Having grown up in public schools, I've often wondered how they differed from private schools. My experience was that public school teachers seemed less inspired than what I imagined in the private schools. There were a few teachers whose names I still remember, whose passion I still appreciate. Yet they were very few. Most teachers seemed bored with their jobs, lacking the motivation to excel at what they were doing. So, my question to those who have lived both public and private education is, how do they differ and what are the pitfalls of both?
I was educated at a Catholic school in Sydney [CBTHS Paddington] and I sent my Son to another Catholic school, Marist Brothers. Reasons? Not for the religious education obviously, but because I believed that at least in my time, Catholic schools gave a more disciplined, all rounded education environment. This included 2 years in the army school cadets unit, which again re-enforced that discipline side of things. I have no regrets about either.
I am not sure about comparisons between public & private day schools. I am convinced that private boarding schools have compelling advantages. For example: the private co-ed boarding school (grades 9-12) which I attended had circa 3-4 hours per day of monitored study halls. If grades fell below a certain level level, a student was required to go to those study halls. Otherwise a student could use that time for personal activities like table tennis or socializing. Another example: There was a one hour period after lunch each week day to be used for getting special tutoring. This period was used mainly by students hoping to avoid the monitored study halls required due to poor grades. Some teachers, particularly math & physics teachers, often felt they needed help due to the number of students assigned to that hour of special tutoring. A student who was especially good in a subject could volunteer to do tutoring in that hour & be allowed to skip home work assignments as a reward for the service. I was able to avoid math & physics homework for most of my four years at that school by doing 3-4 hours of tutoring per week after lunch.
In my home town of childhood there was one public high school and one private school that taught up to 9th grade (13/14 year olds, in America). A fairly high percentage of the students transferring to the public school for senior high classes (10th through 12th grades) were behind in their studies, by comparison with the public school students - often by a full year. But that situation featured a private school that taught mostly lower income students - it was Catholic, and the Catholics in that town were mostly lower class jobholders, while the upper class people in town were mostly Protestant of varied denominations.
From Post #4 by Bells. I post in large bold because it seems easier to read. Do you object to bold, large, or both? BTW: I have been Posting to SciForums for decades. You are the first to object to the large bold text. In deference to your request, I did not use large bold for this Post. Unless I get lots of objections from regulat Posters or a directive from a moderator, I will continue to use large bold text.
[QUOTE="Dinosaur, post: 3331957] In deference to your request, I did not use large bold for this Post. Unless I get lots of objections from regulat Posters or a directive from a moderator, I will continue to use large bold text.[/QUOTE] Actually, my eyes don't do well these days. Fine print is impossible to read without glasses. I personally have no problem with your large bold print.
No doubt it's possible to get "better" education by paying more for it. But there are also private schools whose main purpose is to avoid distasteful subjects like evolution; they tend to provide a horrendously poor level of "education".
From SideShowBob Post #8 It is sad that many schools avoid evolution or or teach contrary views. I went to Quaker (Society of Friends) schools from grade one through college. The Quakers are behavior-oriented & would probably accept an atheist as a member. In both high school & college they provided courses in comparative religion. Their treatment was totally unbiased. The subject matter described the theology & practices of non-christian religions as well non-Quaker Christianity were described. The only criticisms of any religion pertained to practices like the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, & some vicious practices by various non-Christian religions.
BTW: At the Quaker schools I attended (1943 thru 1947), the Jewish students outnumbered the Quakers. The Jews valued a first class education & Quaker schools in that era accepted Jews, while many good schools/colleges either had quotas or did not accept any Jews.
Interesting. Sounds like a well-rounded education. The topic of religion would never enter the classroom of a public school, which is a shame since the subject is a matter of conflict in the world.
Nonsense. Religion is a standard topic in the US public school education. The only thing keeping it out of some schools is objections from local Christian fundamentalists: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/01/07/we-must-teach-about-religion-in-high-schools/
Was never addressed in my schools. It probably would have served us well. I personally believe they are afraid to touch it. Also, neither of my children were introduces to religious issues in their schools, and we live in a progressive part of the country.
Turns out I was wrong about my kid's education. Talking over dinner tonight, it turns out they did study comparative religion in high school, which makes me happy. I guess I was cheated when I went to school.
Maybe you were. I would like to reach out to you. You have posted some really stupid things. But I'd like to think you're trying.
It's a matter of opinion, but in this case I was wrong. I'm glad they were given an opportunity to explore religion in school. It was a topic never approached while I was in school.
