Public School Or Private School?

[brvheart 1,752]

Home

[Dratj 0]

From the guy that trolls S7S every chance he gets.

I don't troll S7S. I just don't like Steve. I have no issues with any of his students if that's what you are. I don't even know you. Let the man fight his own fight, I have no legit beef with you other than the senseless squabbling in this thread, so if it's ok with you, let's drop it.

I am in my early (mid?) 20's. I have a decent job with a bank.In the interest of full disclosure, I only took immersion until grade 3. After that, I transferred to an enriched program. I didn't want to then, and still think it was a bad decision. The education the immersion kids received was every bit as challenging as the enriched kids, and probably more so.I recommend visiting the school, and talking to some of the french teachers about their backgrounds. There is a big difference in the quality of teachers in this type of program.

thx danny, i was also in the enhanced program since grade 3. Honestly i didn't really like it too much, i just felt like I was getting extra homework all the time. Maybe it did help me though, who knows but I know other kids that were in the regular program that ended up becoming dentists as well so dunno if it helped me that much.

I took nine years of French, but it was maybe an hour a day. I can count and say the alphabet. I know the days and the months and the basic words. I can get the gist of things when I read it, but I can't understand it at all or speak it in more than a simple connection of basic words, mostly nouns.

yah, me too. i took french till i finished high school.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

BTW, has anyone here ever read freakonomics? if so, you may know the point that i'm thinking of right now.

Are you just referring to Levitt's point that people have a bad habit of believing that because something costs more, it is necessarily better (e.g. carseat versus seatbelt)? Or is there a deeper point you're referencing? Haven't read Freakonomics yet, but I've seen him give a couple talks.

[Dratj 0]

Are you just referring to Levitt's point that people have a bad habit of believing that because something costs more, it is necessarily better (e.g. carseat versus seatbelt)? Or is there a deeper point you're referencing? Haven't read Freakonomics yet, but I've seen him give a couple talks.

not a deeper point just a different point. The general idea that how well a child does in earlier years in school is largely a function of their socioeconomic status which is largely a function of a person's genetics as it relates to intelligence. In the book, it said that kids that come from better socioeconomic backgrounds tend to do better in school because their parents generally are more well to do and highly educated which means that their kids tend to be naturally smarter. There are some examples they sight in the book, just off the top of my head as I remember them, here they are:1) Which child will do better in school? Child A has books at home and his parents read to him all the time, Child B has books at home and his parents never read to him and Child C has no books at home but the parents take him to the library all the time to read. Which child does the worst in school? I thought the answer was B but apparently it's C. They say the reason is because since Child C's parents cannot afford to have books at home, they have a lower economic status thus they have inferior genetics with regard to intelligence. 2) An adopted child in a rich family will do worse in school than a natural born child in the same environment. Again it's related to the socioeconomic and genetics issue. A well educated, smart set of parents in a good socioeconomic background is unlikely to give their child up for adoption. I was a little bit surprised to read that at first and they are bold claims. However, the book does say that the adopted child in a rich family can maximize his potential and end up with a good job, family etc. if they took advantage of a privileged upbringing. So, I was relieved to find that environmental issues can play a role in the long run. However, after I thought about it some more, genetics is a big factor in most things. If you are short, tall, fat, skinny, smart, athletic etc. all these things are largely determined by genetics, effort of course can change some of those things but we are all limited by our natural born limits.

[speedz99 145]

good public school >> private school >>>> bad public schoolIt's all about your school district. But, if we're talking Freakonomics, your kids' friends will dictate how successful they are in high school and beyond more than any other external factor.

