education equates to a desire to consign those who fail the 11+ to underfunded grey blocks is false. The simple fact is, however, that in placing highly intelligent pupils together in an environment geared towards academic endeavour inevitably leads to greater academic success. The same principle might be applied to comprehensive education; giving pupils more vocational than academic in nature an oppurtunity to flourish would not only be prudent, but might also do much to change the mentality of a generation of disaffected children.

Indeed. Comprehensive schools should receive far more funding than they currently do
Lovely, but where does the money come from?

The people who would have gone to a selective school in your system, which is why it wouldn't happen.
The simple fact is, however, that in placing highly intelligent pupils together in an environment geared towards academic endeavour inevitably leads to greater academic success.
Absolutely true, on the other hand it also leads to social problems between the students and, even more so, the parents of the students involved who go to the academic schools where one learns academic subjects and gets a respectable job, and those in vocational education, who usually end up unwanted by a society dominated by those who got the education which the people who get to have a say on such things regard as 'better'.

See Germany, for example.
The same principle might be applied to comprehensive education; giving pupils more vocational than academic in nature an oppurtunity to flourish would not only be prudent, but might also do much to change the mentality of a generation of disaffected children.
This is what actually the government's currently suggesting for pupils at the low end of the academic scale.

If I can manage to get a home in a good school district, I'd go with public schools. However, since that possibility seems to be getting increasingly less likely, I'd probably go for private.

my children are not lacking in these things.

I do not say so.

But use your common sense.

If they receive high school education from you at home, then they hear mostly only YOUR voice, opinion and thoughts.

If they would go to a regular school, they would receive the opinions of 30, 40, 50 and even more teachers. And not only the ones from the teachers but also the opinions from dozen other students, all with diverse backgrounds, ethics and cultures....

I don't believe you are a white, black, atheist, catholic, leftie and bush-fan in one single person...

And I'm not only talking about the mandatory stuff. I'm talking about everything.

I’m quite sure that your opinion isn’t that rich it could beat 30, 40, 50 or even 100 people.
They even can learn from people who have a ‘wrong’ opinion about any stuff!

If they stay at home, they just see and hear you. And maybe you have excellent communication skills, they still just see and hear you alone.

Nobody is teaching them to get along with other little people, because you can't teach that one, they have to learn that one from themselves.

Sure, you send them to ballet or something. But they still have a disadvantage because they are 'trained' less to communicate with different people. The regular students, go to ballet AND school. They have much more the opportunity to communicate and do stuff with each other.

Same goes for teaming, playing with each other.

Maybe you and your children are blessed, but that's not the case for ALL children.

Concerning your own children, I'm quit sure that they would perform even better at the non-school activities.

Use your common sense, for heaven sake.

If you do something regular then you will be good in it. Even when you're not talented at all.
Else I would never get managed learning to dance. :)

Where such facilities are available, this is one of my main gripes about it. If they'd have phased out the eleven-plus everywhere, or kept it on everywhere, I probably wouldn't have been fussed by it.

As it stands, not only do we have a tiered system of state and private almost everywhere in the country, we also have grammar schools thrown into the mix, which is a huge problem for people like myself who've done well out of a comprehensive education.

And I know you'll say "boohoo, I don't care", but that's how the situation is, and were it up to me, it'd be comprehensives all 'round.

You have the talent to get five A grades at A-Level. I don't really think that a comprehensive education would somehow ruin that for you.


It would have done. As much as I can do well academically, I know full well I would have found a comp oppresive, and wouldn't be as well set as I am now.

As for the current education system; it is a mess. My solution would simply be to fully reinstate Grammar schools, "a grammar school in every town" and all that, whilst ensuring vastly improved funding for comprehensove schools.

It would have done. As much as I can do well academically, I know full well I would have found a comp oppresive, and wouldn't be as well set as I am now.
Jesus Christ, Chris, come on.

I'll admit that I'm probably not as intelligent as you, full stop, but I managed to get 2 A grades and 2 B grades at AS level, and an A in the GCSE I did in a single year in this last year.

Those are respectable grades, I'm sure you'd agree. And whilst I'd have probably done marginally better in a grammar school, the difference would be slight, and were everyone in the same boat, that difference wouldn't matter so much.
As for the current education system; it is a mess. My solution would simply be to fully reinstate Grammar schools, "a grammar school in every town" and all that, whilst ensuring vastly improved funding for comprehensove schools.
That would be good, but again I must ask 'where would the funding for said improvements to comprehensives come from?'


I'm off to the local shops, so you've got about 15 minutes to write something that'll totally crush my argument. Best of luck.

If they receive high school education from you at home, then they hear mostly only YOUR voice, opinion and thoughts.

Are you under the impression that someone cannot teach about multiple viewpoints?

