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

[FlamesAddiction]

I have a good friend that went to a private school for children gifted in the arts. She is currently making a good living as an artist and it's hard to imagine that the public school system would have nurtured her natural abilities. In fact, she was somewhat of an oddball and was bullied quite a bit in public school for it.

I have no problem subsidizing private schools in situations like that.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

Well yeah, that's what happens when you can cherry-pick the best students, not have to put resources into kids with learning or behavioural issues, and you can provide class sizes much smaller than the public system. The question is whether those private businesses should receive money diverted from a public system that has to provide education for all children.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have a good friend that went to a private school for children gifted in the arts. She is currently making a good living as an artist and it's hard to imagine that the public school system would have nurtured her natural abilities. In fact, she was somewhat of an oddball and was bullied quite a bit in public school for it.

I have no problem subsidizing private schools in situations like that.

Calgary's public system has several schools dedicated to the arts. A lot of the kids there are oddballs.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by John Doe

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?

If they are expected to and fulfill all the requirements of the public school system and take the same standardized tests I don't have a huge issue with it. Doesn't happen like that in this area but in my core I firmly believe that having a baseline education for all children is a good thing for the community and should be supported by the tax base. Private or public delivery doesn't concern me too much. It's why I never had an issue paying such taxes when I didn't have kids and now when I don't have kids in the public school system. It's why I don't mind us paying "extra" in tuition so that kids in the community can receive scholarships to go to the school my kids go to. We are currently lucky enough to be in a situation where we can afford to do this and send them to a school not just with teachers but teachers who graduated at the top of their classes and hold advanced degrees in the subjects they teach.

Is it two tier? Yes it is and honestly I think that sucks on many levels but unlike most in this area who view the American Dream as "i never got that 'handout' so why should the youth of today get it", I view it as "I will do everything in my power to give my kids greater advantages than I had growing up". But that gets us into a whole other discussion on how the US funds their schools which is just asinine...it's not nearly as bad in Canada.

I am sooooooo left of center down here in GOP territory.....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Calgary's public system has several schools dedicated to the arts. A lot of the kids there are oddballs.

Unfortunately, most towns and smaller cities do not have that luxury though.

I remember when I first started applying to universities after high school, some of them were asking for credits in courses that weren't even offered by the one public school in the town I lived in. It was a bare-bones public school. Most kids there would be better off in private school if given the choice.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well yeah, that's what happens when you can cherry-pick the best students, not have to put resources into kids with learning or behavioural issues, and you can provide class sizes much smaller than the public system. The question is whether those private businesses should receive money diverted from a public system that has to provide education for all children.

This school doesn't actually cherry pick the kids. It was started by a local business owner who thought schooling in the area for his employees could be better. As part of working for that company, the company subsidizes tuition at the school. The other kids come from people who pay tuition. There is no entrance exam or anything. Only a handful of kids (the scholarship kids) are "cherry picked" so to speak and they may not be cherry picked because of grades but for other reasons (excel at arts and even simply by applying but needing assistance etc).

The bulk of the student population comes from a mix of blue collar to white collar families just like every school. The reason the kids perform well compared to the public schools isn't because of financial characteristics of the school parents (which doesn't actually differ by much in the end) but because the school is better and the parents likely do care more about education when taken as a whole.

[peter12]

Maybe we should eliminate public schools entirely, and give out tax vouchers so parents/communities/kids can figure out their educations on their own without the interference of central planner curriculum writers?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Unfortunately, most towns and smaller cities do not have that luxury though.

I remember when I first started applying to universities after high school, some of them were asking for credits in courses that weren't even offered by the one public school in the town I lived in. It was a bare-bones public school. Most kids there would be better off in private school if given the choice.

Did your small town have a private school that offered the courses?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Maybe we should eliminate public schools entirely, and give out tax vouchers so parents/communities/kids can figure out their educations on their own without the interference of central planner curriculum writers?

Sweden went down that road and it has generally been a disaster.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

No I don't think they do:

http://wicmtl.ca/admissions/journey-wic/

Seems to be a multi step process.

Spoiler!

http://www.sts.ab.ca/Admissions/FAQ

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well yeah, that's what happens when you can cherry-pick the best students, not have to put resources into kids with learning or behavioural issues, and you can provide class sizes much smaller than the public system. The question is whether those private businesses should receive money diverted from a public system that has to provide education for all children.

Private schools aren't private businesses. Though it definitely does sound more sinister that way. So does diverted.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Private schools aren't private businesses. Though it definitely does sound more sinister that way. So does diverted.

I attended private school as a student and worked in one as a teacher.

Private schools are definitely a business.

[opendoor]

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.

That's really only partly true in my experience. Yeah you're not going to get an incompetent teacher protected by a union, but it'd be a bit of a stretch to say that it's necessarily a meritocracy. In my experience you were just as likely to get hired as a teacher because you used to be a good rower or rugby player, you knew the right people, or you had some sort of family connection to the school as you were due to your qualifications and abilities as an educator. I can think of a few examples where people were given jobs teaching subjects they didn't have degrees in because they were wanted for their abilities as a sports coach. Cronyism can also be pretty rampant in those types of situations.

That's not to say that they don't provide a fantastic education, but that has more to do with smaller class sizes and the ability to pick a high quality student body than it does with the quality of teachers.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I attended private school as a student and worked in one as a teacher.

Private schools are definitely a business.

They don't make ant profit. So not a business. Fund raising. Not a business. No share holders. If you're saying they take money in and provide a service for that exchange you're right. But that is the end of the similarities. The need to remain operational is way different than the need to make a profit.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Did your small town have a private school that offered the courses?

I'm not sure. I know some parents that could afford it sent their kids away to boarding school (the nearest was 2 hours away I think), but we are talking about just the wealthiest. The rest were SOL.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

So if a parent decides their kid is best served somewhere outside the normal system, whether by choice or necessity, how much less are their needs worth? What makes them less valuable?

[V]

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?

The teachers at my kids' school are tied to 90% of the grid of the public school teachers. As you hear time and time again, teachers don't care as much about the money as you're led to believe by the media.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by V

The teachers at my kids' school are tied to 90% of the grid of the public school teachers. As you hear time and time again, teachers don't care as much about the money as you're led to believe by the media.

And as we've seen time and time again, any increase in funding to public education goes to teachers salaries first, and students second. Unions FTW.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by John Doe

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?

Your going to want to check the math on that.

if the public system gets thousands of kids back in the fold they won't come with classrooms and teachers and support staff and maintenance budgets. snuffing out private schools and charter schools will add stress to the public system, not ease it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

They don't make ant profit. So not a business. Fund raising. Not a business. No share holders. If you're saying they take money in and provide a service for that exchange you're right. But that is the end of the similarities. The need to remain operational is way different than the need to make a profit.

I know several businesses that do not have shareholders and do not make 'profit' that are still businesses.

I can tell you from witnessing the inner workings of a private school from the administration side that it is very much a business.

'Keeping the lights on' is often a euphemism for "building a new soccer pitch to attract better student-athletes (and the dollars that go with them). Maybe the school needs a new state of the art rowing centre. I've seen student athletes like this up close, they carry huge dollar symbols around them in the form of their parents who are willing to invest it all if it means Johnny or Sally has a better shot 'at the big time'. It's not uncommon that a school will have separate administration departments for Alumni squeezing and student recruitment, where one is usually paying for the other.

Sitting in some of those staff meetings where the discussion on the table is to increase the amount of spaces for students or increase the amount of administrative positions can be pretty freakin' awkward.