Log in

View Full Version : Sending your kids to private school ?



Pages : 1 [2]

LoveHerButton
09-05-2013, 05:41 PM
The teachers didn't intervene. No matter who I turned to, I was brushed off.
thats messed up. I was kinda getting this same treatment when I went from private school to public, but then my big brother (and I mean big) put an end to any crap. That gave me time to adjust. hmmm, I should thank him.

I agree with charlotte ^ it depends on the kid and the school.

Kellydancer
09-05-2013, 07:54 PM
Can you? Because I certainly can't... *shrug*

They did it because to them you were an outsider. It's not right but that's how kids are. I attended a public school incidentally and begged my parents to send me to a private school because I was bullied big time by kids in the public school and the teacher joined in the bullying. To this day it pisses me off going to that horrible crappy school (which incidentally was highly ranked then). One of the reasons I was bullied was because I looked different than most of the kids, most were of Northern European ancestry (as in very blonde)and I was a dark skinned, dark haired girl who was shy.

yoda57us
09-05-2013, 10:29 PM
This entire thread is a ringing endorsement for home schooling...

eagle2
09-05-2013, 10:49 PM
^^^ where should I start ? Columbus discovered America ?

Do they not teach about the Vikings expeditions to America in school?

I agree a lot of things are covered over or white-washed in history classes, such as how bad of a racist Woodrow Wilson was.

GlamourRouge
09-06-2013, 12:51 AM
This entire thread is a ringing endorsement for home schooling...

Home schooling is the WORST IMO (unless the child is high school age and they choose that) because they will have zero social skills, and no grasp of the people in the real world.

Melonie
09-06-2013, 01:42 AM
^^^ speaking of Woodrow Wilson ...

""""We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.""" - Woodrow Wilson, Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association, 1909

This arguably nailed down the fundamental difference in focus between an 'elite' private school education and a public school education ... many elements of which continue to this day.

MyButter
09-06-2013, 09:25 AM
Do they not teach about the Vikings expeditions to America in school?

I agree a lot of things are covered over or white-washed in history classes, such as how bad of a racist Woodrow Wilson was.

Ahaha, "The Real History of America" would require at least a few parental consent forms.

Sophia_Starina
09-06-2013, 10:36 AM
This entire thread is a ringing endorsement for home schooling...

Yes and no.

I say no because: Having children interact with other children can be a good thing. They learn how to work with different personalities. They learn cooperation, compromise, and effective communication. Beyond that, learning to interact with various instructors can potentially be a very beneficial learning experience.

I say yes because: Individualized attention and awareness of a child's learning style can yield amazing results.

So what's the answer?

I think that parents need to get involved with their children on the days when they are not in school. Supplement the reading, writing, 'rithmetic curriculum with activities that enrich the child's education. Taking kids to museums and other educational venues (children's museums for the youngsters, art museums, science museums, aquariums, botanical gardens, zoos, etc.) works wonders to spark curiosity. Teaching kids to play an instrument, draw, paint, or play a sport can inspire confidence and diligence. Libraries are free and often have weekly programs on anything from origami to crafts to movie screenings. Having kids become comfortable in and familiar with what libraries have to offer is unquestionably beneficial.

Undoubtedly some families may not have time to do these things often. But there are various community organizations like the Boys and Girls clubs and YMCA's etc. that have very affordable, reliable programs that can further enrich a child's education with interesting activities. It's on the parent to find out where their child's interests are rooted and do what they can to broaden the child's horizons... outside of the classroom.

eagle2
09-06-2013, 11:41 AM
^^^ speaking of Woodrow Wilson ...

""""We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.""" - Woodrow Wilson, Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association, 1909

This arguably nailed down the fundamental difference in focus between an 'elite' private school education and a public school education ... many elements of which continue to this day.

Considering his audience was public school teachers, I don't think he had private schools in mind. I think he was referring to students who would go on to college versus students who wouldn't.

yoda57us
09-06-2013, 12:12 PM
I think that parents need to get involved with their children on the days when they are not in school. Supplement the reading, writing, 'rithmetic curriculum with activities that enrich the child's education. Taking kids to museums and other educational venues (children's museums for the youngsters, art museums, science museums, aquariums, botanical gardens, zoos, etc.) works wonders to spark curiosity.

