Public Schools or Private Schools?

[kmf563]

Soonerdave,

The school I attended was a small christian private school. It wasn't anything like heritage hall or the like. Our school work basically consisted of self taught lessons that we worked through at our own pace. The teachers were there to assist us as we needed it. If it was a topic a lot of students needed help on, we would have group lectures. We were given actual text books, but we just read and answered the study questions or the chapter reviews. The math books we were assigned had daily problems to work through along with the lesson and then had weekly tests. I'm sure it is quite different at the larger private schools.

Also, the size may have contributed to the insecurities and lack there of on social skills the kids in this school had. They were shy in group settings, didn't really know how to handle confrontations, and really just didn't know how to talk to people. I remember a field trip we took once and I was completely embarrassed...these kids acted like it was the only time out of the year their parents let them out of the house.

I've only met a few people from the bigger private schools and they were just like other typical teenagers - some were snotty and some were nice.

[stlokc]

I went to Casady for 14 years, from Kindergarten through graduation, so I can't possibly compare it in detail to another school because it is the only school I knew. I would argue that it is possible to get a good education almost anywhere and it is possible to slide by almost anywhere. The most important factor in a child's success is the parents and the kind of ethics and values they instill in him or her from the beginning.

Having said that, if I lived in OKC and had children, I would work two jobs if necessary to get them into Casady. The reason why is this: Casady has a culture of success and positive peer pressure. Yes, there are bad seeds from Casady, I'm sure some people have examples, but the lion's share of those kids come from families that truly value education and raise their children to work hard and dream big. At Casady, the peer pressure was not to do drugs or ditch class, it was to score better than your friends on tests ("I got a B." "Well, I got an A.") or to apply to the best colleges. ("I'm going to SMU." "Well, I'm going to Princeton)

Academically, Casady is second to none. In my graduating class of 72 students, we had 14 National Merit finalists and a dozen that went to Ivy League schools. In fact, all but 4 of the 72 went to college outside of Oklahoma. There's nothing wrong with going to college in Oklahoma, don't hear me saying that. But my point is that Casady truly prepares its graduates for anything.

Not to pick on Edmond, because they have fantastic schools, but my parents have friends who had a son that made it all the way to his senior year at Memorial with only one year of foreign language because he hadn't been counseled properly. Then when he went to apply to out of state colleges, he wasn't accepted because he had only one year of foreign language (I am pretty sure Edmond requires more than that now, to be fair.) This guy had 25 or 30 in most of his classes. At Casady the ratio in high school is about 15 to 1.

As for the "snob" factor, I went to school with African-Americans from the NE side, sons and daughters of immigrants from India and Vietnam, some families of very modest means. And yes, there were Nichols Hills trust fund kids also. What they had in common was a commitment to education. In fact, we had a higher percentage of minority kids in my class than they had at Edmond Memorial. I know this because a friend and I did research on it at the time.

I can't even begin to name all of the influential alumni from Casady, but suffice it to say that they run large parts of Oklahoma and also include the CEO of Bergdorf Goodman, Megan Mullally (is that a positive?) and Rex Linn, the star of CSI: Miami.

I could write a book on this topic, but I won't. Go to Casady and look around at the site. But I would sign off by looping around to my original point, any investment in education is only as good as the people watching that investment (parents, teachers and students). The difference between some other schools and Casady (and private schools in general - Heritage and McGuiness are both excellent) is that everyone involved is watching the investment very closely. And the students, by and large, are lifting each other up as a result.

[Easy180]

Originally Posted by stlokc

Having said that, if I lived in OKC and had children, I would work two jobs if necessary to get them into Casady.

Again I ask...You would rather spend very little time at home with your kids and have them go to nicer schools?....My thinking is the other way around...Would much rather spend time with my kids...Think that is more important than putting them in a success network like Casady to ensure they become big time professionals

[stlokc]

I respect what you are saying and am sure you are a good parent. I was using rhetoric to make my point. It doesn't necesarily has to be an either/or proposition - both of my parents worked full-time throughout my childhood but they made time for every one of my games, plays, teacher conferences, etc. We had dinners at home every night and were together all weekend. I am not a parent yet but it seems to me that quality of time is at least as important as quantity of time. Lots of parents and kids are home together a lot but hang out in separate rooms, seldom interact, etc.

