Public Schools or Private Schools?

[Edmond_Outsider]

Education is what you make of it.

If you are choosing an attorney in Oklahoma, an OU grad would be more likely to have more local contacts than a Harvard attorney. In Tulsa, TU grads tend to have a slight advantage over OU and some firms in OKC prefer OCU grads.

All that said, none of it has anything to do with any of thier long term value.

Is a private school inherently better than a public school? All other things equal, yes. But, nothing is ever equal.

Take any parent who makes thier child's education a priority and that child will have advantages over a child who's parent does not. The parent who will work diligently and consistently to keep education a priority will find high quality education virtually anywhere.

Some locations will be easier and having money makes everything easier.

A private school education will teach a child far more than academics. It will also tend to teach a kind of elitism, attitude of entitlement, and hyper-materialism quite unique from a public school experience. Of course, a parent can also teach elitism, entitlement, and hyper-materialism in any environment as well.

[raw98682]

Originally Posted by Edmond_Outsider

A private school education will teach a child far more than academics. It will also tend to teach a kind of elitism, attitude of entitlement, and hyper-materialism quite unique from a public school experience. Of course, a parent can also teach elitism, entitlement, and hyper-materialism in any environment as well.

I second that.

And, I would always choose public school over private.

I would prefer a dr from OU vs. Harvard. I believe the OU graduate would have better bedside manner and would care more about my health. If all someone really cared about was helping people they wouldn't care where they went to learn how - they would just want to help. You never know what your getting with a Harvard grad, they're likely to be pompus. Could be wrong, but I would still choose OU.

[NativeOkie]

This will fire folks up, but here it goes...
We will never know for certain which is better until parents have a choice.
Many people would send their child to private school if they could afford it.
Allow parents the choice, vouchers for example.
In my slightly humble opinion the teachers union fears open market choice.
Not certain why?
I can only speculate.
I thought we were pro-choice here.

[betts]

After teaching at OU Medical School, which does turn out excellent physicians, with very little thanks to me, what I noticed was: Smart kids rise to the top, no matter what school they go to. Some of my best students were from places like Poteau and Gage (making those up, but you get my point). Private schools give you polish, but I'm not really sure it makes that much difference how well you can learn new material. What private schools may have the biggest effect on is average students, because private schools (especially Casady) tend to have more children of smart parents, which means genetically they tend to be smarter. Some average kids at private schools start thinking they are dumb or inadequate. Others push themselves farther than they would have in a public school, and that percentage of the population probably benefits from a private school education.

[ewoodard]

I teach in public schools and see a few more differences than what are listed in previous posts. First public schools have to take every child that lives in that school's district, private schools do not have districts they draw from. Second, private schools do not have to follow the same mandates from government that public schools do. Private schools do not have to adhere to No Child Left Behind mandates so they are free to teach what they want when and how they want.
Make private schools play by the same rules as public schools and I think we'll see that private school really aren't that much better than public schools.
Learning must be a three prong approach. The student, parents, and teachers must work together to accomplish any learning what so ever. At private schools parents are more engaged in the child's education because they directly pay for it. At public schools, many parents see school as a form of free babysitting for them, therefore they are not as engaged in the child's education.

[OKCMallen]

Originally Posted by Easy180

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

It's not abou tmaking them big time professionals; it's about affording them the opportunity to choose WHATEVER they want to do. You can't do that soemtimes without the resume to go with it.

[bretthexum]

OKCmallen you are dead on. I've had more than one friend who's been pressured into a life he didn't want. Yeah he makes 200K a year, but he's miserable. Another friend actually finished med school because his family is all doctors. Now he's back into tech school to be an electrician.

[OKCMallen]

And kids are too naive to pick the life they want...and honestly, if they want to be a big time professional or even just, say, a mid-level nondescript lobbyist in DC, then it's going to be too late if they've screwed off education their entire lives. More doors are opened, generally, by better education and private schools...why start your kids off with those doors shut if you can afford otehrwise?

[East Coast Okie]

It is about options. As parents, you want to give your child options so they can go in the direction THEY want. It is a heck of a lot easier to have a medical degree and choose to be an electrician than the other way around (although by the time you have a medical degree, presumably the student is way past being a kid whose parents are directing him in that direction). It is a heck of a lot easier to go choose the career you want if you've finished highschool/college than otherwise. If you want to go off and make a living at Wal Mart, you've always got that option.