Hell, a teacher shouldn't be teaching his or her opinions or thoughts anyways. They should teach about the various opinions and thoughts on a given issue and help the students to find their own views on the subject. I'd be willing to bet that Smunkee is better at that than most high school teachers.

I do not say so.

But use your common sense.

If they receive high school education from you at home, then they hear mostly only YOUR voice, opinion and thoughts.

If they would go to a regular school, they would receive the opinions of 30, 40, 50 and even more teachers. And not only the ones from the teachers but also the opinions from dozen other students, all with diverse backgrounds, ethics and cultures....

I don't believe you are a white, black, atheist, catholic, leftie and bush-fan in one single person...

And I'm not only talking about the mandatory stuff. I'm talking about everything.

I’m quite sure that your opinion isn’t that rich it could beat 30, 40, 50 or even 100 people.
They even can learn from people who have a ‘wrong’ opinion about any stuff!

If they stay at home, they just see and hear you. And maybe you have excellent communication skills, they still just see and hear you alone.

Nobody is teaching them to get along with other little people, because you can't teach that one, they have to learn that one from themselves.

Sure, you send them to ballet or something. But they still have a disadvantage because they are 'trained' less to communicate with different people. The regular students, go to ballet AND school. They have much more the opportunity to communicate and do stuff with each other.

Same goes for teaming, playing with each other.

Maybe you and your children are blessed, but that's not the case for ALL children.

Concerning your own children, I'm quit sure that they would perform even better at the non-school activities.

Use your common sense, for heaven sake.

If you do something regular then you will be good in it. Even when you're not talented at all.
Else I would never get managed learning to dance. :)

you assume that because they are homeschooled that they are home all day and that I am their only teacher. I am not even their primary teacher, I teach two subjects, they have 8 classes. I teach them history and math, that's all. They have teachers for every other subject they take, teachers that are not me, teachers that don't believe the same things I do, teachers that have students that have other teachers.

Are you under the impression that someone cannot teach about multiple viewpoints?

Hell, a teacher shouldn't be teaching his or her opinions or thoughts anyways. They should teach about the various opinions and thoughts on a given issue and help the students to find their own views on the subject. I'd be willing to bet that Smunkee is better at that than most high school teachers.

Is it? About all subjects and issues? I can hardly believe that one.
And if so then, wow, Smunkee is a genius.

Well Einstein was a smart guy but didn't know how to get along with other people, he was a real pain in the *$$.

Well, teachers are not programmed robots, they are humans and behave like that. You can bet they express personal opinions and feelings about just anything. What about students who 'forgot' their homework...

Also in such issues Smunkee is better than professional trained people with tons of experience...

Sure. Hey, I know people who believe in invisible dwarfs as well.

Well, teachers are not programmed robots, they are humans and behave like that. You can bet they express personal opinions and feelings about just anything. What about students who 'forgot' their homework...



Professionalism is a virtue. They should be sure to keep their opinions to themselves. Just as many other professions do

I'm off to the local shops, so you've got about 15 minutes to write something that'll totally crush my argument. Best of luck.
*waits with bated breath*

*wonders what happened to Yootopia such that he needs to post with another nation*

you assume that because they are homeschooled that they are home all day and that I am their only teacher. I am not even their primary teacher, I teach two subjects, they have 8 classes. I teach them history and math, that's all. They have teachers for every other subject they take, teachers that are not me, teachers that don't believe the same things I do, teachers that have students that have other teachers.

Ok, they are in a kind of mini school but at home, yes?

Why?

Ok, they are in a kind of mini school but at home, yes?
not at home, just not in public or private school. We have this thing called co-op where homeschooling parents come together and teach classes, it's like school, I am a member of 3 of them, one Christian, one secular, and one that just does arts.

Why?
because the public schools here are inadequate and the private schools are full of ignorant religious types and thus are also academically inadequate.

Professionalism is a virtue. They should be sure to keep their opinions to themselves. Just as many other professions do

No, they don't have to. I'm sure teachers learned how to deal with students who come late to the classroom.

But it's my personal experience that most of them forget and react to such things as they are.

Which is good. Because later in their job, they will have to deal with all kind of superiors and collagues.

And even about 'real' opinions. It's not THAT bad, as long as they stay in line. A teacher can't say 'Hitler was a good man, it's a shame that he lost the war', but that wouldn't say that a teacher can't touch the 'good' deeds of even such an evil creature like Hitler.

not at home, just not in public or private school. We have this thing called co-op where homeschooling parents come together and teach classes, it's like school, I am a member of 3 of them, one Christian, one secular, and one that just does arts.


because the public schools here are inadequate and the private schools are full of ignorant religious types and thus are also academically inadequate.


Ok, I understand, if they really are that bad... and you can manage it with your professional life...

