Should public schools really be doing this?

[Hoss]

Oh, no...I guess it's true...the public schools are an abject failure...guido can't read!  I specifically said the big 3, not HH at one point.  And friends/family at another.  I guess I will just have to keep the posts shorter, so there is no loss of attention span.


Hoss,
Again, you guys are leaving me out!!  I wanna be an attention whore, too!!

Start posting links to YouTube videos, and then respond to yourself with another YouTube video, and you might qualify!  Or, you might try and point that out to people, then I will deputize you as the newest Forum Deputy Sheriff...LOL.

[guido911]

Private schools are fantastic. The one that I used to go to (Riverfield) is very hands on. Worksheets are rarely used. Long recesses, frequent fieldtrips, and many hands on projects make learning fun and more effective. I believe this would help public schools tremendously. Public schools are too traditional. More "out there" methods of learning would be much more effective in my opinion.

That there in my opinion is a very reasoned response. I take back my slap at you.

[we vs us]

Thank you for actually making an argument here rather than rant. My position on vouchers is not about different funding models or about competition in public schools. In my opinion, healthy competition is always a good thing and if private schools can do a job better educating our children than public schools (which they generally do), then why throw up walls to stop poorer kids from accessing them? Is the separation of church and state canard so sacrosanct (in some cases) that we are willing to to sacrifice them in favor of preserving public schools? Right now we have a disgusting public school system that is plainly not working. I want to read posts that posit changes/alternatives please...

I'm also for "healthy competition," but I have no idea what that means in this context.  In a voucher system, public and private schools would both be competing for the same money, and as I said before it will only end in a vastly unequal educational system -- worse even than it is now.  

And I also don't know what it is about private schools that makes them outperform public schools . . . unless it's the fact that the student body is self-selected by income and culture, and that they are well-funded.  Outside of that, I'm not sure that the day to day running of a private school is somehow inherently different from the day to day running of a public school.  Or that private school innovation can't be copied by public schools.

Unless you need more Jesus in your kid's day, and if that's the case, please feel free to have your own school for that.  

[ZYX]

I am not trying to promote Riverfield here, but I will once again use it as an example. The day to day running of that school is entirely different from a public school. It has a more intimate, casual, laid back type of feel. It doesn't feel rigid like public school does. The younger children are photographed constantly throughout the day with those pictures along with what they did sent in a daily newsletter to the parents via email. Older children are introduced into concepts such as drumline and "rock band" as an alternative to traditional band. (The school is too small for that.) So yes, private schools can offer very different approaches to learning as opposed to public, but I am not speaking for all private schools, but only from what I have encountered.  

[custosnox]

There are a number of things that keep public schools from performing in ways such as a private school.  The first point being that the steps involved in trying to change the system that has been in place for the public schools for years to a completely different one is so difficult that it could never occur on a wide enough scale to make any kind of real difference.  Another is that the parents of those in private school stay involved with the school, after all, they have to protect their investment.  Yes, some parents in public schools do, but far too few.  What that means is that those that are allowed to run rampant since there is no fear of reprisal at home that a lot of time and effort are diverted away from the rest of the student body to deal with them.  Of course the whole no student left behind crap made it really hard to actually punish them by doing things like holding them behind a grade, and suspending does even less to get them in line.  Another is the fact that the teacher to student ratio is better with Private schools.  Granted this is more of a factor with younger students, after all colleges often have an even greater difference in the ratio, but it's in those early years that a foundation is laid.  The private schools are more able to funnel their funds to this than the public since the privates are generally only one school, and thus only have the administration of that single school instead of the extended heirarchy needed to deal with the multiple school systems of the larger public schools.  In essence, one of the largest problems the public schools have is that they have the issue of fighting the entire beast when it comes to almost anything involved.

[Red Arrow]

I wanna be an attention whore, too!!

wanna be?

[Red Arrow]

I am not trying to promote Riverfield here, but I will once again use it as an example. ...

Were there a lot of kids there that didn't want to learn, had parents that didn't value an education, had discipline problems (beyond just being kids)?   Were there many special needs kids?

I expect the numbers were small but correct me if necessary.

[ZYX]

Didn't want to learn, yeah, parents that don't value education,no. Some probably had discipline problems, but these were not common, and I don't remember kids being expelled because of it. There are some special needs kids, I don't know how many, but there were some. But you also have to factor inthat the school is much smaller than public. I think one misconception about private schools is that kids are just expelled right and left when anything goes wrong. It doesn't happen. I'm really not trying to put down public school, but rather trying to bring up ways it could be more innovative. Innovation is not neccesarily expensive. You don't need to buy the latest technology to reshape the way learning happens. Encouraging teachers to provide a more hands on approach to learning is absolutely free. The problem with public school is that it's boring. If a student wants to succeed, he or she must pit their mind to it and work through the many boring assignments. Not to say private schools don't have those, but there are fewer. That is what gets rid of the kids that don't want to learn. They learn to like school. I honestly believe that many teachers we have now would love to be more creative, but they really aren't allowed to be after a certain extent.

[Conan71]

I'm also for "healthy competition," but I have no idea what that means in this context.  In a voucher system, public and private schools would both be competing for the same money, and as I said before it will only end in a vastly unequal educational system -- worse even than it is now.  

And I also don't know what it is about private schools that makes them outperform public schools . . . unless it's the fact that the student body is self-selected by income and culture, and that they are well-funded.  Outside of that, I'm not sure that the day to day running of a private school is somehow inherently different from the day to day running of a public school.  Or that private school innovation can't be copied by public schools.

