View Full Version : Teacher's Kids In Private Schools

Kev Smyth
09-22-2004, 03:20 PM
America's education system continues to fall short of the best. Why? Money isn't the issue, it goes deeper than that. But as this article shows, those who know the system best, the teachers, are voting with their feet/dollars.

By George Archibald

More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.
Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.
In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.
In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.
Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study's findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.
Public school teachers told the Fordham Institute's surveyors that private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement and offer overall a better atmosphere.
"Across the states, 12.2 percent of all families — urban, rural and suburban — send their children to private schools," says the report, based on 2000 census data.
"Public education in many of our large cities is broken," the surveyors conclude. "The fix? Choice, in part, to be sure."
Public school teachers in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, Rochester, N.Y., and Baltimore registered the most dissatisfaction with the schools in which they teach.
"These results do not surprise most practicing teachers to whom we speak," say report authors Denis P. Doyle, founder of a school improvement company, SchoolNet Inc.; Brian Diepold, an economics graduate student at American University; and David A. DeSchryver, editor of the Doyle Report, an online education policy and technology journal.
"Teachers, it is reasonable to assume, care about education, are reasonably expert about it and possess quite a lot of information about the schools in which they teach. We can assume that no one knows the condition and quality of public schools better than teachers who work in them every day."
"They know from personal experience that many of their colleagues make such a choice [for private vs. public schools], and do so for good and sufficient reasons."
The report says the school choice movement has begun competitively forcing public school improvement, particularly in cities like Milwaukee, called "a hotbed of school reform," where 29.4 percent of public school teachers sent their children to private schools, the study finds.

09-22-2004, 04:15 PM
So a right-wing paper publishes a story based on a study by an organization that is hell-bent on promoting charter schools.

I hope you can do better than this.


Kev Smyth
09-22-2004, 04:21 PM
Do any of your observations invalidate the raw statistics provided?

Do you have anything productive to say about the topic, or are you only going to attack the messenger?

09-22-2004, 04:34 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't private schools simply raise their tuition rates if vouchers (subsidies) are put in place, thus leaving them still out of $ reach for most people?

09-22-2004, 04:46 PM
I've met teachers that home school their kids. How they manage that, I don't know, but the motive is the same.

Kev Smyth
09-22-2004, 04:48 PM
It's possible, and a common argument of those who oppose private/charter/home school programs.

Another possibility is that the availability of additional money in the private sector will lead to the creation of additional "supplies" of school opportunities leaving costs unchanged or even reduced.

As it is now, private school costs vary widely from only a few thousand dollars a year for many Christian or co-op style schools to over $20,000/yr for prestige programs.

I personally don't think the real issue here is money- numerous studies have shown that expenditures per student have little relationship to the "final product." I think the issue is political control and power, with the NEA and related unions at the core opposing change.

George Roberts
09-22-2004, 04:49 PM
Kev Smyth ---

Perhaps a correct conclusion is that teachers are paid too much.

09-22-2004, 04:59 PM
I don't oppose private school, etc., programs... I just don't see how a voucher/choice program would work.

My daughter taught in elementary public schools in Brooklyn, NY and found that almost her full attention was given over to maintaining discipline in a grossly overcrowded classroom with little or no supplies.

Some of the children were totally unprepared to respect, or even listen to, teachers and adults, and those who were became discouraged by the disruption caused by those few.

Kicking the kids out, or suspending them temporarily, brought on expensive, time-consuming and job-threatening lawsuits by the parents.


[ 09-22-2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: rbgarr ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 05:43 PM
I think the issue is political control and power, with the NEA and related unions at the core opposing change. The present Administration has no particular interest in the education system. How much improvement do you think the 1 billion dollars a week that is being spent in Iraq would do to improve the US education system?

According to KM Gresham, the only problem is people who refuse to learn. With 48% of Americans functionally illiterate, that's a lot of students with bad attitudes don't you think?

[ 09-22-2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

N. Scheuer
09-22-2004, 05:50 PM
I've learned to be skeptical of k.m.gresham's observations.

Moby Nick

09-22-2004, 05:56 PM
48% functionally illiterate ... WOW! I'd like to see that report (seriously!).

Hey, there is a world of opportunity, given the right environment ...

Hell, I entered university as a sophomore ... right out of high school ...

A bit of motivation for the finer things in life is all it takes ...

We can blame this and blame that, but at the end of the day, us parents need to look at ourselves ... many are disappointed- I am not.