I'm lucky I guess. In Belgium the roads and taxes s*cks, but the education system is one of the best in the world. :)

I'd choose a public school unless I could afford to find a decent Privte School and send my kids there. I have friends that went to public school, state schools and were homeschooled and each of them are intelligent, social people. I went to a grammar school and all I can say isthat in ll situation you'll have the kids that have the talent but don't want to be educated.

One guy I went to school with was a maths genius but in all his GCSE's he sat there and did nothing except write his name on the paper. He now works full time in the local supermarket as a shelf stacker. That place in school could've been given to someone who was intelligent and wanted to learn such as another friend who failed his 11 plus by 1 mark. Its not always about the establishment but the childs attitude to education will always play a factor.

That would be good, but again I must ask 'where would the funding for said improvements to comprehensives come from?'

I'll answer for Chris, even though I don't agree with everything he says. Schools are in general underfunded, comprehensives especially. But you just have to look to Iraq to see where a large proportion of the financial problem lies.

Putting a shy child at home???

And what will you do when he/she is a young adult and would go to the office for the first time and (s)he's still shy?

Keeping him/her at home as well?

I don't think one can 'cure' shyness by avoiding meetings with other little humans.

Perhaps it was a wrong example. It is just that I think that if a child isn't ready to be thrown into a crowd of other children, yet, you should not do that and wait 'till the child is.
Because of 'standards' people are sometimes forced to adopt a behaviour pattern that isn't like them. "If you are five, you should be playing with other children in a group and share your toys." But what if you don't want to?
I think that eventually the 'problem', here 'shyness', will work itself out.

Only educate the smart, nice kids.
I'm sure that will be better for everyone :rolleyes:

Chris is an excellent example of what selective education produces: upper crust racists who believe they are better than everyone else.

While I think Chris is being far too elitist, he does have a point (though I dont think its the one he is aiming for). I go to Methodist College and its a voluntary grammar school. Basically it accepts people who go As or maybeB1s in the 11+. The 11+ system was flawed, if you have rich parents it was much easier to get a good grade.
On the other hand you need some sort of selection process, not everyone can get into the school they want to.
The goverments new alternative is that people go to the schools closest to them. Guees what happens to the house prices in the catchment area. They go up. Rich people buy into that area and once again kids from a low-income families are pushed out of good education.
At least with acadamic slection, if you are smart it doesnt matter how much money your parents have.

Which one would you choose and why?


Public. For several reasons:


I'm not rich.
I prefer to associate with the unwashed masses.
Sociological studies note a correlation between membership in elite circles (including private education) and occupation of business/corporate and political office (elected, appointed, or otherwise). Such people take enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) of my money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxes) as it is, I see no reason to contribute any more directly to their cause.
Private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy) education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) is perfectly capable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School) of producing worthless fuck-ups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) too.
Educated masses are dangerous as hell to the establishment powers. Anything that helps, to whatever extent, to produce such a mass is necessary and vital.


The list of my graduating public high school class lists people who have gone on to attend Harvard, Yale, Stanford and the U.S. Naval Academy. Scores more went on to attend others of the top public and private universities (including myself, after working my tail off in the public community college system in order to qualify for transfer). It's easy to point out the flaws of public education, but an honest analysis requires also pointing out success.


There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools...


Except for the zero-tolerance of those who can't afford it. That zero-tolerance is based, again, on the simple recognition that educated masses are dangerous to establishment powers. Being of the libertarian persuasion, I consider that danger a good thing. The more the merrier.

given the option my choice would depend primarily on which school was better, then on their relative proximities to my home. their status as private or state run would not factor into my decision.

but as i'm never likely to earn enough to afford private school any kids of mine will go to their nearest comprehensive.

Let's see...

Well, I'm going to live where I lived as a kid, so that would make public the best choice by a ridiculous margin. Seriously, the private schools around here are utter dreck.

Public school, unless the circumstances were extreme. To be completely honest, I'm not sure the selection matters that much anyway, here's an example: In the book Freakonomics the authors mention the Chicago Public Schools system, which is very large and diverse. Even among the public schools, there were clearly "good" schools and "bad" schools. Because neighborhoods were pretty segregated, the school system allowed any kid who wanted to to switch schools. Of course, what ended up happening was most kids who wanted to switch wanted to switch to one of the "good" schools, and so they instituted a lottery.
The result was this: kids who won the lottery and went to the good schools did not do any better than kids who stayed in the neighborhood schools. But all of the kids who wanted to switch did better than kids who were content with what they had.
The point is, if a student is driven to do well, and is supported by their parents, they will. The reason private schools may appear better than public schools isn't because of superior education, but because the kids who go to private schools have parents who care enough to bother to try and find a substitute for what they deem unacceptable.

I'll answer for Chris, even though I don't agree with everything he says. Schools are in general underfunded, comprehensives especially. But you just have to look to Iraq to see where a large proportion of the financial problem lies.

I was aiming for the NHS to be honest; I'd rather put the money used in Iraq to actually ensuring our armed forces are properly equipped and trained.

