Fee-Paying Schools

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You know, if there's a problem with the local school, why don't the parents volunteer to watch the cafeteria, the playground, tutor kids after school, protest the junk food being sold in the vending machines? Why? Because some parents really don't give a $h!t, and the rest think they know more about educating kids than the teachers who've actually been TRAINED to educate kids, so it screws it up for everyone else who actually COULD do something to fix the damn system.

Because that doesn't always work when the school is controlled by an incompetent board of education or the teachers union.

And yes - private schools DO NOT have to worry about all those things. But poor people, inner city people, who may have the brains to go to the private school - may not have the money to. With vouchers this gives them a way of going - where they deserve to go - instead of being in a drug and gang infested inner city school. Of course not - all inner city schools are like that. The number 1 school in NJ is the Dr Ronald McNair Acedemic High School - and it's in the heart of Jersey City.

Also - vouchers are much better at overcoming the "segragation". People right now - go to school where they live. With vouchers - people can go to a different school. It's much better than busing - because this leaves it up to the parents and gives them a choice.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because that doesn't always work when the school is controlled by an incompetent board of education or the teachers union.

That's why they have elections. That's why anyone can run for those seats. If the board is corrupt, it's easy to find out if the community is involved. If no one cares, the corruption continues.

If there's drugs and crime in the community, then it's the community's problem. THEY have to do something about it. The community can't just rely on the school to fix all their problems for them. They can't just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away. They have to get involved themselves and fix it. No institution ever fixed a problem, people fix the problems. That is, if they care.

Most city school districts have magnet schools. I substituted at this one already. Kids take a test and if they are extraordinary in math, literature, science, etc. they qualify to go to the magnet school which has advanced classes and the best teachers.

I have news for anyone who thinks that the best teachers are at private schools. They aren't necessarily. Private schools don't have to hire qualified licenced teachers to teach. My sister sent her son to a private school and a year later sent him to a public school, where it was found that he was behind in all his subjects. Private school teachers generally get about 60% or less of the salary as a public school teacher.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
That's why they have elections. That's why anyone can run for those seats. If the board is corrupt, it's easy to find out if the community is involved. If no one cares, the corruption continues.

If there's drugs and crime in the community, then it's the community's problem. THEY have to do something about it. The community can't just rely on the school to fix all their problems for them. They can't just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away. They have to get involved themselves and fix it. No institution ever fixed a problem, people fix the problems. That is, if they care.

You might want to see an example of politics and board of education getting in the way - with the story of Joe Clark and Eastside High. It was portrayed in the movie - Lean on Me

New Jersey takes over failing schools. That was what was going to happen to Eastside High if they didn't get their test grades up. The school board is disbanded and the state runs the school. New Jersey does the same to cities.

Most city school districts have magnet schools. I substituted at this one already. Kids take a test and if they are extraordinary in math, literature, science, etc. they qualify to go to the magnet school which has advanced classes and the best teachers.

A lot do - not all. Even so - the school right outside their distrct may be far better than the one in their district. Why can't they choose to go to the better school?

I have news for anyone who thinks that the best teachers are at private schools. They aren't necessarily. Private schools don't have to hire qualified licenced teachers to teach. My sister sent her son to a private school and a year later sent him to a public school, where it was found that he was behind in all his subjects. Private school teachers generally get about 60% or less of the salary as a public school teacher.

That isn't necessarily true for all. You look for a car don't you? Do analysis and so forth before you buy? Why didn't they do research on the school? It's not that hard - at least in NJ. All - schools - even private schools have to meet the minimum of the state of NJ.

[The Gaffer]

There's been talk of a voucher system here in the UK, and I really hope they don't introduce it. Education is not like buying a car: it is, as Ruinel says, an investment we all make in our future as a community. Vouchers will serve to undermine this sense of community and reinforce the inequalities in education and the divisions in society. "Good" schools will get their choice of the "best" pupils, reinforcing these inequalities.

Having said that, there is no great altruism in state education here. Selectivity tends to operate in the housing market instead: where you live is dictated in part by the quality of the local school.

