by AgentR11 » Mon 13 Jun 2011, 11:19:33
You may be mistaking me for an advocate for privatizing the public schools. I like school *choice*, even as far as statewide choice; and like voucher plans as well; but I also think schools should be able to enforce competitive entrance exams. I think districts should be much smaller, or should have a flatter pay scale, higher at entry, lower in admin.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'W')asn't there a study last year showing there is no difference overall?
Most public schools succeed, if there is no difference, why would that make a private school not succeed.
Or do I not understand the definition of "no difference".???
I didn't say "superior". I said "succeed".
The point isn't that a private school will make a 100 IQ kid test like a 130IQ kid.
That said, there are differences; in my kid's private school there is much greater emphasis on fitness, as well as classes in religion / ethics that aren't available in public schools, they attend mass weekly and do most of the work at mass; but on the down side, the smaller size makes large group classes like band and choir much more difficult to operate. There are no gangs, bullies, or drugs; they come down on those sorts of things like a ten ton hammer (aforementioned ability to remove disruptive kids)
A note on studies of test scores, you have to be careful, as most standardized testing permits a school administration to exclude kids who they think are language disadvantaged or disabled. In fact, one of the easiest ways to tell the quality of a schools' environment isn't the test score or rating, but rather the percentage of excluded students. If you don't know what the excluded portion of a study's data set is, you don't really know much about the evaluated schools.
There are zero excluded students at my kid's school.
And that is pure win.