Cameron's Big Society

[Dauphin]

The use of private and public school is confusing me, as they mean the same thing.

Public/Private vs State is the split. Except I went to a state grammar, which the left lot also wanted to get rid of.

[Ben Kenobi]

By that logic, if public schools were inferior then voters would elect politicians who would replace public schools with voucher programs.

Only those voters who believed that the public schools weren't working. Those that did would oppose vouchers. It's really very simple as we see here in the thread.

All the people opposed to privatisation believe that public schools suck, except for the one they went to 20 years ago, or the one their child goes to now.

All the people in support of privatisation, either had a crappy experience in public school, or have seen the superior results attributed to private schools, and see this as evidence that they are superior in educational outcomes. This isn't exactly controversial, even you admit that you get a better education out of private school.

Your only argument is to do one of two things. Whine about parents, or whine about minorities, or whine about poverty. Obviously public education is useless, because it cannot overcome either of these factors. If you have bad parents, you aren't white or are poor, why bother educating you?

[giblets]

Only those voters who believed that the public schools weren't working. Those that did would oppose vouchers. It's really very simple as we see here in the thread.

Assuming people are rational economic actors, the fact there are so many people who support public education over vouchers is evidence that public education is better.

Your only argument is to do one of two things. Whine about parents, or whine about minorities, or whine about poverty. Obviously public education is useless, because it cannot overcome either of these factors. If you have bad parents, you aren't white or are poor, why bother educating you?

Universal education is not useless for mitigating poverty, I just don't see much evidence for private being better than public education.

[Ben Kenobi]

the fact there are so many people who support public education over vouchers is evidence that public education is better.

Not necessarily. It can also mean that these people sincerely believe that public education is better.

Universal education is not useless for mitigating poverty

Since you've openly complained that poor kids are harder to educate, therefore they are dragging the education down, why would you believe that universal education has anything to do with mitigating poverty?

I personally believe that education can overcome these factors, and that the problem is the system, not the students. this is why I want to see the system privatised so that the public education system can overcome the effects of poverty, which they are obviously failing to do now.

I just don't see much evidence for private being better than public education.

Remember public education is free. Just because a person may believe that private education is better doesn't necessarily overcome the cost of private education. By the same token, some people actually do believe that public schools are better, and so the costs of each do not even enter the picture.

The fact that private education has a cost attached to it ensures that everyone who is in private education believes that this will be superior to the public alternative.

[Heraclitus]

Heraclitus is probably thinking something about race. I'm saying that after accounting for socioeconomic status private schools aren't that much more effective.

Not race. I'm talking about IQ.

[Heraclitus]

I'm saying there's a reason why those people who can afford to pay for their children's education choose to put them in private school. It's simple rational choice by economic actors. If in fact private schools were inferior, then no one would use them over the free option of public schools.

Sigh.

Even parents who's kids aren't smart or good students want their kids to have smart, well behaved schoolmates because they on gut level know what studies have confirmed: Parental influence is negligible compared to that of peer groups.

Good schools both private and public together with the parents of their pupils are constantly trying to find ways to keep "bad" students out. And bad student's parents and bleeding hearths are constantly trying to get these kids in.

[This gets hilarious when bleeding hearths switch roles once it comes to the school their kids go to.]

Because the parents of poor students tend to have fewer resources and are on average slightly dumber the balance lies closer to where the schools and well off parents want them.

[giblets]

Not necessarily. It can also mean that these people sincerely believe that public education is better.

Hopefully now you can see what's wrong with what this guy said:

I'm saying there's a reason why those people who can afford to pay for their children's education choose to put them in private school. It's simple rational choice by economic actors. If in fact private schools were inferior, then no one would use them over the free option of public schools.

You can't conclude private education must be better simply because some people will pay extra for it.

Since you've openly complained that poor kids are harder to educate, therefore they are dragging the education down, why would you believe that universal education has anything to do with mitigating poverty?

I personally believe that education can overcome these factors, and that the problem is the system, not the students. this is why I want to see the system privatised so that the public education system can overcome the effects of poverty, which they are obviously failing to do now.

Are you trying to troll me? You can't possibly be this stupid. The fact that socioeconomic factors have a big effect on the likelihood of graduation does not imply that all poor kids will never graduate.

[Hauldren Collider]

They tend to do so in most developed countries in the world.

Especially in northern Virginia

Obviously your schooling is deficient as your math sucks horribly.

Actually it means he thinks 100% of private school students graduate.

EDIT: Ok, yeah it means his math sucks too

You guys don't get it. The graduation rate is meaningless. In fact, it's bull ****. It's a lie. Americans aren't smart.

It's true, you bring the average down quite a bit. It might be alright without you.

From the top, working downwards-

Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
Could have produced Ben Kenobi.

Now really, let's be fair here, he was taught at a Canadian school.

[Heraclitus]

Schools being public or private makes little difference in the end when it comes to what you two are arguing about. Since trying to ensure people who rigg good schools to stay good generally involves bureaucracy and rules, and slightly smarter or wealthier parents are in a better position to navigate these rules and lawyer up so to speak.

All that one gets is a endless cycle or reform or talk of reform eating up political mind space from other topics with no results if one pursues trying to desegregate students by success.

[OzzyKP]

The use of private and public school is confusing me, as they mean the same thing.

Public/Private vs State is the split. Except I went to a state grammar, which the left lot also wanted to get rid of.

In the US private schools mean non-government run. Public schools mean government run. Charter schools mean government (tax payer) funded, but privately run.

[duke o' york]

David Cameron (you might remember the name, because he's in charge of all of this ****) has said that he can't find a local state school suitable for his children to attend. Isn't that his job? (or at least part of it)

Or was it inevitable that this privately-educated Oxbridge graduate would send his kids to private schools, and blame the previous government for it? This will go on until his daughter (born 2004) and son (born 2006) ultimately both go to private schools despite the fact he will have been in power for so long to have made a demonstrable effect on the education system that neither of them need to, certainly for secondary school. If I was a betting man (and had hatloads of cash) then I'd put hatloads on them both going to private schools after 11. Wait and see, and flame to hell me if I'm wrong.

[Jon Miller]

Also I find it hilarious no one in this thread figures out that public schools aren't bad compared to private ones because they are bad schools or have poor teachers but because they have worse students than private schools.

We hadn't started talking about it.

I certainly know that this is a factor.

Really a lot has to do with family involvement/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Not race. I'm talking about IQ.

Not race, not IQ, but rather family involvement.

JM

[duke o' york]

My mother is about to retire as a teacher at the end of this term, and she has been a great teacher throughout (this is not just family honour I'm defending: she used to teach at my school, but in a different year to mine), but ultimately the rating of teachers by results depends on which kids they get. A great teacher can raise the grades of awful kids by a level, but an awful teacher can sit back and do nothing, because great kids can teach themselves if they read properly (and don't spend all their spare time on Civ sites). League tables are worthless rating teachers because they don't take into account what they begin with. After all, you can't polish a turd....

[Jon Miller]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day... what I'm saying is that Hera is actually correct here. Private school can kick out bad students. Public schools can't and they have to try to deal with them, which does tend to hurt their bottom line numbers.

This is also true. And disruptive students are a big negative also.

Additionally, public schools have teachers which have a lot dictated to them.

JM