Hmm, that's strange.
The private schoolgirls here in Wellington are awesome haha.. Some of my best mates are from private schools.
As for if I had a kid.. Well, if I had enough money, probably private.

I suppose it could be the general lack of private schools in the Capital, if my memory serves correctly, there is only about five private schools (I am looking more secondary at the moment) in Wellington. In Auckland, you have dozens.

Private schools are pretty awesome generally, and rarely are the members snobbish idiots as they are stereotyped. Public schools vary hugely, with the location and intelligence of your child helping him or her get into the good ones. If we were too far from a state school or my kids wernt smart enough then Private all the way. Probably private anyways. God the UK's youth culture sucks.

Home schooling is about the worst thing you can do to a child if you ask me (obviously ignoring abuse here).

Im unsurprised by the vote results considering the left wing lean of this community. This forum needs to move on.....

I am not left winger, yet I still voted public. While you claim that members of private schools are rarely snobbish idiots, I can testify to the contrary. From my personal experience, I have gotten on reasonably well with public school students, and now that I am in varsity, ex public school students. I rarely got along with private school students, especially the chicks from Diocesan and St Cuthberts, and even now, I rarely get along with ex private school students.

I have to say charter schools. Because in my experience, private schools are kind of rich snob schools, and don't actually signify anything more than a large sum of money. Public schools seem too... cookie cutter education. So I'd go with charter schools. I'm in one now, and its so much better than my old public school.

I have to say charter schools. Because in my experience, private schools are kind of rich snob schools, and don't actually signify anything more than a large sum of money. Public schools seem too... cookie cutter education. So I'd go with charter schools. I'm in one now, and its so much better than my old public school.

there are some really nice charter schools in my area. I got offered a job at one, but I can't accept it because my kids aren't old enough to attend and I don't have anywhere else to put them right now.

there are some really nice charter schools in my area. I got offered a job at one, but I can't accept it because my kids aren't old enough to attend and I don't have anywhere else to put them right now.

Cool, I'm at some sort of experimental math and science school. There's only 50 people per grade, and it's a best and brightest sorting method.

Is it? About all subjects and issues? I can hardly believe that one.
And if so then, wow, Smunkee is a genius.

Well Einstein was a smart guy but didn't know how to get along with other people, he was a real pain in the *$$.

Well, teachers are not programmed robots, they are humans and behave like that. You can bet they express personal opinions and feelings about just anything. What about students who 'forgot' their homework...

Also in such issues Smunkee is better than professional trained people with tons of experience...

Sure. Hey, I know people who believe in invisible dwarfs as well.

I know English is not your first language but you're pretty clearly baiting Smunkee now. Cut it out.

It really depends on the district. I haven't seen many big city schools that I would want to send my children to, but most rural schools are good.

Statistically, the best school has 200 students in High School. Any more than that and students get lost or the administration becomes uncaring. Any less and they can't afford the services and programs. Although the smaller the school the better learning. It just matters how many special classes and extras you want.

I guess that is why there are few good big city schools.

I was in public school until high school (now). The elementary schools were good, the middle school was new (so it kept the size at a good but worse than the elementary schools - there's three middle and like seven elementary schools in the district) but it was worse, and the local high schools are slanting towards the bad side. According to a friend who worked at the spanking new high school I would have went to, "If you're smart, you can do well." If you're not. . .

Now, my private school is all boys, and only has about ~120 kids per grade. (It's getting larger as they put in a new building -- apparently, they want to keep it at around ~160 after that). I love going there: I don't mind going to school (most of the time ;)) because the entrance requirements are so strict. You need to be smart to get in. Now, it does have money infused (anyone who knows the NJ shore - Morey, as in Morey's Pier, sends the kids to my school) and athletic entries, but they take care of problems. (After my sophmore year, they finally kicked out the entire starting basketball lineup for being assholes.)

If I lived in my area with my school, I'd repeat my schooling: public until HS.

I would love to home school my son, but unfortunately I don't think I have the time, patience, or knowledge at 19 years old to do so. I haven't even graduated from college yet.

However, I was home schooled my entire life and I couldn't have asked for a better education. My mother taught me, as well as two tutors, from 5 AM to 1 PM every weekday, and from 6 AM to 12 PM every weekend.

I also participated in track/field, soccer, baseball, basketball and football and also had time to play/hang out with friends.

I truly believe I wouldn't be the same open minded, creative, and intelligent person I am today if I was taught in a public school. I am shocked and appalled by some of my public school friends lack of knowledge and overall intolerance of things that are not (to them) normal, but that's life and I like them regardless.

As I went to college the only thing I wasn't familiar with was the classroom environment, but the coursework and assignments are thus far not bad at all. I'm in my 2nd semester and am doing exceptionally well. I also have joined several clubs, including the Gay Straight Alliance, the Student Government Council, the African American Student Union, the Campus Activities Board, and I write for the campus newspaper.