[Nikki_N 17]

not a deeper point just a different point. The general idea that how well a child does in earlier years in school is largely a function of their socioeconomic status which is largely a function of a person's genetics as it relates to intelligence. In the book, it said that kids that come from better socioeconomic backgrounds tend to do better in school because their parents generally are more well to do and highly educated which means that their kids tend to be naturally smarter. There are some examples they sight in the book, just off the top of my head as I remember them, here they are:1) Which child will do better in school? Child A has books at home and his parents read to him all the time, Child B has books at home and his parents never read to him and Child C has no books at home but the parents take him to the library all the time to read. Which child does the worst in school? I thought the answer was B but apparently it's C. They say the reason is because since Child C's parents cannot afford to have books at home, they have a lower economic status thus they have inferior genetics with regard to intelligence. 2) An adopted child in a rich family will do worse in school than a natural born child in the same environment. Again it's related to the socioeconomic and genetics issue. A well educated, smart set of parents in a good socioeconomic background is unlikely to give their child up for adoption. I was a little bit surprised to read that at first and they are bold claims. However, the book does say that the adopted child in a rich family can maximize his potential and end up with a good job, family etc. if they took advantage of a privileged upbringing. So, I was relieved to find that environmental issues can play a role in the long run. However, after I thought about it some more, genetics is a big factor in most things. If you are short, tall, fat, skinny, smart, athletic etc. all these things are largely determined by genetics, effort of course can change some of those things but we are all limited by our natural born limits.

Geez, it's like Gattica.

[BaseJester 1]

1) Which child will do better in school? Child A has books at home and his parents read to him all the time, Child B has books at home and his parents never read to him and Child C has no books at home but the parents take him to the library all the time to read. Which child does the worst in school? I thought the answer was B but apparently it's C. They say the reason is because since Child C's parents cannot afford to have books at home, they have a lower economic status thus they have inferior genetics with regard to intelligence.

I've never known anyone in category C. Have you? And maybe I just don't want to believe in the dominance of genetics, but another reason economic success predicts academic success is that the children of the very poor need to contribute more time for the material well-being of the family. E.g., the rich kid studies while the dish washer runs and the poor kid washes the dishes while the parents work second shift.It's an interesting topic, and I certainly don't want to reject a conclusion just because it's uncomfortable, but I'm going to be skeptical.

[speedz99 145]

It's a mix of a variety of factors involving socio-economics, genetic, etc...there are way too many correlation/causation issues to pin it on one thing.

[loogie 115]

I say we abolish all private schools and just lengthen the buses. It seems like the shorter the bus, the dumber the kids.

[rivergirl 2]

I don't really remember there being alot of french immersion schools around when i was young, i think there was only one in our city, so that was not really an option for me. However, after seeing my neice graduate from a french immersion high school and the opportunities that the education has opened for her, I would definately recommend it. I have a friend who also had a daughter go through the same program and she too is enjoying much more success. Especially in Canada, the ability to be bilingual (fluently) is so much more important. The french immersion program allows them to continue their education in either language (both are studying french in University), and opening more career choices for them. If i had children, i would think this would be the way to educate them, although i think they need to be open to it as well.

[Randy Reed 0]

Private and it's not even close and should be obvious. More parents that care about their kids education.

[SBriand 4]

Private and it's not even close and should be obvious. More parents that care about their kids education.

I don't think it is as clear cut. There are some pretty crappy private schools and there are some exceptional public schools. It really depends on the area you live in.

[mtdesmoines 3]

If you spend as much time reading, talking, and playing with your kids as you do worrying about where you should be sending them for school, they'll be fine no matter where they go for school.

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't really remember there being alot of french immersion schools around when i was young, i think there was only one in our city, so that was not really an option for me. However, after seeing my neice graduate from a french immersion high school and the opportunities that the education has opened for her, I would definately recommend it. I have a friend who also had a daughter go through the same program and she too is enjoying much more success. Especially in Canada, the ability to be bilingual (fluently) is so much more important. The french immersion program allows them to continue their education in either language (both are studying french in University), and opening more career choices for them. If i had children, i would think this would be the way to educate them, although i think they need to be open to it as well.

This is a very good point. If you live in Ontario, setting them up to go to immersion schools later will open up a lot of important opportunities. Of the few I know of, they are very good schools.

[SlapStick 0]

But, if we're talking Freakonomics, your kids' friends will dictate how successful they are in high school and beyond more than any other external factor.

Wasn't his argument that the child's faith is already decided because of his parents upbringing and background? I don't remember him mentioning friends.