[bandnerd]

^^ This is very true. I didn't get to "hang out" with my mom a lot, but when we had time together, it was good time. At the table, in the car going to dance or piano lessons, at school events, whatever....but my dad was always home but we didn't really hang out a lot together. We were in the same house but not together, know what I mean?

[andy157]

Originally Posted by mranderson

No. You accused my high school of being full of uneduated idiots from the day it was first built, then used an example that obviously makes you think you are the God of geniuses when in fact, you know nothing about the history of US Grant because when I was there you were not even born. You may have gone to a well known private school, however, that does not mean you are the most intellegent person on earth, and that southside schools are inferior. I am defending my turf and that is all. Plus, I gave you several examples of people that have excelled at Grant. You are always busting people's chops for not citing examples, however, when they do and prove their point, you are still not satisfied. Face it and admit it. US Grant has been a fine school and has seen many excellent people graduate.

By the way. No matter where you graduated, at what number did you do so? Remember. I graduated seventh out of over 700.

Now. May we return to the topic? By the way. If you look at all my past messages and answer the questions I asked you that you failed to answer (there are many), then maybe I will answer your question. Oh. To find out what those questions are... to quoute you, "look it up."

How dare anyone accuse you of being an uneduated idiot

[PUGalicious]

To whomever resurrected this old thread, thank you.

I have read through it from the beginning again and now sit back to marvel (once again) at what I've just read. To see the debating prowess of MrA — especially his keen ability to so passionately debate his point without the help of any logic, sound reasoning, evidence or facts — leaves me truly awe-struck. But what's most inspiring is how this man who has known so many famous and great people, and who boasts such great wisdom, experience and knowledge about all things... how this great man would choose to humbly serve among us common folk in such careers as dog catcher — I mean, law enforcement animal control officer — and customer service person for a call center.

Truly incredible. Let me give you a hand, sir.

[andy157]

Originally Posted by PUGalicious

To whomever resurrected this old thread, thank you.

I have read through it from the beginning again and now sit back to marvel (once again) at what I've just read. To see the debating prowess of MrA — especially his keen ability to so passionately debate his point without the help of any logic, sound reasoning, evidence or facts — leaves me truly awe-struck. But what's most inspiring is how this man who has known so many famous and great people, and who boasts such great wisdom, experience and knowledge about all things... how this great man would choose to humbly serve among us common folk in such careers as dog catcher — I mean, law enforcement animal control officer — and customer service person for a call center.

Truly incredible. Let me give you a hand, sir.

Pug, don't sell the guy short. Remember there was, magazine distribution, real estate magnate, investments, Jr. Policeman/Fireman, and my favorite. Shoulda, woulda, coulda been, ward 5 City Councilman.

[dismayed]

You know, most private schools don't have the same requirements levied on them as do public schools. For example, did you know a private school can hire almost anyone they want to teach a class (a bit of an exageration, but you get the point)? In public schools a teacher must pass certification tests, have a certain type of degree, pass a background check, and so on. There's no guarantee that a private school has any of these things as part of its criteria.

Yet private schools tend to outperform public schools. My assertion is that this is due to three key factors: better pay, performance-based standards and the ability to fire, and more involved parents.

1. Better Pay. What other industry do you know of where people who are considered professionals have superior performance to their coworkers and get paid the same as their coworkers? These are not government assembly line workers... the state should recognize that and treat them appropriately.

2. Performance. Similarly, teachers who don't perform should not receive pay increases, or should receive poor ones along with action plans to get them up to speed. If they can't cut it, they should be let go.

3. Parents. Sadly, let's be real here and admit that for the most part parents who send their kids to private schools tend to be more involved in their kids lives, or at least come from an economic background where the kid has a chance to learn. I don't think "society" can fix this one.

[bandnerd]

In my experience (and I hate to use that phrase but it's true) private school teachers don't always get paid more than public school teachers. Now, I work in a charter and I'm paid at the very low end of what Oklahoma teachers make...it's a public school but with a private school feel. Go figure.

If I have a chance I'll see if I can find some factual figures to share. But dismayed is right--private school teachers don't always have to go through all the hoops and jumps public school teachers do.