Kev Smyth
09-22-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
[QUOTE] How much improvement do you think the 1 billion dollars a week that is being spent in Iraq would do to improve the US education system?Probably not much. Money isn't the issue. The last private school my kids were in, one of the "best" in the NW, ran about $15k/yr per student, not quite twice what the Seattle school district spends per child. It wasn't twice as good. In fact, many parents moved kids back and forth over the years between this school and Seattle's "gifted" program looking for the best fit for their kids. The differences were more in style than effectiveness.

Less administration, more focus on basics, less federal interference, all would help. But more money will only serve to build little dynasties within the existing system.

N. Scheuer
09-22-2004, 06:31 PM
I suspect 97% US adult literacy overatates the case by quite a margin.

Could it be an extraordinarily low threshold for "literacy"?

Credentials? Two wives in the teaching proffession, as well as two daughters.

Moby Nick

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 06:32 PM
Literacy Statistics for the United States


At least 50% of the unemployed are functionally illiterate.
--U.S. Department of Labor

On average, a functionally illiterate adult earns 42% less than a high school graduate.
--U.S. Department of Education
It is estimated that $5 billion a year in taxes goes to support people receiving public assistance who axe unemployable due to illiteracy.
--Laubach Literacy Action
The average kindergarten student has seen more than 5,000 hours of television, having spent more time in front of the TV than it takes to earn a bachelors's degree.
--U.S. Department of Education
People with less than 6 years of schooling are 4 times more likely to be receiving public assistance than those attaining 6 years or more.
--American Council of Life Insurance
27% of army enlistees can't read training manuals written at the 7th grade level.
--Laubach Literacy Action
55% of all children in poverty live in single-parent households headed by women, and 40% of all single mothers have an 8th grade education or less.
--Laubach Literacy Action
A 1985 study of 2l-25 year olds, 80% couldn't read a bus schedule, 73% couldn't understand a newspaper story, 63% couldn't follow written map directions, and 23% couldn't locate the gross pay-to-date amount on a paycheck stub.
--National Assessment for Education Progress
In 1985, Proctor & Gamble, Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds/Nabisco each spent more on advertising than the U.S. government spent on adult education.
--World Almanac. 1988
It's estimated that by the year 2000 the median new job created will require 13.5 years of education.
--Workforce 2OOO, US. Department of Labor
It is estimated that adult reading scores improve approximately one grade level with 35-45 hours of tutoring.
--Literacy Volunteers of America
44% of all American adults do not read one book in the course of a year.
--U.S. Department of Education
The education of the parent is the single greatest predictor of whether a child will be raised in poverty.
--US. Dept. of Health & Human Services
Youngsters whose parents are functionally illiterate are twice as likely as their peers to be functionally illiterate themselves.
--National Assessment of Education Progress

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 06:38 PM
I need to find that study.. Here are some Canadian Stats... not encouraging either

In 1995, the path-breaking International Adult Literacy Survey reported that 17 to 22% of Canadians have difficulty dealing with everyday written material. That means that many would have trouble with:

understanding the dosage on a medicine label
following instructions on a common household product
filling out an order form

Another 25% of Canadians are unsure of their reading skills, and avoid reading unless the material is very clearly written and presented.

Source: Literacy, Economy and Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, Statistics Canada, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1995

Toronto is the most ethnically diverse city in the world. More than 130 languages are spoken here. One in four Torontonians speaks a first language other than English or French.

Source: Metro Toronto Business and Market Guide, Toronto Board of Trade

More than half (60%) of people who receive social assistance are unable to read and write well enough to function in Canadian society.

Source: International Adult Literacy Survey, Statistics Canada, 1995

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 06:44 PM
Article Published: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:30:28 PM Pst

Illiteracy shockingly high in L.A.

Half of workers unable to read

By Rachel Uranga
Staff Writer

Continued immigration and a stubborn high school dropout rate have stymied efforts to improve literacy in Los Angeles County, where more than half the working-age population can't read a simple form, a report released Wednesday found.
Alarmingly, only one in every 10 workers deemed functionally illiterate is enrolled in literacy classes and half of them drop out within three weeks, said the study by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

"It's an emergency situation," said Mayor James Hahn, adding that poor literacy rates could jeopardize the region's economy by driving out high-tech businesses and other industries that pay well.

In the Los Angeles region, 53 percent of workers ages 16 and older were deemed functionally illiterate, the study said.

That percentage dropped to 44 percent in the greater San Fernando Valley -- which includes Agoura Hills and Santa Clarita -- but soared to 85 percent in some pockets of the Valley.