Of course, it all goes back to what you mean by a "good" education. I can't comment on Eton, but I do have a bit of experience of teaching at one of the UK's "top" universities and I can vouch for the fact that some of the methods used are inferior to the rest of the country. However, because of its reputation, it can select the best quality students (i.e. people who are not only intelligent but highly motivated, ultra-confident and very likely to succeed), who are then plugged into an "old boy network" which more or less guarantees them the best jobs. So, in that sense, it is a very, very "good" university. I suspect that a similar system operates at (and, indeed, via) Eton.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There's been talk of a voucher system here in the UK, and I really hope they don't introduce it. Education is not like buying a car:

I wasn't saying it was like buying a car. I was saying that people go out and look into a car - sometimes it seems as if parents put more effort into buying their car than they do checking out the quality of schools. The way Ruinel made it sound - her friend didn't seem to put much effort into learning about the school before sending her child there, otherwise she would have known how the curriculum stood up to the public schools.

NJ has a report for every school in the state that parents can see how it performs compared to other schools. of course this isn't the only criteria which should be used though.

[quote]
NJ School Report Card

In 1995, the New Jersey Legislature passed the law that mandates a New Jersey Report Card for every school in the state. Over the last seven years, the Department of Education has expanded the data in the report card to provide as much information as possible to enable parents and community members to make judgments about the effectiveness of their schools...

...The local school narrative should contain information about your school that shows why it is unique and effective. The data in the Report Card will let you evaluate how your district's data compare with its past years' data. It is the trends in your child's school that are of importance to you, and those data trends should show a steady pattern of improvement.

it is, as Ruinel says, an investment we all make in our future as a community.

Well - the community should produce good schools - if they don't then the school has to change or it goes under. Bad schools should not just be propped up by endlessly funneling money to them. NJ takes a very hard line to poor performing schools.

Vouchers will serve to undermine this sense of community and reinforce the inequalities in education and the divisions in society. "Good" schools will get their choice of the "best" pupils, reinforcing these inequalities.

So the "best" students should be held back by terrible schools? Also - how does it introduce divisions in society? The poor and inner city students would also now be able to go to private schools. I think it makes the playing field more even.

We already have school choice in NJ

Having said that, there is no great altruism in state education here. Selectivity tends to operate in the housing market instead: where you live is dictated in part by the quality of the local school.

Property taxes are what pay for schools here. But in NJ - the state has funds for the poorer cities and as I said - the state will take over schools that don't live up to state standards. It's a HUGE embarrassment for the school if it's taken over by the state.

Currently there are three school districts which have been taken over by the state. State-Operated School Districts

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You might want to see an example of politics and board of education getting in the way - with the story of Joe Clark and Eastside High. It was portrayed in the movie - Lean on Me

Joe Clark did what anyone in education would like to do. Get rid of the students that only hang out there because either the courts require them to be there as a condition of parole, or they need to be close to their drug customers. Honestly, what he did was illegal or bordered illegal. You can't refuse students enrollment at a public school. The law protects the students.

That isn't necessarily true for all. You look for a car don't you? Do analysis and so forth before you buy? Why didn't they do research on the school? It's not that hard - at least in NJ. All - schools - even private schools have to meet the minimum of the state of NJ.

It's true here in Texas, in Florida, and in Spain (where I have a friend who teaches at a private American school). I don't know how it is in New Jersey or anywhere else. Teachers at the private schools earn far less than the public school teachers.

As far as I know, all city public school districs have at least one magnet school to meet the legal requirements for the 'gifted and talented'. Did you know that was a national law? It is. It's under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was amended by Clinton to include students who are 'Gifted and Talented'. A school might not have enough students to warrant whole classes being devoted to 'gifted and talented' students, but a district can pool them all together and provide education which will challenge them academically.

The situation I had mentioned before about the kid who fell behind at the private school, well, the mother thought she had checked it out and was sending her son to a good school. She was so shocked when she found out she was wrong.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There's been talk of a voucher system here in the UK, and I really hope they don't introduce it. Education is ...: ..., as Ruinel says, an investment we all make in our future as a community. Vouchers will serve to undermine this sense of community and reinforce the inequalities in education and the divisions in society. "Good" schools will get their choice of the "best" pupils, reinforcing these inequalities.

I happen to agree with your added comments here.