[FRISKY]

I'm glad to see this thread finally made its way back to the original question; “Public Schools or Private Schools?”

What criteria should be used to tell if one is better than the other?

Some would rate schools by how well the alumni do in the business world or social/political scene, but what about people that never aspire to be involved in that part of the human race? Does that make them less “educated” than a CEO or City Councilman? Would that make the school they graduated from any less significant as a quality educational facility?

[East Coast Okie]

When I taught, with few exceptions (and none come to mind), private teachers got considerably less pay than public teachers. I don't think that has changed.

I'm of the firm belief that academic achievement, overall, comes from having parents who value education and insist their children behave in class so as to not be a disruption. A cruddy teacher could get in the way of that but even a mediocre teacher with these kind of students should have good results. When you have kids who have not been taught by their parents to respect the teacher and other students' right to learn, you end up with a zoo.

ADHD is no excuse, by the way. You wouldn't believe how often I visit kids in detention who try to justify beating up their parent or refusing to go to school or vandalizing the school building because they have ADHD. Chances are, the first words out of their parents' mouths is that their child has ADHD and can't help themselves and, btw, if the school was doing its job of coddling their baby (and not bothering them at work), there wouldn't be any problems.

The nice thing about private schools is that the parents have a vested interest in having their child behave. They are shelling out a lot of money and when junior acts like an idiot, it hits home pretty quickly. Moreover, they come to the table willing to sacrifice to make sure their child is properly educated. You can certainly get the same thing at a public school but the chances of your child ending up in a zoo are greater. I went to a private High School but my kids went to Putnam West. We encouraged them to stay in advanced classes as much as possible because they weren't insane asylums. They did fine in college and professional school.

When I was teaching, the kids had to put a deposit down on textbooks. If they didn't have the money, the deposit was wavied. Kids that had to return the book or forfeit the deposit tended to take better care of them. In contrast, when they had nothing to lose, the books were often utterly destroyed, written on, torn, etc. Only goes to show that private property ownership contributes to a tidy society.

[East Coast Okie]

This post focuses on the legal field so it might not apply to other types of schools. My kids all went to prestigious private law schools on their own dime (and two of them have significant debt). All three work in New York for high brow firms for money that would make your eyeballs explode (ridiculous, to my way of thinking). They would not have been able to even be considered for those positions without the fancy schmancy legal education pedigree.

Does that make them better lawyers? No offense to my kids but I sincerely doubt it. But in that environment, law firms recruit large numbers for their stables with the impressive degrees so that they have "bragging rights" among their competition and are posed to recruit clients who value such things. The big firms set salaries and bonuses for their employees based on the year they were hired. If one firm increases pay, the others fall in line so they don't "lose face." It is utterly insane, seems to me. My kids discuss who is paying what and lay bets on how that will affect their own salaries. Such practice has absolutely nothing to do with their own personal achievement and is based on who they work for rather than what they are doing. For all that, they are expected to work night and day, including weekends and holidays. Pure insanity. That dog catcher job sounds much more appealing, to me.

In the legal arena, other than in that type of working environment or teaching, I am not sure a fancy degree matters much except at an entry level. But most lawyers get jobs, eventually, anyway. If I was planning to practice law in Oklahoma or in almost anywhere in the midwest, I don't think it is a good investment to spend the money for a very expensive private law school. Unless you want to work in NY or San Francisco or the like, or if you have a desire to go into politics or be a federal judge, I personally would not shell out the money. Give me a good scholarship and I'd be good to go, though.

[betts]

Having sent all four of my kids to private school, I must say I'm now not sure it was worth the cost. Part of my reasoning, however, was not wanting to live in Edmond. Also, I did tell my children that I never worried about someone bringing a gun to school, and that was good. They've all been very successful in college, so maybe that was good as well. But, I've also been exposed to a lot of kids from very small schools in very little towns, and I think that cream rises to the top. Smart kids do well no matter where they are. Maybe private school is better for the middle of the road kids or those who need extra help and smaller class size. I don't think it's great for them to not be exposed to people from all different social stratas, and I'm not sure it's good for them to never go off to middle school or high school, but rather to be with the same group of kids from preschool.

