Public education advocates call on Alberta to axe funds to private schools

[chemgear]

First thing that popped in my head when I saw this was "Oh baby, can you imagine the massive raises we can get if can grab this money?"

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I was just reading that the government funding at Strathcona Tweedsmuir covers 19.5% of the annual school budget. So if they received the entire 100% grant instead of the 60% that brings them up to about 35% funded. And that makes me think that simply cutting their funding and adding that funding to the public school mix would not even come remotely close to recreating the environment of a private school for those who need or want that.

Because Strathcone Tweedsmuire, a school for "elites", is representative of the whole of the private school system. I suspect if you could look at the books of each private school, you would find more for whom the 60% makes up more than 60% of the budget than you would where it provides less than 60% of the budget

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This has been an interesting discussion. However, I'm not sure why you think that people with concerns about the level of public support for private schools have abandoned "data driven" decision making? It seems to me that there are some legitimate questions to be asked.

For example, one of my concerns (admittedly I don't know a lot about the education system) is the potential "two tier" consequences of higher teacher salaries at private schools. Do private schools siphon the best teachers from the public school system? If so, that would be one negative consequence to consider, no?

Two tier is a great emotive phrase to get people worried about whether rich #######s are getting ahead. Well done.

And even though it's rhetorical, to play along there's no answer to your question is there. So shut'er down anyway, just in case? Ban private schools. Charters and alternate programs too, since the problem would be the same?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Because Strathcone Tweedsmuire, a school for "elites", is representative of the whole of the private school system. I suspect if you could look at the books of each private school, you would find more for whom the 60% makes up more than 60% of the budget than you would where it provides less than 60% of the budget

West Island and Webber are similarly, if not more expensive. Are those and other private schools also schools for "elites"? And I really think you should see if you can find the ratio of expense to funding at some other schools. It won't matter too much because the point remains that if you want something the public school board has not a single hope of ever in a million years providing, you should be able to access it with a part of your tax money included.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's not what I'm seeing here. I see people concerned that public money is going to a discretionary private service. There are already provisions in the public system for people who want greater choice and specialized programs - charter schools.

Fair enough if you have a different read of it. Though it seems weird to suggest private schools are some kind of educational boob job not deserving of public funds. They still teach the same curriculum, and the students are going to be taught one way or another. What problem is this creating other than than the emotional reaction to the perception of rich kids in prep school ties?

It's a slippery slope when there's no reason to be worried other than worry. What's next? Cancel funding for home schooling because that's discretionary? Shouldn't there be something to suggest the cost or the outcome is a problem before we go yanking things?

[Cain]

Tired. Some good arguments either way. I'd love it if it were as sworkhard suggested and private schools were a variable subsidy so that kids with learning disabilities that actually needed extra teacher time could afford to go instead of being caught in the public system because they do not have the financial resources to attend a different school.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I was just reading that the government funding at Strathcona Tweedsmuir covers 19.5% of the annual school budget. So if they received the entire 100% grant instead of the 60% that brings them up to about 35% funded. And that makes me think that simply cutting their funding and adding that funding to the public school mix would not even come remotely close to recreating the environment of a private school for those who need or want that.

I can't speak for that school in particular, but I worked at a private boarding school in the past and it was unbelievable how much money they spent on trying to attract new students. An entire department with an administrator and 3-4 full time assistants existed solely for that purpose and they would fly all over the world every year to wine and dine prospective students and their families. The department would've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on attracting people to a school of a few hundred students.

That is to say, elite private schools often have a lot of things in their budget that don't go directly into education, so I don't know if a school only getting x% of their budget from the government is a particularly good measure. Particularly the high end private schools who have a huge influx of money of endowments from alumni.

I think a country like Sweden provides a bit of a cautionary tale with regards to encouraging private schools through fully funding them both in terms of general educational outcomes and increasing inequality:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...lure-education

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-33115771

http://www.economist.com/news/europe...wedens-schools

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

For example, one of my concerns (admittedly I don't know a lot about the education system) is the potential "two tier" consequences of higher teacher salaries at private schools. Do private schools siphon the best teachers from the public school system? If so, that would be one negative consequence to consider, no?