This sums up my thoughts as well. I'm not in the education field but I've spent my career working around all sorts of public and private educational institutions at all educational levels. The schools can not do it all and, very often, they are being expected to. Parents need to be involved. Dumping your kids off at school-public or private and expecting the educational system to mold them into responsible adults is just plain stupid.

Kellydancer
09-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Home schooling is fantastic if the parents are educated. I have a cousin who was a teacher and now home schools. However many parents with little more than a high school diploma also home school and to me that is dangerous. Where I used to live had several people who home schooled because the public schools were shitty and they couldn't afford the private schools (or didn't like them).


Do they not teach about the Vikings expeditions to America in school?

I agree a lot of things are covered over or white-washed in history classes, such as how bad of a racist Woodrow Wilson was.

Not that I am justifying his racism, but that was common then. Related to that, until recently history glossed over the fact that the founding fathers had slaves (and in several cases had children with the slaves).

DonaDiabla
09-06-2013, 12:55 PM
Public schools really depend on the area. The public schools here are highly ranked and the scores are among the highest. It's party because of the area and environment. Where I grew up used to be nice but is now a ghetto and there is no way I would send kids to a ghetto school. Part of the difference is because of parental involvement because many ghetto schools have little parental involvement but out here they are.

That is very true :)

eagle2
09-06-2013, 11:52 PM
Not that I am justifying his racism, but that was common then. Related to that, until recently history glossed over the fact that the founding fathers had slaves (and in several cases had children with the slaves).

He was still probably the most racist post-Civil War president.

Here's a good article on the myths taught about the Revolutionary War:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20306_5-myths-about-revolutionary-war-everyone-believes.html

Melonie
09-07-2013, 02:25 AM
Before we get buried rehashing the past, consider something which some public schools are teaching kids today ...

.. from

(snip)"Some students toted lunchboxes to the first day of school in Boston this week, but district administrators are expecting that could become a more unusual sight as parents learn about a federal program that is now providing all public school students in the city with free breakfast and lunch. The nation's oldest school system has joined a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that has spread to 10 states and the District of Columbia that offers students two free meals every school day, whether or not their families can afford them.

"It's one less weight and one less burden for parents," said Joshua Rivera, whose son is a second-grader at the Maurice J. Tobin School in Boston's Roxbury section.

And, officials say, serving more kids actually saves them money.

Known as Community Eligibility Option, the program is part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that authorized $4.5 billion in new program funding.

For schools to qualify, federal officials said, more than 40 percent of students have to be getting food stamps or aid through certain other federal assistance programs.

Besides easing hunger, school officials said, the program helps erase a stigma that plagued some students from poor families.

Boston joins schools in Michigan, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in a program that will be available across the country starting in the 2014-2015 school year."(snip)


... as pointed out in the ABC news blurb, this 'lesson' will be taught nationwide next year ! And what is the essence of this 'lesson' ?

- every student is 'entitled' to receive the same 'quality and quantity' breakfast and lunch regardless of their personal ability to pay - with no option provided for higher quality / larger quantity meals for those who are able to pay

- it is the role / responsibility of the government, and not the parents, to provide food

- the fact that certain students have been receiving gov't benefits, while other students have been 'paying their own way', should be 100% obscured - therefore 'equalizing' perceived status of those whose parents work and pay taxes versus those whose parents rely on gov't benefits.

Kellydancer
09-07-2013, 01:25 PM
That's wrong. I have nothing against lunches for the poor kids (because it's not their fault their parents are poor)but giving all kids free lunches means more spending tax dollars, which means higher taxes.

Sophia_Starina
09-07-2013, 03:57 PM
Before we get buried rehashing the past, consider something which some public schools are teaching kids today ...

.. from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/family-income-factor-students-eat-free-20174762

(snip)"Some students toted lunchboxes to the first day of school in Boston this week, but district administrators are expecting that could become a more unusual sight as parents learn about a federal program that is now providing all public school students in the city with free breakfast and lunch. The nation's oldest school system has joined a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that has spread to 10 states and the District of Columbia that offers students two free meals every school day, whether or not their families can afford them.

(snip)


And then there is this: http://jezebel.com/fox-news-says-we-should-teach-poor-kids-a-lesson-by-let-1260184680

But it's not like my link ^^^^ or the quoted text deals with the ongoing discussion... so I am a bit perplexed. What's the tangent? Did I miss it?

Djoser
09-08-2013, 12:41 AM
Too much politics.