The study measured levels of literacy across the region using data from the 2000 Census, the U.S. Department of Education and a survey of literacy programs taken from last September to January.

It classified 3.8 million Los Angeles County residents as "low-literate," meaning they could not write a note explaining a billing error, use a bus schedule or locate an intersection on a street map.

And despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent in public schools over the past decade to boost literacy rates, functional illiteracy levels have remained flat because of a steady influx of non-English-speaking immigrants and a 30 percent high school dropout rate, authors of the report said.

The last available national study was conducted in 1992 by the National Adult Literacy Survey, which found that 48 percent of the nation's working-age population was functionally illiterate.

"This is a ticking time bomb, a dirty secret we don't want to talk about. We are losing the battle," said Mark Drummond, chancellor of California's community college system.

Dozens of community-based groups, including the Literacy Network of Greater Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Unified School District and other public agencies vowed to improve programs over the next five years by connecting English learners with employers and educating 1,000 workers with English-language deficiencies during the next two years.

A top priority should be making classes more accessible. For example, the report found that no school in the county offered Saturday classes or tailored classes for adult students with families or multiple jobs.

And while nearly 90 percent of adults take literacy classes to improve their employment opportunities, only 30 percent of literacy programs include the workplace in their instruction.

"It's appalling," said Marge Nichols, the author of the study. "A 50 percent dropout rate (for literacy classes) is pretty dysfunctional. We haven't kept up."

Though the report offers no estimate for the cost of functional illiteracy, the National Right to Read Foundation places the price tag nationally at $224 billion. And local observers say untold millions are being lost by would-be employers who move to other cities in search of highly skilled workers.

[ 09-22-2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Bruce G
09-22-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by George Roberts:
Kev Smyth ---

Perhaps a correct conclusion is that teachers are paid too much.Where? :rolleyes:

You know the difference between a teacher and a large pizza?
A large pizza can feed a family of four! :(

It is a bunch of crap to state that teachers are paid too much. Teachers spend more money (%) out of pocket for their classrooms than other professionals. KMA if you think they make too much.

Oh and as for the old saying- they get a three month paid vacation~~~~ BULLSH!TE!!! Teachers have the ability to have the money they EARNED through out the year prorated to last through the summer. Teachers put in more than 8 hours a day- work weekends- put up with crap from idiotic sue happy parents. :mad:

Your statement was just complete BS :mad:

09-22-2004, 07:41 PM
I went to public school in the US, grades 7-12. Some of my teachers were good. One or two were exceptional. About half were worthless idiots - my time would have been better spent watching television.

09-22-2004, 07:45 PM
Never let your schooling interfere with your education.

09-22-2004, 08:35 PM
I work in a high school with a staff of about 100. I have taught many of their children at that high school. Here in the Lansing Area, we have one Catholic High School and at least one charter school that I know of. No staff member that I am aware of has sent any of their children to any private school in the area. I guess that's my evidence.

The $15,000 per year that was mentioned above is over 2x what the state gives us per pupil ( about $6700).

I believe that our plight is similar to that of many districts right now too. The overall population has dropped while the population at the highschool as increased. This is a tough situation in that the fixed costs such as bussing (Ours is the second largest district in Michigan in terms of geographic area) remain unchanged, we have less money to spend and more students to spend it on at the high school.

Of the 100 staff members, 85 of them are teachers. Since each teacher has one hour for planning each day, this leaves 71 teachers in class at a time. With over 1850 students this means that classes hover around 26 students/class, not taking into account the special ed classes that are limited to 15 students.

We had to lay teachers off last year, so obviously we are in no situation to hire more. Pay-to-play and outstanding booster clubs have minimized the impact that athletics has on our overall budget, but the No Child Left Behind policy, when combined with a large special ed department creates an enormous burden on the district. The fact is, "$6700 per" is a tough number to work with. So yes, most of us would like to see a few bucks more thrown at the schools.

Now maybe I'm just rambling on a bit, but I believe that my district is not an exception to any rule and the problems that we're facing are similar to those of most districts in the U.S. And I think we're handling them in much the same way as most. I just thought it might give you all an idea of what's going on from my perspective.

BTW-Bruce, thanks for going to bat for us. Much appreciated.