I went to public school and am attending a public university. I've turned out okay, I think...

Private.

I know English is not your first language but you're pretty clearly baiting Smunkee now. Cut it out.

It is indeed not my mother tongue. Sure, my English writing isn’t perfect, but so is your reading…


But what’s your problem anyway? The regulars may bash the newcomers but not vice versa?

I’ll quote from #72:

“I see because you bring up the same lame non-arguments most "anti-homschooling" people do.”

Why you didn’t give him/her a warning or were you suffering from a temporarily local blindness?

Oh well, delete my nation, yes another new member will run away.

And then they want that we are supposed to pay for playing Nation States II…. Sure :)

Well forget it, with such ridiculous way of handling.

See you all people.

Well I don't know about public education in the US, but in Australia it's free (with minor book costs etc) , so I spose that's a deciding factor.

The School I currently go to, in the UK is what in America would be a private school, it's an incredibly elitist school, with last year 70% of students getting full A's or A*'s at GCSE level. Every student is generally around the top 7% of the population, but I think it's pretty good, really. In the UK, I went to a state school for a while, but the teaching was to slow, they had to go at the same rate as the slowest pupil, but in the private school, everyones pretty much on the same level.

In the United Kingdom, a public school means its private, and expensive, a grammar school means its private, but free (owned by the government) while a state school is a public school. (free and no test/not private to get in.)

to the people who wouldnt send their kids to a private school for fear that their precious little muffins would become pompous silver spoon wielding a holes, you obviously don't no how to discipline your kids, or value education.

I would send my kids to a public coed school,
I went to a private school in wellington and to
say the least i hated it.

It may well be because i was forced to go there by my
parents, travel was over an hour each way each day and
i just didnt get along with near everybody at the school.

Also scince the school was a private all boys school from the age of 5,
I got the chance to see what happens to young boys who don't have the opportunity to ecounter girls on a more than a yearly bases (excluding their mum and sisters). Right up untill puberty and right through puberty aswell.
It's very very awkward to say the least

The School I currently go to, in the UK is what in America would be a private school, it's an incredibly elitist school, with last year 70% of students getting full A's or A*'s at GCSE level. Every student is generally around the top 7% of the population, but I think it's pretty good, really. In the UK, I went to a state school for a while, but the teaching was to slow, they had to go at the same rate as the slowest pupil, but in the private school, everyones pretty much on the same level.

In the United Kingdom, a public school means its private, and expensive, a grammar school means its private, but free (owned by the government) while a state school is a public school. (free and no test/not private to get in.)

The problem at the crux of the turdiness of comprehensive education I feel; it is inevitable that, in placing what would be Grammar school students in comprehensive schools, one reduces the quality of their education.

*waits with bated breath*
So did I. I was gutted.
*wonders what happened to Yootopia such that he needs to post with another nation*
Splintered Yoo was made for RP-ing.

But then I looked at the RP threads and thought "ah, crappy fan-fiction-esque tales of derring-do by Super Special Forces Ninjas? No ta!"

On the other hand, I automatically log in as Splintered now on both NS and indeed NSG. So there you go.

I hope you don't miss the old Yoo too much (no idea why you would, but people are strange creatures and all that), and if you do, then erm send me a TG or something, and I'll simply log in as the Original Yootopia for a bit and post around the place.
I'll answer for Chris, even though I don't agree with everything he says. Schools are in general underfunded, comprehensives especially. But you just have to look to Iraq to see where a large proportion of the financial problem lies.
Funding for education lies in the area of £70bn.

The amount we're spending in Iraq is pocket money by comparison, the entire defence budget is £30bn-ish, and Iraq is a surprisingly small amount of that.
I was aiming for the NHS to be honest; I'd rather put the money used in Iraq to actually ensuring our armed forces are properly equipped and trained.
Most people I know consider the NHS to be utterly sacred and untouchable.

Whilst taking the NHS away from the government, in a similar way to the Bank of England, might be a fairly popular way to save a bit of money and stop it being used as a political weapon, slashing the budget to the NHS when it's already somewhat underfunded in key areas is going to result in people being generally a bit saddened.



As to the training of our armed forces - they already are just about as well-trained as troops get. The issue is with equipment, which is mainly a product of your chum Thatcher.

Most people I know consider the NHS to be utterly sacred and untouchable.

Meh. That probably reflects who we socialise with as much as anything.

Whilst taking the NHS away from the government, in a similar way to the Bank of England, might be a fairly popular way to save a bit of money and stop it being used as a political weapon, slashing the budget to the NHS when it's already somewhat underfunded in key areas is going to result in people being generally a bit saddened.

I've said it before; the British electorate can fuck off anyway:p

I wasn't raising the issue of a reduction in role as much as privatisation with state regulated prices. That would remove an intolerable strain upon the budget, allowing for improvements in other areas, and tax cuts.