Unless you need more Jesus in your kid's day, and if that's the case, please feel free to have your own school for that.  

There's no mystery to this at all.  If a parent cares enough to pay tuition to send their child to school, they are typically going to be more involved in the child's education.  In my personal experience with private school, we didn't have teacher's aides, parents would volunteer in the classroom.  My history teacher explained that he took a pay cut to teach at the school I went to after he left Tulsa Public Schools, but it was worth the cut because the working conditions were so much better.  What he meant by that was with the exception of one or two kids per class, everyone in there was success-oriented because someone at home cared about their education.

It has nothing to do with income or in-bred prosperity.  It has to do with parents who truly care about the prosperity of their own children.  You can't teach prosperity in school, you have to have role models at home.  Too many people are using the public school system as a babysitting service which is not at all what it's intended for.  

I do take exception to the idea being floated on here that the entire public education system is broken.  I really don't give a whit about the situation in Wisconsin, this is TulsaNow, not MilwaukeeNow.  I sent my kids to private school up until we moved into the Jenks district 12 years ago.  My second daughter just graduated from Jenks two weeks ago, yet one more public school success story.  My ex wife and I both worked, so neither of us had a lot of spare time to donate to the classroom.  However, we did provide role models of success (I don't mean riches either, quite a few things define success) we were involved in their activities, and we were there to help them with their studies when they needed it.  Both my daughters are very self-motivated so we really didn't have to ride them to finish projects and when they had trouble with a subject, we got them the necessary help if we could not be of help.

ZYX is very bright and well-spoken and by appearances is a public school success story.  I suspect his parents have been quite involved in his education and have not left it all up to someone else to educate their child.

The liberal mind-set is that somehow money will solve any problem, and those who have it should keep throwing good money after bad to fix problems for which there is no amount of money which can fix them.  The only thing which will fix the educational system is for parents to get involved, stay involved, and to provide positive role models.  A truly great teacher isn't one who worries first about how much they are paid, a truly great teacher cares about the welfare and education of their students.

[RecycleMichael]

Riverfield is a good private school with a quite different approach to education.

I helped start their recycling and composting program and donated materials and bins to the school. We go out there every year around Earth day and work with the kids.

This spring, the principal and I walked around the campus and there was a group of kids outside drawing pictures while sitting on a bridge. We walked up to a child sitting by himself with a dog and the principal asked what was happening. The child responded with, "it is a stray that I thought needed attention. My teacher said I could stay outside with him for a while".

It all seemed odd to me to be so unstructured, but I know some of the parents of kids there and their kids seem well-learned to me.

[Conan71]

Didn't want to learn, yeah, parents that don't value education,no. Some probably had discipline problems, but these were not common, and I don't remember kids being expelled because of it. There are some special needs kids, I don't know how many, but there were some. But you also have to factor inthat the school is much smaller than public. I think one misconception about private schools is that kids are just expelled right and left when anything goes wrong. It doesn't happen. I'm really not trying to put down public school, but rather trying to bring up ways it could be more innovative. Innovation is not neccesarily expensive. You don't need to buy the latest technology to reshape the way learning happens. Encouraging teachers to provide a more hands on approach to learning is absolutely free. The problem with public school is that it's boring. If a student wants to succeed, he or she must pit their mind to it and work through the many boring assignments. Not to say private schools don't have those, but there are fewer. That is what gets rid of the kids that don't want to learn. They learn to like school. I honestly believe that many teachers we have now would love to be more creative, but they really aren't allowed to be after a certain extent.

I could not agree with you more.  Is Riverfield somewhat based on the Montessori system?  It sounds familiar.  My daughters went to Undercroft Montessori and the learning approach was to allow children to choose what they wanted to learn and how they wanted to go about learning it using the tools they had available in the classroom and they worked at their own pace.  Teachers were actually more like guides to help keep some structure, but the students were allowed to innovate and feed their curiosity and creativity.  I loved the program and was really worried neither of them would do as well in a more structured environment, yet they prospered.  I think the biggest thing they took from the Montessori experience which helps them to this day is the sense of self-reliance and resourcefulness.

[ZYX]

That sounds very similar. I know the younger children (under first grade) are based on Reggio Amelia, a city in Italy with a very similar learning structure in their schools. Now that I think about it, I believe Riverfield does take some ideas from the Montessori, I've heard that name tossed around before.

[ZYX]

RM, did you notice the peacocks running free? [gag] I don't like peacocks for whatever reason.

[RecycleMichael]

RM, did you notice the peacocks running free? [gag] I don't like peacocks for whatever reason.

They have many animals and birds on their campus. I really like that.

[guido911]

I do take exception to the idea being floated on here that the entire public education system is broken.  I really don't give a whit about the situation in Wisconsin, this is TulsaNow, not MilwaukeeNow.  I sent my kids to private school up until we moved into the Jenks district 12 years ago.  My second daughter just graduated from Jenks two weeks ago, yet one more public school success story.  My ex wife and I both worked, so neither of us had a lot of spare time to donate to the classroom.  However, we did provide role models of success (I don't mean riches either, quite a few things define success) we were involved in their activities, and we were there to help them with their studies when they needed it.  Both my daughters are very self-motivated so we really didn't have to ride them to finish projects and when they had trouble with a subject, we got them the necessary help if we could not be of help.

ZYX is very bright and well-spoken and by appearances is a public school success story.

Public education "success" stories? What does that mean and why celebrate that? We should be showing scorn and disdain at a school system where we want to applaud those who "made it through" without getting f'd up.