[ 09-22-2004, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Beowolf ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 08:40 PM
web page (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/design/about92.asp)

This is the web page for the original survey. It's your government in action, so I won't be prepared to argue the statistics. If you don't believe them, it's okay with me. Donn, I just wonder why every source that somebody lists that doesn't agree with your opinion is somehow not legitimate. ;)

[ 09-22-2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Harry Miller
09-22-2004, 08:42 PM
Jeff, I thought you weren't going to get sucked in again. smile.gif smile.gif

09-22-2004, 08:50 PM
You got me there, Harry.

In truth, I was thinking about that very statement while I was typing up that post. (I was even a bit curious if anyone would remember.) Hence, it is more of an informational post than an argumentative one. (Thus, it is meant to be read in a very calm, even-handed, "inside", voice. ;) )

You may have also noticed, that unlike many of its predecessors, it does not open up with the statement ".... you're an idiot."

Take Care


Kev Smyth
09-22-2004, 09:16 PM
Jeff- thanks for the post. Apparently you were involved in a previous education-related thread I missed?

I'm curious where you think more money would help, and where some is spent now to no effect.

In the district I'm in, one "special needs" student's parents successfully sued the school district over the quality of his program, and won the right to have their son sent to a special boarding school in Texas that offered a proven, successful program that fit his situation. The total cost is close to $250,000/yr. The result is NO funding for any kind of gifted/accelerated program, and the decimation of all other special needs programs.

My understanding is that the way our law is written allowed this quirk to occur, but I wonder how much effort/funding should really be put into attempting to educate those whose realistic potential is clearly limited. Especially when it impacts so many more.

09-22-2004, 09:54 PM
Well Kev,

That seems to be at the very heart of the NCLB act. Here's a situation that has occured where I teach. Our school has always invested a lot into its special ed dept. In fact, I believe that it is the largest dept in our school. For many this has been a great thing. The size of our school dist, in comparison to many of the small districts surrounding us meant that we could shoulder the financial burden of this dept much easier and the parents of children with special needs from nearby districts were able to send their children here, allowing us to utilize that dept to its maximum, and also recieve adequate funding through the dollars that came with those students.

However, the NCLB act has really hit us hard in this regard as now we must supply staff who are able to cater to the specific needs of these students. For example, we have three blind students that have come to our high school. They bring about $20,000 with them in state dollars, but that doesn't come close to the money that we have to pay for the to Visually Impared parapros that we have hired to assist them. Now I realize that we are able to assist them better with these additional staff. I've come to appreciate them as two of these students are in my astronomy class, which is in of itself, a unique challenge. But at the same time, a considerable burden is placed on the district where before we most likely would have done our best to service these students with our existing staff.

The real concern is for smaller districts who are unable to meet the needs of these students and then must face penalties for it, which sounds like the case that you stated.

As for money that is poorly spent. That's a tough one. I'm sure that every teacher that you speak to will have differing opinions. Most will say that districts are top heavy. Too much central administration. Me, I don't know enough about what goes on in that building to make that call, but there sure are a lot of people in there. And true, there's been a few that have come and gone whom I've thought "What did they ever do?"

As I said earlier, we do our best to keep the financial burdens of athletics to a minimum to the district at large while still building quality programs. We're fortunate in that we have a group of very passionate people coaching.

Personally, I think that too much time and money is spent catering to the state wide assessment test (HST). We spend so much time making sure that everyone is at the level of the test that we don't allow for kids to excel beyond it. And for us, it's already a losing battle. We started off with scores that were high enough that we don't really have anywhere to go. We scored A's and B's in every category, yet we received a C- overall because only 98% of our students took the test, and many of those who did not take it had left the district.

I think that the root of the problem is that you can not assess what a student has learned in high school with a single test. Indeed, there may be no more inadequate method. It's just all we've got at the moment.

If any of you come up with some big idea, let me know. ;)

As for the getting hooked on another education thread, about a year ago, I kinda blew up on a few threads along similar lines. I've since switched back to caffinated coffee. :D

Gotta go. It's late and I've got school tomorrow.


Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 10:00 PM
You're right, you do spend a lot of money....


In 1995, per student expenditures on education, from both public and private sources, were $6,396 in Canada, compared with $7,905 in the United States (all dollar expenditures are expressed in equivalent U.S. dollars). The OECD country mean was $4,717.

Canada’s per student expenditures at both elementary-secondary and postsecondary levels ranked second among G-7 countries, behind the United States. The spread between countries in per student expenditures was larger at the postsecondary level: Canada spent $11,471, the United States spent $16,262 and the OECD mean was $8,134. Per student expenditures at the elementary-secondary level in Canada were $5,401, compared with $6,281 in the United States, and an OECD mean of $4,162.