Having said that, there is no great altruism in state education here. Selectivity tends to operate in the housing market instead: where you live is dictated in part by the quality of the local school.

One of the neighborhoods near where I live has been transformed. It was mostly a poorer community and middle class home buyers began moving in. There's been more involvement in the schools now and the parks are getting cleaned up. I don't know why no one bothered to do this before, or why it took people with more money to start it, but it's a huge improvement. It's as I said before, though, it takes people to make things better in a community, not government.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Joe Clark did what anyone in education would like to do. Get rid of the students that only hang out there because either the courts require them to be there as a condition of parole, or they need to be close to their drug customers. Honestly, what he did was illegal or bordered illegal. You can't refuse students enrollment at a public school. The law protects the students.

Instead of worrying about them getting an education. Some of what he did was out there - but he got the school on track.

It's true here in Texas, in Florida, and in Spain (where I have a friend who teaches at a private American school). I don't know how it is in New Jersey or anywhere else. Teachers at the private schools earn far less than the public school teachers.

I wasn't referring to the amount of pay the teachers are getting. I was referring to the fact that your friend put her son into a private school but didn't seem to check it out ahead of time. Where did you get that I was referring to the teachers pay with what I said? And the pay of teachers isn't necessarily true in New Jersey - it depends on the private school. Catholic schools generally pay less - but that isn't the only private school there is.

As far as I know, all city public school districs have at least one magnet school to meet the legal requirements for the 'gifted and talented'. Did you know that was a national law? It is. It's under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was amended by Clinton to include students who are 'Gifted and Talented'. A school might not have enough students to warrant whole classes being devoted to 'gifted and talented' students, but a district can pool them all together and provide education which will challenge them academically.

Hence you have AP courses. NJ had AP courses long before that.

The situation I had mentioned before about the kid who fell behind at the private school, well, the mother thought she had checked it out and was sending her son to a good school. She was so shocked when she found out she was wrong.

Well how did she check out the school? Didn't the state have some way to compare schools?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
One of the neighborhoods near where I live has been transformed. It was mostly a poorer community and middle class home buyers began moving in. There's been more involvement in the schools now and the parks are getting cleaned up. I don't know why no one bothered to do this before, or why it took people with more money to start it, but it's a huge improvement. It's as I said before, though, it takes people to make things better in a community, not government.

Well the government is doing anything one or the other with vouchers - it's just giving parents a choice. Nothing wrong with parents being giving a choice, instead of being dictated on where they can send their children to school.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well - the community should produce good schools - if they don't then the school has to change or it goes under. Bad schools should not just be propped up by endlessly funneling money to them. NJ takes a very hard line to poor performing schools.

I agree with this. But it isn't going to be fixed by the state taking over the school. It's only going to be fixed when the people of the community come together to make it better. If you live where the schools are vandalized all the time, then find out who's doing it and prosecute them for it. Schools aren't put in the middle of nowhere or surrounded by a fog of invisibility, someone witnessed it.

And if the school has the worst teachers in the district, find out why? I'd bet you serious money its because of the administration of the school, the poor salaries, and the lack of good benefits. Good teachers get burned out of the system without backup and without support from the community, the parents and the administration. You have to find out what the problem is and FIX IT, rather than just backing out and giving up.

So the "best" students should be held back by terrible schools? Also - how does it introduce divisions in society? The poor and inner city students would also now be able to go to private schools. I think it makes the playing field more even.

No one says they have to be held back in terrible schools. I don't think that vouchers are going to help the poor kids in inner city schools go to good private schools. There's a matter of transportation, getting the kid to that school, since now the school district is no longer responsible for that. Then there's the difference between the voucher and the tuition. Can the parent(s) make up the difference? If they're really poor, I doubt they can. How much does this voucher represent in dollars for the year?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I agree with this. But it isn't going to be fixed by the state taking over the school. It's only going to be fixed when the people of the community come together to make it better. If you live where the schools are vandalized all the time, then find out who's doing it and prosecute them for it. Schools aren't put in the middle of nowhere or surrounded by a fog of invisibility, someone witnessed it.

it's not just vandalism - it's incompetent teachers, principals and board members. The school is overhauled from the inside - because they couldn't do the job. The board is completely disolved.