[ddavidson8]

As a teacher in a public school and a former student of a private school I'll say that if I am fortunate enough to ever have kids they will go to private school (if I can afford it).

Why?

The main reason is that in my short 7 years of teaching I am seeing more and more of the teacher's legs cut from under them. Wheter it is weak willed administration or out of touch parents or a combo of both, discipline is becoming tougher and tougher.

In addition to that, most public school teachers have less and less time to prepare for their students. Conference periods are a joke in that we are usually required to attend meetings for special ed students who aren't even in our classroom (Called ARDS or 504 meetings, I won't bore you with the details as to why many teachers attend meetings for students other than their own).

The TAKS test (in Texas) has teachers teaching to the test. Just last Thursday in our first meeting back from summer break, we were told to develop our tests, as a department of course (why try and push your students ahead if there is a class/teacher down the hall who just doesn't cut it?), then lesson plan for the test. In other words, come up with a test then figure out what needs to be taught to pass the test. Are we teaching students for success in life or success on tests? Don't misunderstand me, I understand that students have to be assessed, but teaching to a test is not the way to do it.

I could go on and on, but understand, if I had kids and could afford it I'd send them to private school without question. I'd also work at a private school, but the pay doesn't compare. I'm one teacher who won't bitch about his pay! In Texas it's pretty damn good.

Which brings me to another point...

[OKCMallen]

Originally Posted by ddavidson8

As a teacher in a public school and a former student of a private school I'll say that if I am fortunate enough to ever have kids they will go to private school (if I can afford it).

Why?

The main reason is that in my short 7 years of teaching I am seeing more and more of the teacher's legs cut from under them. Wheter it is weak willed administration or out of touch parents or a combo of both, discipline is becoming tougher and tougher.

In addition to that, most public school teachers have less and less time to prepare for their students. Conference periods are a joke in that we are usually required to attend meetings for special ed students who aren't even in our classroom (Called ARDS or 504 meetings, I won't bore you with the details as to why many teachers attend meetings for students other than their own).

The TAKS test (in Texas) has teachers teaching to the test. Just last Thursday in our first meeting back from summer break, we were told to develop our tests, as a department of course (why try and push your students ahead if there is a class/teacher down the hall who just doesn't cut it?), then lesson plan for the test. In other words, come up with a test then figure out what needs to be taught to pass the test. Are we teaching students for success in life or success on tests? Don't misunderstand me, I understand that students have to be assessed, but teaching to a test is not the way to do it.

I could go on and on, but understand, if I had kids and could afford it I'd send them to private school without question. I'd also work at a private school, but the pay doesn't compare. I'm one teacher who won't bitch about his pay! In Texas it's pretty damn good.

Which brings me to another point...

Teaching to the test isn't all that bad if the test is well-written.

[Midtowner]

Originally Posted by OKCMallen

Teaching to the test isn't all that bad if the test is well-written.

Exactly. I hope to God that my law school professors are teaching to the Bar Exam

[Midtowner]

Originally Posted by ddavidson8

As a teacher in a public school and a former student of a private school I'll say that if I am fortunate enough to ever have kids they will go to private school (if I can afford it).

Charter schools are a happy medium. They don't have nearly the red tape as their public counterparts, have advanced academic programs (depending on the school) and best of all, are free.

There are charter schools here in OKC (well, one) I'd send my kids to over someplace like Casady. If I took the money I would have handed Casady for my kid's education, I could put together a decent college savings plan or a trust fund for the kid.

OKC is great in that we have tons of school choices. Parents here, even those on the lower part of the socioeconomic food chain who live in less than excellent areas (e.g., Capitol Hill, Douglas, Northeast, etc.) can send their kids to schools which boast excellent programs and instructors.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by betts

After teaching at OU Medical School, which does turn out excellent physicians, with very little thanks to me, what I noticed was: Smart kids rise to the top, no matter what school they go to. Some of my best students were from places like Poteau and Gage (making those up, but you get my point). Private schools give you polish, but I'm not really sure it makes that much difference how well you can learn new material. What private schools may have the biggest effect on is average students, because private schools (especially Casady) tend to have more children of smart parents, which means genetically they tend to be smarter. Some average kids at private schools start thinking they are dumb or inadequate. Others push themselves farther than they would have in a public school, and that percentage of the population probably benefits from a private school education.

I agree. I'm a medical doctor at OU Medical Center, and work with the medical students below me frequently. Whether they went to private school or public school doesn't determine how successful they are in med school. Some of my smartest and brightest students came from public schools in our rural areas.