George Roberts
09-22-2004, 10:03 PM
Bruce G ---

Perhaps you should have read Kev Smyth's post:

More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.

It appears that those locations and the others listed pay their teachers too much.

But I guess you can hit keys as well as most.

Jack Heinlen
09-22-2004, 11:59 PM
Growing Up Dumber Than Anvils

Coma In The Schools

Today: American schools and how they got to be the dark night of the mind -- why our children's heads have become vast, hollow, echoing places, like empty oil drums, and why they can't read stop signs without counting on their fingers. After today, you'll never have to read about education again. You'll know everything.

I figure a column ought to be like an appendectomy. You only need to do it once.

Here it is:

Our kids can't read because we don't care whether they can read.

Yep. That's how simple it is. The problem isn't television or drugs or even invisible pervasive dumb-rays shot by space aliens. There's no mystery about it. We just don't care. We talk a good show. But it's all talk. If we were serious, we'd do something. There are problems we can't solve, like AIDS, and problems we won't solve. Education falls into the second category.

We know how to run good schools. To teach, say, algebra to eighth-graders, get a smart teacher lady who knows algebra, and who likes adolescents, to the extent that is possible to like adolescents. Find a solid workbook with lots of problems. Trap her, the workbooks, and the students in a room. Tell her to teach -- not just sort-of teach but to stretch the minds of the libidinous little monsters, and tell her to give bunches of homework, and that the school will support her if she flunks the nonfeasors, if it means the entire class and all their relatives to remote generations and strange phyla. Then go away.

This works. It always has. We just won't do it.

Thing is, parents have to help, and too many of them don't. They aren't really interested, or they're swamped trying to be single mothers or make the mortgage, or they both have jobs and want the government to raise their children. This isn't good enough. Parents need to explain to their churning hormone wads that learning is not optional. And there have to be consequences.

Fathers in particular should speak as follows to their treasured experiments in homebrew DNA-splicing:

"Son, I don't give a faint, wan, bleary-eyed damn about your dumb-ass self-esteem. I've been forty-eight years on this sorry planet, and nothing has ever struck me as quite so uninteresting as your self-concept. All I care about is algebra. Here's an equation. No algebra equals no Saturday night dates."

If this sounds brutal, good. There's nothing like the expectation of dismemberment to boost performance. Remember, you aren't asking the impossible of the tad. If he isn't smart enough to learn algebra, he shouldn't be in the class. If he's smart enough, then he can blessed well learn it.

Kids will get away with what they can get away with. But if young Willy Bob realizes that you really will keep him in on Saturday night, and some evil-minded football player will get his darling Sally Carol with the lovely blue eyes and golden hair and nine-pound braces, and park with her on deserted back roads, well, old Willy Bob will factor quadratics something fierce. Quadratics will become an endangered species, and hide under rocks.

And I'll tell you something else. The kid will respect you for it and, eventually, respect himself. Kids esteem themselves when they have accomplished something worth esteeming. (That's a piercing insight. I may patent it.)

Granted, if people insist on performance, life won't be real easy for a few years. Teen-agers are intolerable. It's a design feature. Boys act like James Dean in a sulk. If you have a daughter, she will play your heartstrings like a bull fiddle, because girls do that, and then relapse into tyrannosaur mode and shriek. She'll tell you piteously that she'll do better, and her life will be ruined if she can't go to some concert of musical illiterates masquerading as a rock band. The answer is still, "No. I love you, but you are going to do your algebra. We are now through with this discussion."

The aforesaid works. It works better with some kids than with others, and you always lose a few, but it works better than anything else. Thing is, we aren't going to do it. The schools aren't going to improve. The teachers unions, obsessed with protecting their jobs, are absolutely in the saddle. With exceptions, but not enough exceptions, they don't like the whole idea of education, so they jaw-storm about feelings and attitudinal change and empowerment, whatever that is. We don't care enough to buck them.

Still, in moments of fatuous optimism, I reflect that it could be done. If a few hundred parents showed up at school with a rope and a focused look, results might follow. In fact, when I'm dictator, I'm going to put a bounty on the National Education Association. Bag one and bring the varmint in stuffed, and you'll get a keg of Budweiser and three free nights of bowling. It would be like duck hunting, but more satisfying.

Next I'd pass some laws. To teach in grade school, you would have to be in the upper third of the GREs, and sign a statement that you hated self-esteem worse than rabies or pellagra, and that you would teach children to read and write and know stuff and if you didn't you would be boiled into tallow and made into candles and sent to India, where they can't read at night.