[speedz99 145]

Wasn't his argument that the child's faith is already decided because of his parents upbringing and background? I don't remember him mentioning friends.

I think I remember a quick mention that, in the end, all the talk about nature vs. nurture (in terms of parenting) and crap like baby-naming is secondary to a child's friends, because that's been shown to have the strongest correlation to success in school (and therefore in life). I could be wrong or citing the wrong source.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think I remember a quick mention that, in the end, all the talk about nature vs. nurture (in terms of parenting) and crap like baby-naming is secondary to a child's friends, because that's been shown to have the strongest correlation to success in school (and therefore in life). I could be wrong or citing the wrong source.

Personally, the best grades I ever got were the years where my best friends were the smartest kids in school. Therefore it must be true for everyone.

[SlapStick 0]

I think I remember a quick mention that, in the end, all the talk about nature vs. nurture (in terms of parenting) and crap like baby-naming is secondary to a child's friends, because that's been shown to have the strongest correlation to success in school (and therefore in life). I could be wrong or citing the wrong source.

Yea I'm sure he said something like that but his biggest point was your child's name, school etc doesn't matter because its already been decided due to the parents education etc etc. I'm sure smart friends help too but what your parents background was is the biggest factor and names,schools etc had little effect which he "proved" through his stats.

[speedz99 145]

Personally, the best grades I ever got were the years where my best friends were the smartest kids in school. Therefore it must be true for everyone.

Did you get good grades because you were friends with the smart kids or were you friends with the smart kids because you got good grades? Huh?! Think about that!

[Dratj 0]

good public school >> private school >>>> bad public schoolIt's all about your school district. But, if we're talking Freakonomics, your kids' friends will dictate how successful they are in high school and beyond more than any other external factor.

I think a good private school is better than a good public school. However, it could be true that a good public school is better than a mediocre or bad private school. A function of the area of course, the more affluent the area, the better the public school.

Geez, it's like Gattica.

Great movie btw. I also think it's GATTACA. G-guanine, C-cytosine, T-thymine, and A-adenine. They are the base nucleotides that form base pairs in the DNA sequence, it's the etiology of the name of the movie. I like how the protagonist demonstrates that effort can overcome inferior genetics. I've always liked to believe this but unfortunately the amount of effort he had to put in was insane just to be normal in that society. He had surgery to lengthen his bones to be taller amongst other things. His willpower was second to none. we are unforunately bound tightly by our genetics and it's only with great effort that we can maximize our potential and even then, we may only be average.

I've never known anyone in category C. Have you? And maybe I just don't want to believe in the dominance of genetics, but another reason economic success predicts academic success is that the children of the very poor need to contribute more time for the material well-being of the family. E.g., the rich kid studies while the dish washer runs and the poor kid washes the dishes while the parents work second shift.It's an interesting topic, and I certainly don't want to reject a conclusion just because it's uncomfortable, but I'm going to be skeptical.

Yes, C seems unlikely, however it is possible. When I was a kid we were not well off not because my parents were stupid but because they were immigrants and came over with nothing. However, my mom often took me to the library to read and I was academically gifted. So, C is possible. Again, A, B and C are generalities, of course there are always exceptions.

It's a mix of a variety of factors involving socio-economics, genetic, etc...there are way too many correlation/causation issues to pin it on one thing.

I say we abolish all private schools and just lengthen the buses. It seems like the shorter the bus, the dumber the kids.

LOL

I don't really remember there being alot of french immersion schools around when i was young, i think there was only one in our city, so that was not really an option for me. However, after seeing my neice graduate from a french immersion high school and the opportunities that the education has opened for her, I would definately recommend it. I have a friend who also had a daughter go through the same program and she too is enjoying much more success. Especially in Canada, the ability to be bilingual (fluently) is so much more important. The french immersion program allows them to continue their education in either language (both are studying french in University), and opening more career choices for them. If i had children, i would think this would be the way to educate them, although i think they need to be open to it as well.

Good to know! thx. I'm leaning towards french immersion. Spoke with the school rep over the phone. Seems like a challenging program. If your kid can't handle it, they will let you know and you have the choice to put them in the regular program.