I think the bigger issue, and a clear advantage for private schools, is their teacher's aren't unionized leading to a system of meritocracy within the faculty. Private schools can cull bad teachers, the public system can't.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Two tier is a great emotive phrase to get people worried about whether rich #######s are getting ahead. Well done.

And even though it's rhetorical, to play along there's no answer to your question is there. So shut'er down anyway, just in case? Ban private schools. Charters and alternate programs too, since the problem would be the same?

Did my post really warrant such a hysterical response? I certainly did not take any of the strawmen positions that you're ranting about (indeed, I didn't really take a position at all; just asked a sincere question.)

Lastly, my questions weren't rhetorical at all. I also don't believe that there is no answer to either of them. Not sure why you so quickly conclude as much.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I think the bigger issue, and a clear advantage for private schools, is their teacher's aren't unionized leading to a system of meritocracy within the faculty. Private schools can cull bad teachers, the public system can't.

Fair point, although that could of course change any time.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair point, although that could of course change any time.

No, that's not correct. A union drive within a private school or schools would take a very long time, and even then would likely fail. Choosing a private school because the teachers are subject to performance standards not available in a unionized environment will be something parents can rely upon for years to come.

EDIT: Let me add, we're likely putting our child into the public (separate) system.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

No, that's not correct. A union drive within a private school or schools would take a very long time, and even then would likely fail. Choosing a private school because the teachers are subject to performance standards not available in a unionized environment will be something parents can rely upon for years to come.

EDIT: Let me add, we're likely putting our child into the public (separate) system.

I didn't say anything about the likeliness of any particular workplace choosing to bargain collectively. Indeed, how could I. Its entirely up to the employees of each workplace. I only pointed out, as an aside really, that its a (Charter-protected) possibility in any workplace.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cain

Tired. Some good arguments either way. I'd love it if it were as sworkhard suggested and private schools were a variable subsidy so that kids with learning disabilities that actually needed extra teacher time could afford to go instead of being caught in the public system because they do not have the financial resources to attend a different school.

One thing that not a lot of people are aware of is the huge effort people with cognitive and physical disabilities went to to be included in the public system. The vast majority of people with disabilities, their families, and their allies are not interested and do not want separate schools, regardless of the quality of those schools.

Most of the academic research also supports the notion that including people with disabilities in regular classes, with appropriate support, has vastly better outcomes for both people with disabilities and for able-children who are in the classroom with them.

It's very important to recognize that children with disabilities are not "caught" in the public system and the best thing for them is not to separate them into specialist schools, regardless of the quality of those schools. The best thing is to provide the necessary personnel and materials to support these students within the context of a 'regular' classroom.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by driveway

It's very important to recognize that children with disabilities are not "caught" in the public system and the best thing for them is not to separate them into specialist schools, regardless of the quality of those schools. The best thing is to provide the necessary personnel and materials to support these students within the context of a 'regular' classroom.

All fine and dandy, but not happening in my experience. I don't really care how the solution comes about, just that it does. I have some nieces and nephews in my family that are quite "caught" in the public system and need extra help and I'm not exaggerating and it is quite frustrating.

[GrumpyOldFellow]

Originally Posted by driveway

It's very important to recognize that children with disabilities are not "caught" in the public system and the best thing for them is not to separate them into specialist schools, regardless of the quality of those schools. The best thing is to provide the necessary personnel and materials to support these students within the context of a 'regular' classroom.

Congratulations, you win! I have been lurking for years and your post hit a nerve that forces me to write my first comment. And it's a long one, sorry.

Some background. We live in Alberta with 3 children, all who have attended private schools. Two children have severe mental and physical disabilities. We now have about 20 years of experience dealing with this issue and have come to know hundreds of other people in this community(children and adults with disabilities of varying degrees)

First thing everyone must realize is that there is a very wide range of disabilities and they all cannot be grouped together as "children with disabilities". Needs of those with physical disabilities are completely different from those with cognitive disabilities, and the needs of everyone vary drastically depending on their abilities.