As to the training of our armed forces - they already are just about as well-trained as troops get. The issue is with equipment, which is mainly a product of your chum Thatcher.

She didn't help, I'll concede. Blair could have done something to reverse the trend, conversely; given we have endured in excess of 100 tax rises i 10 years, and have done so in economically clement yet diplomatically turbulent times, he has no excuse not to have done so.

Meh. That probably reflects who we socialise with as much as anything.
Yeah. It does.
I've said it before; the British electorate can fuck off anyway:p
If you're an aspiring politician, I'd keep such thoughts to yourself, really.
I wasn't raising the issue of a reduction in role as much as privatisation with state regulated prices. That would remove an intolerable strain upon the budget, allowing for improvements in other areas, and tax cuts.
My version would be about as useful and would also probably be more popular than yours, and the price difference would be minimal.

Universal, free healthcare is one of the things that makes the UK pretty spiffing. You'd have a hard time convincing people otherwise.
She didn't help, I'll concede. Blair could have done something to reverse the trend, conversely; given we have endured in excess of 100 tax rises i 10 years, and have done so in economically clement yet diplomatically turbulent times, he has no excuse not to have done so.
He did...

His government's had to update the previously extremely crappy SA80 system twice, replace most of the key elements of the FV432 system that was knackered out by 1990, pour several billion extra into the defence budget to pay the frankly outrageous costs of BAE Systems' orders (wouldn't have happened were it still Royal Ordnance) and fight by the US' side in every bloody conflict (again, were Thatcher not a big fan of Raegan, perhaps the UK wouldn't be a US puppet).

Yeah. It does.

If you're an aspiring politician, I'd keep such thoughts to yourself, really.

It might be an idea, although I see little to convince me that the average voter is a political fuckwit.

My version would be about as useful and would also probably be more popular than yours, and the price difference would be minimal.

Universal, free healthcare is one of the things that makes the UK pretty spiffing. You'd have a hard time convincing people otherwise.

Universal free healthcare is one of things that attracts migrant EU workers; hence, I'm killing two birds with one stone. Vastly reduced budget, and less sodding Poles.

He did...

His government's had to update the previously extremely crappy SA80 system twice, replace most of the key elements of the FV432 system that was knackered out by 1990, pour several billion extra into the defence budget to pay the frankly outrageous costs of BAE Systems' orders (wouldn't have happened were it still Royal Ordnance) and fight by the US' side in every bloody conflict (again, were Thatcher not a big fan of Raegan, perhaps the UK wouldn't be a US puppet).

Blair had no pressing imperative to follow Bush; the Cold War paradigm in which Thatcher operated rendered an alliance with the US prudent, whereas percieved closeness with the US is now little more than a big "bomb me" sign around one's neck.

In any case, surely the man who derided Hague as a second Thatcher would have the spine not to follow Thatcherite foreign policy?

For me, it would depend the country I am in.

I live in the U.S. and lets face it, the school system is sad. Our elementry schools may be in the top ten in the world. As these students progress however, the education level takes a nosedive. Our High Schools drop to the top 30.

What I don't seem to get is that all of the Countries that are higher than us use the voucher system. The country that is the most consistent, which just so happens to be Belgium, strongly enforces the system. Where as the U.S., which believes in a government run monopoly on the schools (except for the private), is rapidly falling behind.

Is their something im missing?

It is indeed not my mother tongue. Sure, my English writing isn’t perfect, but so is your reading…


But what’s your problem anyway? The regulars may bash the newcomers but not vice versa?

I’ll quote from #72:

“I see because you bring up the same lame non-arguments most "anti-homschooling" people do.”

Why you didn’t give him/her a warning or were you suffering from a temporarily local blindness?

Oh well, delete my nation, yes another new member will run away.

And then they want that we are supposed to pay for playing Nation States II…. Sure :)

Well forget it, with such ridiculous way of handling.

See you all people.

The difference is that you are attacking SMUNKEE personally and she attacked your ARGUMENTS. But please, do tear out of here like a child stomping your feet and shouting it's not fair, that we're keeping you down, making silly accusations like I'm deleting your nation, and that we're ganging up on the newbie regardless of the circumstances.

JEEZ.

Well I don't know about public education in the US, but in Australia it's free (with minor book costs etc) , so I spose that's a deciding factor.

Free and no cost for books.

Frankly Public School has been a pain in my side when it has come to my learning disablity. However Private School has it's share of cons as well:

Private Schools are very expensive. Unless you get a scholarship.

Lack of Zero Tolerance can be a bad thing you know. Especially when you have the safety of a thousand other kids.

Private Schools can give you an elitist attitude.

Priavate Schools help you in academics but in social aspect I think the public school is much better.