Private and it's not even close and should be obvious. More parents that care about their kids education.

There is some truth to this. Again, it's the socioeconomic and genetics issue.

I don't think it is as clear cut. There are some pretty crappy private schools and there are some exceptional public schools. It really depends on the area you live in.

Also true. However, the good public schools will likely be in more affluent areas, so again linked to socioeconomics.

If you spend as much time reading, talking, and playing with your kids as you do worrying about where you should be sending them for school, they'll be fine no matter where they go for school.

If i take this literally, obv the statement has to be untrue but i see your point. What you say is important but it does matter where they go to school.

I think I remember a quick mention that, in the end, all the talk about nature vs. nurture (in terms of parenting) and crap like baby-naming is secondary to a child's friends, because that's been shown to have the strongest correlation to success in school (and therefore in life). I could be wrong or citing the wrong source.

This brings up another interesting point, kids with certain names do better than other kids (according to freakonomics). I have the book in front of me and here is the gist of the material from page 191. A kid with a distinctively black name like Deshawn will do worse in life than a boy named Jake Williams. Again, likely that deshawn is linked to a low income, low education, single parent background. Similarly, from page 197, girls named angel, heaven, misty or destiny likely have parents from low education backgrounds. To address, the second issue, although it's not mentioned in the book, i'm sure a child's friends can influence the child. However, this is likely again linked to socioeconomic issues. If you live in an area with more highly educated people, the chances are that your child will have friends that are good influences and vice versa. obviously, one cannot control too much of where they live since if you can only afford to live in a certain area, or if you can't afford private school, you do the best for your child that you can, like my parents did. It's possible to overcome adversity and long odds but if you can control certain external factors, why not?

[sandwedge 30]

Quality education starts at home. You can't buy it (I'm not saying that to you, Dratj, just making a general statement). With that said, if you can afford a particular private school, and they are a good school, then go for it.I taught at a private school for 14 years. It wasn't perfect, but it was a great place. And I agree with BG. Private school kid's can have their problems also.Here's a video I just came across on Facebook (and caused me to think about this thread). It's about the principal of the middle school where I taught. You'd be lucky to find someone who cares about kids as much as this guy.Jim Van Es

[speedz99 145]

likely that deshawn is linked to a low income, low education, single parent background. girls named angel, heaven, misty or destiny likely have parents from low education backgrounds.

Yeah, that's why I thought the "naming" part of the book was a giant waste of space.

To address, the second issue, although it's not mentioned in the book, i'm sure a child's friends can influence the child.

I looked it up the other day...I think it's page 155. He cites a study that shows exactly that and it was clear to me that he agreed with the findings.

[Dratj 0]

Quality education starts at home. You can't buy it (I'm not saying that to you, Dratj, just making a general statement). With that said, if you can afford a particular private school, and they are a good school, then go for it.I taught at a private school for 14 years. It wasn't perfect, but it was a great place. And I agree with BG. Private school kid's can have their problems also.Here's a video I just came across on Facebook (and caused me to think about this thread). It's about the principal of the middle school where I taught. You'd be lucky to find someone who cares about kids as much as this guy.Jim Van Es

What's better? your job as a poker room manager or your job as a private school teacher? what kinds of problems do you see with private school kids? One problem I can see is that my kids may think they are poor if they go to private school whereas they would be one of the better off kids in public school. You are right, a quality education starts at home with the parents. Parents are a huge influence on the children when they are younger.

Yeah, that's why I thought the "naming" part of the book was a giant waste of space. I looked it up the other day...I think it's page 155. He cites a study that shows exactly that and it was clear to me that he agreed with the findings.

yep, you are right. I read it too long ago, forgot about it. Good thing i agreed with it.

[sandwedge 30]

What's better? your job as a poker room manager or your job as a private school teacher? what kinds of problems do you see with private school kids? One problem I can see is that my kids may think they are poor if they go to private school whereas they would be one of the better off kids in public school. You are right, a quality education starts at home with the parents. Parents are a huge influence on the children when they are younger.