Further, to teach in high school you would have to be in the top ten percent, and have a degree from a real university in the subject you taught. Not in education. You can't teach what you don't know. Then I'd raise salaries by five thousand dollars a year, each year, until I got bodacious fine teachers that you could show in the county fair.

You can catch anything with the right bait. It would be about as hard as getting ticks in a cow pasture. I reckon you might need a long afternoon to find twenty kerbillion smart women who wanted to actually contribute something to society, and get home when their kids did. I'd give'm great retirement programs and their summers completely off. Pretty soon they'd get respect from the community because they'd be worth respecting.

And you know something? It would do wonders for the kids' self-esteem. Who feels happier about himself -- a child with a decent education and the confidence that goes with it, or one who barely speaks English, can't puzzle out warnings on a table saw, and figures to spend his life sleeping under bridges?

Never happen. We don't care enough. I reckon countries just plain get the schools they deserve. That's scary.

Fred Reed

Bruce G
09-23-2004, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by George Roberts:
Bruce G ---

Perhaps you should have read Kev Smyth's post:

More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.

It appears that those locations and the others listed pay their teachers too much.

But I guess you can hit keys as well as most.Teachers are like anyone else~ they will go without for what they feel is best for their child. Don't give me this crap that I should read the article- I did read it!

Are you stating that just because they save their money and pinch their pennies to send their kids to private school, then they MUST be making too much money. Come on, you've got to be saying this tongue in cheek, for any reasonable person would not adhere to such comments :rolleyes:

Chris Stewart
09-23-2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by rbgarr:

Some of the children were totally unprepared to respect, or even listen to, teachers and adults, and those who were became discouraged by the disruption caused by those few.

:mad: I believe this, in a nutshell, is why the American public school system is failing to deliver a quality education. The root problem, though, is not the kids - even the unruly ones - its the parents. Teachers send their kids to private schools because they value education. I strongly suspect that most teachers' kids, whether in public or private school, don't disrupt the class, do their homework completely and probably do extra-credit work or participate in sports/band/whatever on the side. They are there to learn, not have fun.

If parents value education, and instill a love of learning in their kids, the problem will solve itself. Making sure the kids know how important learning is, and that the parents expect them to work and work hard is critical. Probably the most valuable "tough love" a parent can give a kid is to not have a TV set, or at least not allow kids to watch. Sure, there are a few educational shows, but there's precious little the kids can learn on TV that they couldn't learn from a book (which would improve both their reading and research skills).

Ever wonder why most of the science contests have a disproportionate number of Asian kids? Their parents value education and instill that value system in their kids. Ever wonder why, as a minority, they don't get (or need) affirmative action programs? Same answer.

[/rant] :mad:

[ 09-23-2004, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Chris Stewart ]

09-23-2004, 08:59 AM
My son went to Harvard summer school. we sold our 2004 toyota minivan to send him ( in reality we hated the 2004 and decided to keep our old 2000) By comparison one of my son's best friends has a higher GPA and is equally if not more motivated, He stayed home and got into trouble. His parents spent $14,000 on a new pontoon boat (groan). I don't know how much they are spending on a lawyer.

My son's girlfriend is going to a community college this year even though she has been accepted by two notable design schools, Her parents refuse to even fill out the finacial aid forms, They bought a new BMW motorcycle this spring and went on a cruise to Alaska this summer. They make probaly twice what my wife and I make. Our kid will go to the best private college he can get into. We will go cruising in my plywood boat and ride bicycles.

They all have gone to the same public schools since elementary and often had the same teachers.

BTW when we were at Harvard and met the other kids and their parents, we were surprised to find the majority were not overprivilged brats and thier parents looking for a place to dump thier kid while they summer in the Hamptons. Most were working stiffs that put thier kids education in front of thier own comfort.

It is a matter of priorities.

[ 09-23-2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: flatbottom ]

Alan D. Hyde
09-23-2004, 09:03 AM
Jeff (Beowolf), I'm curious as to what percentage of your school district's total revenue is spent on teacher salaries.

Years ago, most districts exceeded 80 per cent, and some exceeded 90 per cent for this figure. Now, for too many, it is below 50 per cent.

In many districts, way too much money never makes it to the classsroom because it is diverted into the pockets of an increasingly bloated administrative bureaucracy, which often has its own fish to fry, and cares little about teachers or classroom excellence.