There is far too many to list but both have advantages. I would likely start my own children in Private but move them to public when they are older. Unless this education system get's a major overhall.

Private. Public schools here have gone downhill sharply in the last decade and a lot of students in them are failing now. Private schools do a better job, they must to compete for students and stay in business. The government pays for education including university (but in uni you must buy your own books) regardless of if you go to a public or private school so there is no difference in price. Many others see it the same way so the popularity of private schools is exploding and the government is going to lose its dominant position on the education market.

While it may be possible that students in public schools are more likely to fail than those who attend private schools, the issue of funding is a key one.

For too long the Howard (federal) and Rann (state) governments have deprived public schools with proper funding, leaving public schools to battle on. Private schools receive TOO much funding and also charge ridiculously high fees for students to attend.

Public all the way!

If I homeschooled my kids they would come up just as retarded as I am...

PUBLIC!!!!!

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why?

As for me, I would choose a Private School. Because well, let's face it, Public Schools suck. I've seen the incompetent of Public School administration (like suspending a 13 year old kid for drawing a picture of a gun.) and I've seen some of the worse public school ever when I was looking at school in Charlotte, NC. I've also seen private schools, and really Private Schools seem to be better run. There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools and kids are actually learning stuff instead of just learning how to take a test, (thank you No Child left Behind.) In my humble opinion, private school just seems a lot better than Public Schools.

That all depends on the amount of money you have I guess. Just so that you know in this little fucked up island of ours (the UK) the term Public School is used to mean a private paid for education.
Don't know why, it has always seemed odd to me, but there ya go.

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why?

As for me, I would choose a Private School. Because well, let's face it, Public Schools suck. I've seen the incompetent of Public School administration (like suspending a 13 year old kid for drawing a picture of a gun.) and I've seen some of the worse public school ever when I was looking at school in Charlotte, NC. I've also seen private schools, and really Private Schools seem to be better run. There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools and kids are actually learning stuff instead of just learning how to take a test, (thank you No Child left Behind.) In my humble opinion, private school just seems a lot better than Public Schools.
It would depend on where I was living.

I attended public schools and got a better education than my partner received at his private schools. My school district wasn't particularly wealthy, but for some reason we had some absolutely amazing teachers. I honestly haven't the foggiest idea how our public schools attracted some of them. (For instance, my AP American History teacher was a PhD who spoke at least half a dozens languages fluently. She could easily have been working at a university.)

My parents put a lot of time and energy into finding good schools for me. They chose which house they would buy based largely on what the school system was like. They could have bought a bigger house on a prettier lot for the same amount of money, but it would have been in a different suburb where the school system had a lousy reputation.

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why? I would send it to a public school (probably more that one) until the final two years of Highschool for the following reasons:

(1) The time spent in public school will open it's eyes and broaden it's horizons. Consider it an immunisation against the naivety of idiot private school kids.

(2) The latter time spent at a private school in the key years of highschool will provide the superior education standards when they are most important, as well as showing themhow fucked up and naive most shelterd rich kids are.

(3) Together the child will see exactly why they don't want to be like most poor kids, or like most rich kids. Plus, they will have a broader perspective and more mature and worldy conception of the world- perhaps the most important thing they could hope to get out of an education anyhow.

(4) I am not a self-righteous fuck who will mess with my child's education so as to maintain consistency with my irrelevant political beliefs. (i.e. I will send it to public school despite opposing the notion of public education peronally).

Well, my parenting motto is going to be WWMDD (What Would Mom & Dad Do?), given how I think they really did a good job of raising me. So I'm sending my kids to private school (I went to private school myself). I will, of course, look into the private school before I enroll my kids, and I'm quite happy to leave if it doesn't work out.

While this assumes that I'll have the money to pay private school tuition, I'm going to give tuition a priority. I care a lot about my kids, and they don't even exist yet!

I can give you some insight on a private school since I just graduated from one this year. Although it may be a safer environment the kids there are worse. Most are spoiled rich kids or religious fanatics. The class selection is minimal due to lack of funding and teachers (Since the funding comes from the parents of the children) BUT the teachers know their stuff. The teachers at my school had curriculum's that were on a high level but easy enough to understand at the high school grade level. Our Honors classes were on the same level as Public school AP classes. Now I am not saying that my school is better than every public school out there. Its hard to weigh the pros and cons because every school is run differently. Just one piece of advice from me: DONT SEND YOUR CHILD TO A CATHOLIC SCHOOL. My parents had me in there one year I came out with bruised and bleeding hands. It seemed like everything I did was from the devil or something. Anyways, in the end the choice is up to you, just make sure you have researched the schools in your area before you send your kid there.

Let's assume that you have a kid, and the choice now becomes whether or not to send him to either a Public School or a Private School. Which one would you choose and why?