Having never taught in a public school, it's hard to compare the two. Also, different public schools can vary greatly in their general environment. One of my former coworkers recently switched to teaching in a public school, and is very happy. Obviously, she's at a good school.Generally, the private school kids that I taught were great. They can still have problems, such as family life (divorce, etc...), but obviously didn't have to worry about coming to school hungry. I taught elementary school, but also worked with middle and high school kids. The high school was also a boarding school, and I did see some "problem kids" with rich parents who shipped their kids off to boarding school. The majority, though, were good kids.Which job is better? Wow, that's a tough question.Teaching Pro's:You are making a difference in the lives of others, building a better future.You gain the respect of your community (even after 10 years away, if I go back to that town and walk down the street, the chances are good that someone will recognize me and want to chat).You get a lot of vacation time.I loved coaching sports, and miss that the most.Teaching Cons:You live in a bubble, especially as a private school teacher.Even with the vacation time, you work long hours. During the winter months, I would often work 30 days in a row and around 70 hours a week.You take your work home with you.Poker Pros:If you are generally competent and do what your bosses tell you to do, it's easy to excel.You get to work all night and sleep all day.You don't take your work home with you. When you clock out, you can leave the BS behind (I can't tell you how great this is).Poker Cons:Little or no vacation time, and you WILL be working every holiday.You are generally perceived to be an idiot. Well, that's not entirely true, but you do deal with that attitude a lot (I decided the other day that when someone talked to me like I'm an idiot, I should be able to challenge them to an IQ test for paychecks)The pay is pretty similar. You neither get rich nor go hungry with either job.Some of the best kids that I taught came from families with limited resources. It was obvious that education was important to the parents and this was reflected in the kids. There's a great story about one of these families. They were great people who obviously struggled to pay for their kids' education. A few years after I left the school, I heard they hit the lottery for 2 million.

[Dratj 0]

Having never taught in a public school, it's hard to compare the two. Also, different public schools can vary greatly in their general environment. One of my former coworkers recently switched to teaching in a public school, and is very happy. Obviously, she's at a good school.Generally, the private school kids that I taught were great. They can still have problems, such as family life (divorce, etc...), but obviously didn't have to worry about coming to school hungry. I taught elementary school, but also worked with middle and high school kids. The high school was also a boarding school, and I did see some "problem kids" with rich parents who shipped their kids off to boarding school. The majority, though, were good kids.Which job is better? Wow, that's a tough question.Teaching Pro's:You are making a difference in the lives of others, building a better future.You gain the respect of your community (even after 10 years away, if I go back to that town and walk down the street, the chances are good that someone will recognize me and want to chat).You get a lot of vacation time.I loved coaching sports, and miss that the most.Teaching Cons:You live in a bubble, especially as a private school teacher.Even with the vacation time, you work long hours. During the winter months, I would often work 30 days in a row and around 70 hours a week.You take your work home with you.Poker Pros:If you are generally competent and do what your bosses tell you to do, it's easy to excel.You get to work all night and sleep all day.You don't take your work home with you. When you clock out, you can leave the BS behind (I can't tell you how great this is).Poker Cons:Little or no vacation time, and you WILL be working every holiday.You are generally perceived to be an idiot. Well, that's not entirely true, but you do deal with that attitude a lot (I decided the other day that when someone talked to me like I'm an idiot, I should be able to challenge them to an IQ test for paychecks)The pay is pretty similar. You neither get rich nor go hungry with either job.Some of the best kids that I taught came from families with limited resources. It was obvious that education was important to the parents and this was reflected in the kids. There's a great story about one of these families. They were great people who obviously struggled to pay for their kids' education. A few years after I left the school, I heard they hit the lottery for 2 million.

very interesting sandwedgei always thought that teachers had cushy jobs. Get off at 3:30, maybe mark a few papers and once you've taught a course a few times, the course prep is virtually nonexistent. Apparently i'm mistaken.tell me what you were doing when you were working long hours and many days straight?Glad your enjoying the poker job. How's the market nowadays? people still playing a lot in the b and m's? I haven't played in what seems like ages.