And if the school has the worst teachers in the district, find out why? I'd bet you serious money its because of the administration of the school, the poor salaries, and the lack of good benefits. Good teachers get burned out of the system without backup and without support from the community, the parents and the administration. You have to find out what the problem is and FIX IT, rather than just backing out and giving up.

That's what the state does by taking it over. They disolve the board first - then go from there.

No one says they have to be held back in terrible schools. I don't think that vouchers are going to help the poor kids in inner city schools go to good private schools. There's a matter of transportation, getting the kid to that school, since now the school district is no longer responsible for that. Then there's the difference between the voucher and the tuition. Can the parent(s) make up the difference? If they're really poor, I doubt they can. How much does this voucher represent in dollars for the year?

The voucher is the same amount that would have gone into the public school for that child. A school gets a certain dollar amount per dollar - that is why some schools have lied about how many students they have so they can get more money. There are good private schools in the cities too, they don't have to go miles and miles away. But I went to a private school which had busing and I my school was about 20 miles away. It's not unusual here ot have busing. Cranbury and Princeton have an agreement and many Cranbury students go to Princeton High School - that's about 20 miles.

As for being able to pay for private schools under voucher system - there could be various grants and scholarships for people. These grants would go a lot further if they weren't required to be paying the whole amount since the vouchers would be covering a huge chunk of it - which would mean that even more students may be able to take advantage of these grants and scholarships.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well the government is doing anything one or the other with vouchers - it's just giving parents a choice. Nothing wrong with parents being giving a choice, instead of being dictated on where they can send their children to school.

I think the voucher proposal is a huge waste.

There have already been voucher experiments going on in different parts of the country and none of them have proved to be helpful.

Vouchers have not had the positive effects on test scores of the students (of any color or socio-economic background) who participated. In fact, there was originally a study released on this experiment by Paul Peterson of Harvard University that there was no positive effects on whites or hispanics but positive effects on blacks, but this was overturned when Mathmatica, an independent testing company, provided the data that was used by Peterson for his report. The results were that in fact some of the effects of vouchers on black students had been NEGATIVE (meaning the scores went down) and there was only a positive effect on scores in New York City alone.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
it's not just vandalism - it's incompetent teachers, principals and board members. The school is overhauled from the inside - because they couldn't do the job. The board is completely disolved.

That's what the state does by taking it over. They disolve the board first - then go from there.

It's a shame that teachers aren't allowed to be on the board of education for their district. I think things would change in favor of the students if that was the case. All the teachers I know are so great with the kids. They go above and beyond, it's really amazing. I sat in some classes when I was substituting just to listen in and it's amazing all they do to stretch themselves over 30 kids (or more).

If the school is corrupt, you have to ask yourself 'why'. What keeps that system of incompetence and corruption in place? Then you clean house, as a community.

Have you volunteered at your local public school? Go see what you can do to make it better. See what you can offer.

As for being able to pay for private schools under voucher system - there could be various grants and scholarships for people. These grants would go a lot further if they weren't required to be paying the whole amount since the vouchers would be covering a huge chunk of it - which would mean that even more students may be able to take advantage of these grants and scholarships.

Of course, now we're back down to who the private schools allow into their schools and who they reject. If the private schools were not allowed to reject ANY student that shows up with a voucher, I'd say let them participate. If they want to continue the same system of pick and choose, then I say no.

Let's say that a parent has a disabled child that requires an aid throughout the day. The parent wants the child to go to a private religious school, but the school says they can't provide services for that child, and reject the applicant.

Or let's say that a parent is convinced that their child would be able to stop using drugs and get out of his gang if he goes to a private school. But the school rejects his application because of his past arrest record.

How is any of that fair? A public school still has to take on the responsiblity of educating these two students, with the added cost of councelors and aids. But the private school does not.

I find that inequality distasteful, at best.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I think the voucher proposal is a huge waste.

There have already been voucher experiments going on in different parts of the country and none of them have proved to be helpful.

In NJ it's an experiment - it's a reality. You must not have looked at the school choice link I posted.