As for me, I would choose a Private School. Because well, let's face it, Public Schools suck. I've seen the incompetent of Public School administration (like suspending a 13 year old kid for drawing a picture of a gun.) and I've seen some of the worse public school ever when I was looking at school in Charlotte, NC. I've also seen private schools, and really Private Schools seem to be better run. There isn't any of the Zero-Tolerance crap in Private Schools and kids are actually learning stuff instead of just learning how to take a test, (thank you No Child left Behind.) In my humble opinion, private school just seems a lot better than Public Schools.

Depends on the public school system. I live where the public school system is one of the best in the US. Then again, some of the private schools around here are even better (some are worse).

Not all private schools are great, and not all public schools suck.

There's a private school here that has 98 percent of its graduates accepted at Yale. But considering that Bush and Kerry (two idiots IMHO) graduated from Yale, I'm not sure that means much to me.

It's not as simple as public vs. private. I went to public schools, but I went to a good public school. A lot of suburban public schools are of pretty good quality, especially compared to the overcrowded, bloated public school systems for large cities.

Private schools may have their merits, but it seems like they nickel-and-dime kids to death, and they have outrageous tuition costs. Some schools are reasonable, but in town here, some of the upscale high schools charge $18,000 a year for tuition. I didn't pay that much for college.

I'm not going to have kids. thread over.

I'm not going to have kids. thread over.

Then don't post if you have nothing to say that's on topic.

Then don't post if you have nothing to say that's on topic.

sorry, but i have no idea how saying that i don't do what-if's is off-topic here, when this does look like a what-if thread..

It'll depend on how good the public and private schools are wherever I happen to be living.

sorry, but i have no idea how saying that i don't do what-if's is off-topic here, when this does look like a what-if thread..

I'm sorry, is it that difficult for you to comprehend that the thread does not revolve around whether or not you intend to have children, nor does it revolve around you personally, nor are you the arbiter of when the thread is over, but that it is instead for interested persons who plan on having kids or who have them already to discuss the merits of public versus private school?

The public elementary school that my kids go to houses the professional development center for our school district. (Since I develop professional development courses and materials for adult ed practitioners, I frequently chat with the teachers and administrators in the school about it.)

What I found interesting is that local private schools send their teachers to our public school district for professional development services. Certainly, it may be because we offer a decent selection of them and the teachers need to maintain their CEUS/PDUs for certification, but frequently it’s our teachers who are teaching these courses. If my kid’s teachers are good enough to teach the private school teachers how to improve their instruction, it’s certainly good enough for me.

Having just emerged from the public school system in 2006, and with both of my parents as elementary school teachers at government schools here in Austin, I can say with absolute certainty that public schools are the bane of our children's existence. No Child Left Behind only made this worse, conglomerating inefficiencies at the state level through a funnel into the even-more-inefficient federal government.

Private schools will always outperform public schools, and if public schools were abolished, private schools would become accessible to kids of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Some kids just don't WANT to go to college--and they shouldn't have to. If little Louie wants to become a mechanic, he should be able to forego precalculus and trigonometry for on-the-job training with cars.

Just another area the market can handle exponentially better than the government.

Of course, as it is now, since you're paying for public education anyway, you may as well enroll your kids. However, the quality of their education is based completely on luck. If you find caring and devoted teachers, in the business for the fulfillment, that's great. However, there is no other incentive to teach public school. Teachers aren't paid based on performance, so why should they even try? You also have to cope with constant statist propaganda. Throughout my developmental, easily influenced years as a child, I was constantly told that war is necessary, that "we" were right to drop the A-bombs on Japan, that welfare is a necessary program that half the people in the room would die without, and that the rights of the collective, and doing the best thing for strangers at your own expense, is the correct morality. Of course, through painful self-examination and social observation (and with a little help from Ayn Rand), I was able to see that all that was a load of bullshit, but I would never put my child through that kind of indoctrination.

It's easy to outperform public schools when you can deny any child entrance for any reason (like, grades not good enough from previous school), and you can kick out any child who under-performs so as to keep them from "ruining the test scores".

Of course, as it is now, since you're paying for public education anyway, you may as well enroll your kids. However, the quality of their education is based completely on luck. If you find caring and devoted teachers, in the business for the fulfillment, that's great. However, there is no other incentive to teach public school. Teachers aren't paid based on performance, so why should they even try? You also have to cope with constant statist propaganda. Throughout my developmental, easily influenced years as a child, I was constantly told that war is necessary, that "we" were right to drop the A-bombs on Japan, that welfare is a necessary program that half the people in the room would die without, and that the rights of the collective, and doing the best thing for strangers at your own expense, is the correct morality. Of course, through painful self-examination and social observation (and with a little help from Ayn Rand), I was able to see that all that was a load of bullshit, but I would never put my child through that kind of indoctrination.


So I take it your parents/guardians/whomever weren't terribly involved in your education?

I plan on sending my kids to the private Islamic school nearby.