Great...err..Highly Controversial Column By Bob Dyer

[zen]

Except you can't "privatize" schools if you are funding it through state money. Equal opportunity and all that. So no matter what you do, there are always going to be schools that look "academically superior" but again, none of you are able to see that perspective can you?

Why would you say that? Because you are still on your soap box?I actually said in one of my earlier posts that you can't create artificial equity. There are always going to be some places that are better than others.... and which ever way the chips fall, there are always going to be some people complaining.

I'm not anti-private school. I feel it serves a important need in communities. Smaller class sizes, higher profile learning experiences. Does it mean the kids that attend private schools are better? No it doesn't. It means they have more resources.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There are public schools that spend more money per student and still fail to educate. The real issue is how you run your institution. In most private schools parents know they are spending their own dollars on their child's education (on top of the fact that they also pay property taxes for local schools) and the parents expect more. The students also have a different attitude. They don't see the school that they attend as a place that has to take them because the government provides it as a right. They know that they could get kicked out. This makes all the difference in the world.

[g-mann17]

Except you can't "privatize" schools if you are funding it through state money. Equal opportunity and all that. So no matter what you do, there are always going to be schools that look "academically superior" but again, none of you are able to see that perspective can you?

Why would you say that? Because you are still on your soap box?I actually said in one of my earlier posts that you can't create artificial equity. There are always going to be some places that are better than others.... and which ever way the chips fall, there are always going to be some people complaining.

I'm not anti-private school. I feel it serves a important need in communities. Smaller class sizes, higher profile learning experiences. Does it mean the kids that attend private schools are better? No it doesn't. It means they have more resources.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There are public schools that spend more money per student and still fail to educate. The real issue is how you run your institution. In most private schools parents know they are spending their own dollars on their child's education (on top of the fact that they also pay property taxes for local schools) and the parents expect more. The students also have a different attitude. They don't see the school that they attend as a place that has to take them because the government provides it as a right. They know that they could get kicked out. This makes all the difference in the world.

Who's on a soap box zen? Oh yeah, the anti-government person.

[w00t]

while we are at it, why not 'curve' GPAs, SATs, and other benchmarks of public school kids to make it fair.

What are you talking about? Didn't you read g-mann's assertion that public school kids outperform their private school counterparts on standardized tests?

I believe it was something about the top scores being higher. Statistically speaking, since many more students are in public schools, I think you'll have that.

I was being sarcastic, but it would appear that g-mann has (wisely) backtracked on his prior position... I think. It's actually pretty difficult to make sense of everything he's posted on the subject.

[zippyrifle32]

does anybody know what the teacher salaries are for private vs. public schools here around akron?

[g-mann17]

does anybody know what the teacher salaries are for private vs. public schools here around akron?

Public teachers with a BA in education start at 32 with their masters 35Private is about 2-4 less than that.

[GP1]

I say it's time to privatize all the schools, reduce taxes accordingly and give vouchers to those who need them. Let the schools compete and get state and school board politicians and unions out of the education picture. Even if this can't be done politically, the private schools should try to build large endowments so they can fund more scholarships and continually get more and more students out of bad public schools.

privatize schools?reduce taxes??give people choices???take bureaucrats out of the education system????TO the GULAG with you! Comrade ZippyRulz, you are an enemy of the people's republic of the U.S.

Nice!I saw someone talking about this on TV one day. What we really need to do is get smart kids out of secondary school and into college much sooner than age 18. Adolescence has been a complete failure in the United States and it needs to change. A lot of kids just sit around unchallenged by the current school systems. We have a huge obesity problem with teenagers and I think the easy life they live contributes to it. We should pay kids who graduate and go to college early. Ben Franklin worked for his uncle at the age of 13. John Q. Adams served as a secretary to the US Ambassador to Russia at about the same age when his father, the first President Adams sent him away. If a child can graduate at age 16, we should reward that child for achievement with a partial scholarship to college. If Americans were made free to make these choices, I'm sure a lot of people would take advantage of it. Instead, the average American voluntarily allows the government to put more and more restrictions on him every day. The average American is way smarter than the average politician. Look at the three idiots remaining in the Presidential election for the Republicrat Party. It's embarrassing. We need more freedom, and not more restrictions.Live free or die!