Vouchers have not had the positive effects on test scores of the students (of any color or socio-economic background) who participated. In fact, there was originally a study released on this experiment by Paul Peterson of Harvard University that there was no positive effects on whites or hispanics but positive effects on blacks, but this was overturned when Mathmatica, an independent testing company, provided the data that was used by Peterson for his report. The results were that in fact some of the effects of vouchers on black students had been NEGATIVE (meaning the scores went down) and there was only a positive effect on scores in New York City alone.

I don't know - we have them - and there seems to be no problem and people use them. So to say that they are not good at all - is flagrantly wrong statement. Maybe those states don't have as good an educational system as NJ has. We are supposed to have one of the best in the country. There are a lot of reasons why they may have failed in those states.

It's amazing though - with the economy in the State of the Union thread you say that numbers and statistics can be used to say anything you want, but here you are using statistics and numbers and you have a different view of them.

[Radagast]

About the whole 'pride' issue. If one looks at a copy of Burke's Peerage (as some jokingly call it the guide to the criminal classes) generations have attended schools like Eton. Indeed, though I am far from having a Burke's entry, myself, father, grandfather and great-grandfather all attended Eton and I am the first Cambridger of the lot (the rest were all Christchurch, Oxford). It was a source of great pride to 13 year old me to be entering something that my family had- to wear the Eton tails, to kneel in the same magnificent chapel and all that. And, of course, the contacts I made were influential

[Radagast]

Oh and by the way, I don't want to seem a complete stereotype but I used to fox hunt before I went to Cambridge and, to be frank, I didn't like it much because riding a horse at that speed is intensely physical and I'm not that strong or well-built but I could certainly see how it was exhilerating and I disagree that it was barbaric.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Radagast
There are a number of ways of entering Eton:

Thanks for the info. I saw all this on their site. What I was really wondering about was their 'selection criteria' - is it still based on lineage/old money, or can any Tom, Dick or Harry get in now provided their name is put on the list in time?

[Radagast]

Officially or unofficially, BoP? Eton is, very arguably, the finest school in England and we thive on tradition. Therefore, they will unofficially put those from old families or those who have had a tradition of Etonians (often those are one and the same thing, like I said- see Burke's or Debrett's Peerage) slightly ahead. Of, course, if you can't pay the fees then it's generally not worth your while applying.

Some families are deemed 'beyond question' and will often skip the interview. Could you imagine interviewing the Duke of Westminster's son? He will be snapped up. Eton has produced 19 Prime Ministers and innumerable generals and admirals- who do not get there by intelligence but by being plugged into an old boy network which has far more control than most people realise.

Old money and lineage are still very important. In fact, barely a history lesson went by when I was there when a famous general was mentioned and someone would say, 'Oh yeah- my great-great-great grandfather' etc etc.

And thank god for all that. I don't want to seem hopelessly snobbish but if Eton were forced to take 'working class' students due to a government initiative or somesuch (which Eton are exempt from, as a public (Americans read private) school, by the way) they would feel out of place, out of their depth. I don't blam them, there were times when I felt out of place. Though I come from a line of Etonians mine is relatively very short. There are kids there whose families have donated the money to build a new wing, former headmasters and so forth.

So, in short, to answer your question, Tom Dick and Harry are generally frowened upon while Thomas, Richard and Henry are much preferred.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Oh and by the way, I don't want to seem a complete stereotype but I used to fox hunt before I went to Cambridge and, to be frank, I didn't like it much because riding a horse at that speed is intensely physical and I'm not that strong or well-built but I could certainly see how it was exhilerating and I disagree that it was barbaric.

The purpose of 'hunting' is to kill an animal. If you take the life of an animal, don't you think that it should be for a purpose? Such as to provide food. I find it barbaric to simply hunt an animal to it's death only for your own entertainment and sport.

I used to own a horse, I used to ride all the time. It has nothing to do with why I think fox hunting is barbaric.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The purpose of 'hunting' is to kill an animal. If you take the life of an animal, don't you think that it should be for a purpose? Such as to provide food. I find it barbaric to simply hunt an animal to it's death only for your own entertainment and sport.

I used to own a horse, I used to ride all the time. It has nothing to do with why I think fox hunting is barbaric.

Think of the wonders hunting does for the rural economy, though. And if a chap owns the land he hunts on, then why should he not be allowed to hunt whatever he damn well pleases on it?