It is true that some children with disabilities are better off in the public system. But the reality is that many children with disabilities (typically cognitive) really are "caught" in the public system. Many parents of these children are forever fighting the system until they are finally able to move their child to a private school that specializes in dealing with their child. But there are far too many other parents driven to despair and unfortunately have no other option but to leave their child in an environment they know is not the best for their child.

Originally Posted by driveway

The vast majority of people with disabilities, their families, and their allies are not interested and do not want separate schools, regardless of the quality of those schools.

This is another completely false statement. It is not the vast majority that want this, but may certainly be true for those with physical or very mild cognitive disabilities. It is definitely not true for us and it is not true for almost everyone we know. Our experience is that it is people outside of this group, including many school boards and people running the public schools, who pressured us and in some cases demanded that we put our children into the public system(we fought and won).

There seems to be a complete pendulum shift from the horrible institutions of the first half of the 20th century that have influenced people to now think that any kind of segregation is a bad thing. The private schools and even some rare specialized public schools (there is at least one in Calgary that even the Flames have supported) are far superior in dealing with many of these children, so it is very frustrating to keep being pressured to do otherwise, simply because your child has the label of being disabled.

What is worse and more disturbing is that the pressure from the public schools is really about funding. Schools receive a lot more funding for each child with a disability, and that funding increases substantially with the severity (our children were among the bigger nuggets in the gold mine). The problem is that the school does not need to spend the money on the child that the funding is intended for, since there is no requirement to report in detail where the money goes. We know of countless cases where the children are essentially placed in the corner of a classroom and only receive a fraction of the attention they would get at a private school that receives less funding.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Did my post really warrant such a hysterical response? I certainly did not take any of the strawmen positions that you're ranting about (indeed, I didn't really take a position at all; just asked a sincere question.)

Lastly, my questions weren't rhetorical at all. I also don't believe that there is no answer to either of them. Not sure why you so quickly conclude as much.

Nah not hysterical. Flippant maybe. it makes me chuckle that people don't seem to want to just say what they are saying.

Regardless of what you meant the union is not going to say some teachers are better than others, and wouldn't allow that it's even possible to objectively measure performance. But if someone can float a scary sounding sentiment out there I am sure they are all for it.

If they want to say some kids arent worthy of public funding isn't it their job to make a case? Seems weird that in a world of evidence based decisions an ideological 'we don't like them' from the union should be enough.

[CliffFletcher]

Do all private schools have to accept anyone who pays, including students with disabilities?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do all private schools have to accept anyone who pays, including students with disabilities?

I know you can get kicked out of private school pretty easily and not accepted even easier. I'm sure they don't have to accept anyone who pays including disabled students.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

If your paying $10,000 a year for your kid to go to elementary school you need to give your head a shake.

I'm in the states and we send our kids to private school. Why? basically because the school is so much better. It's not even close. They vastly outperform the public schools on standardized testing, have access to far better language and fine arts from pre-K on up, and the class size is far smaller (no more than 20 students) and when they graduate they are all but guaranteed a free ride in college (as is the history thus far for graduates). This last part stems from an extremely robust advanced placement course system that every student is required to participate in at least 5 course.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by ernie

I'm in the states and we send our kids to private school. Why? basically because the school is so much better. It's not even close. They vastly outperform the public schools on standardized testing, have access to far better language and fine arts from pre-K on up, and the class size is far smaller (no more than 20 students) and when they graduate they are all but guaranteed a free ride in college (as is the history thus far for graduates). This last part stems from an extremely robust advanced placement course system that every student is required to participate in at least 5 course.

To get back to the OP, do you feel that the government should take some of the money that is intended for public education (and from the sounds of it could use more money to bring class sizes down) and give it to your childrens' private schools that they attend to give them an advantage over the children in public schools?