So, ultimately I'd have to say there were good things about private school, but it was probably way too expensive for what my children ultimately got out of it.

[Midtowner]

betts, I went to McGuinness. I do recall at least one instance of a kid bringing a pistol to school. The administration swept it under the rug and expelled the kid. Also, Gov. Walter's kid, a McGuinness graduate brought a gun onto campus and shot himself in the parking lot while I was there.

What makes you think private schools are more safe?

[betts]

Clearly, that was a foolish assumption on my part. My three oldest went to Casady and my youngest is at McGuiness, and I'd never heard anything about guns. So, you've removed another of my pro-private school arguments, and I'm primarily left with cons. I think I will poll my kids and see where they plan to send their children to school, when they have them. That will at least give me an idea if they think my expenditure was worthwhile.

[CCOKC]

I went to McGuinness (a very long time ago) and I think it was definitely worth it. My mother worked for the OKC Public Schools at the time and there was no way she would have sent me to public schools. That being said, we didn't have the options back then that we have now. My kids are attending Harding. This is the first year for them at any type of public school. I have seen no drop in academics. In fact, they may work harder now than they ever have. My daughter did have culture shock which I don't know if she has gotten over yet. But if my choice were NW Classen and McGuinness there is no question my kids would be going to McGuinness.

[bandnerd]

The culture shock will pass. It is quite different at Harding, I will admit. But I think, at least from what I've seen, most students at our school don't see race or class so much. Sure, they still gravitate towards other kids like themselves, because it's human nature to do so. But there isn't any animosity between the groups.

Thank god you didn't send them to NWC. You're in much better hands

[teacher girl]

there are some quality "jewels" in OKc public schools

you can apply to classen sas (different then nw classen) they have an international bacc. program as well as arts (dancing, drama, voice, music) not your typical public school!!

[oneforone]

I think I am going to send my kids to private school when they become school age.

The teachers do not have the authority or the tenacity and gumption they did when I went to school. Not to mention kids are not learning what they need to know to survive in the real world. They are taught just scream loud enough until someone meets your demands or establishes a government program to meet your needs.

[thanksarthur]

To whomever mentioned private school teachers receiving better pay - they don't. They make less than their public school counterparts, but have the benefit of free tuition for their children. Also 12-14k a year is quite a bargain for our high caliber schools compared to other states. In Dallas, the less expensive Catholic schools are around 17k a year, with the independent schools being in the low 20's. It can still be a stretch for lower and middle-income families, but come on - make the sacrifice for your children.

[NativeOkie]

Question for thought...
Public school decline verses that of a private School.
The Students, Families, and staff of a school make the school.
I graduated from PC West 1979. PC Schools were on "top of the world"
We viewed NW Classen as a school that was "challenged" although many of our parents had attended there in the 50's. when they were considered the top.
Today I hear PC West is on hard times.
Is it possible private schools are better because they are less dependent on geographical districts and can keep a higher quality experience over multiple generations?

[soonerliberal]

Originally Posted by thanksarthur

Also 12-14k a year is quite a bargain for our high caliber schools compared to other states. In Dallas, the less expensive Catholic schools are around 17k a year, with the independent schools being in the low 20's. It can still be a stretch for lower and middle-income families, but come on - make the sacrifice for your children.

I would call it a bit more of a "stretch", with the average household income of Oklahoma City being $34,947, according to the Census.

It is impossible to group all public schools with one another and all private schools with one another. You must keep in mind urban versus suburban, large district versus small district, demographics of the districts, whether the individual districts generally pass tax increases for schools or they fail. Edmond North is as different from Capitol Hill as it is from Casady. Then when comparing the educational experience you must also compare the sociological impact of going to a private or public school, along with the connections and forward thinking at each. It is impossible to make generics on this topic.

[oneforone]

Irresponsible parenting is what is killing the public school system. PC Schools went down hill because the districts parents do not value education. The school house is not a place learn and build a foundation for a better quality of life. The school is a free daycare center so that you sleep in, catch up on springer and smoke pot until 3:30 when school lets out.

[JIMBO]

mranderson. Is it possible that you graduated #7 out of 700 because they called you alphabeticly?