Private vs. Public...

[Onhell]

So as to not hijack the 'Same something nice about a country" thread (even if it is in the madness forum) I've decided to continue this SERIOUS conversion here.....

Yes it is the state's problem, because it undermines the curriculum issued by the government. The Swedish government wants the religious studies to be equal. Every big religion should get as much time in the class. That's one of the reasons that the government doesn't like RELIGIOUS private schools. The new governments are liberals, a nd are trying hard to allow more private schools, but religious private schools are frowned upon by most parties. One of the other reasons that I don't like the private schools is because they compete with the state schools, and deteriorates  the state schools education. It's because:

1) The private schools can CHOOSE their students, and the state schools cannot. The private schools might want to only take on the students with excellent grades, and that leaves the common schools with the students that might need extra education, and that's not good. You need a mixture.

2) The money. A students education is payed by the government. They get a certain amount of money, which is controlled by the state, to pay for the education. THe money follows you if you decide to change school to a different common school. It follows you automatically. WHen you move to a private school, the money flows into the schools budget. So the money can NEVER follow you back if you decide to change to a stateschool. That's a huge problem.

3) The fact that Private Schools are supposed to make money. The money doesn't flow back into the school as it does with the common schools.

4) The whole "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS PURE BULLSH*T!" thingy the  Religious Private Schools got going on.

5) That private schools tends to entice students to choose their school through promising short hours, restuarant foods, other perks and so on. That's made quite a few people I know to choose a private school, and not thinking of where they would get the best education. That's become secondary.

6) The principals at private schools are more likely to threat teachers to give the students higher grades than they deserve (they've done that in a few commons schools as well)

Conclusion: I strongly dislike private schools, and always will.

They still have the right to do that, because they are private... Remember that the state  curriculum can also be under minded by home schooling which will probably proliferate if Religious private schools are to be "controlled" by the government. This falls dangerously close to the Inquisition, Nazi Germany and Communism where the State dictates what their people will believe and learn. If people want to believe the bible literally they have the right to, if they wish to attend a school that backs that up, they should be allowed to as well. Freedom of Speech and expression is what I'm arguing for here. I prefer private schools a thousand times over public having attended both (granted Arizona's public schooling system is 48th out of 50 in the nation...).

 

[Raven]

It's slightly different in Northern Ireland.  In England, there are three basic school types.  The state comprehensives are completely funded by the government, there are more 'intermediate' grammar schools (I'm not entirely sure how they operate), and then private schools, which are completely privately funded.  There has been a tradition of 'heritage' in private schools, where many members of the aristocracy would have places for their sprogs guaranteed, even up to university level (e.g. Oxbridge).  While the grammar schools have (in some way) disrupted this status quo, there are few enough of them left in the UK.

In Northern Ireland, however, the education system is different again.  At age 11, academic selection takes place, with what is called the Transfer test.  Streaming of students based on these results takes place, with the best students gaining places in the Grammar schools (which are slightly different from English grammar schools), and those who don't achieve high scores selected for comprehensive schools.

There has been widespread criticism of the academic selection system in recent years, with many claiming that it is a failure.  However, looking at the proposed comprehensive system (similar to England's), which is due to be introduced next year, you have to wonder at the proponent's reasoning.  Academic achievements have been noticeably better than the English school system for many years, and yet there is still a literacy problem among school leavers, especially from the Comprehensive schools.  Fine - that's the problem, we can all see that.  Where their logic begins to break apart is when you realise that the English comprehensive system has 'failed' children more, with much lower literacy rates among school leavers, and yet a revised system will, supposedly, succeed in solving this problem.

The fact of the matter is, the proposals by Catriona Ruane (Education Minister for NI) aim to achieve equality by dragging the top grammar schools (many with an excellent record equalling that of private schools in England, yet are partially publicly funded) down to the level of the Comprehensive System.  In reality, the converse should happen.

The education system in NI is one of the best things in this (godforsaken) land, and yet the relentless drive for equality and 'protecting' children from the trauma of tests and selection threatens to bring us back to an age of stupidity.  The new age of academic selection (14) is quite unreasonable, given that this gives the teaching staff, at most, 4 years to prepare them for the outside world, and whatever they may choose to specialise in.  Then again, it may suit the newly 'revised' (Read: dumbed down) curricula for GCSE and AS/A, because giving children anything less than an A would be a mortal sin, whether they deserve it or not.

Besides, the concept of 'emotional trauma' that the children go through is a naive one.  If not at 11, when are you going to actually expose them to what they'll have to go through in real life?  Sheltering children until they leave school is going to do them no favours at all.  The universities certainly aren't going to pity their fragile feelings, and neither will employers.  Mollycoddling the nation's youth by using such euphemisms as 'Did not achieve his potential' for 'fail' and not marking in red ink (it's a negative colour) is just so symptomatic of our politically-correct culture.

To sum up, the education system in NI is in a markedly different position from the rest of the UK.  With regards to the debate over public vs. private, it only partially applies here, since there are no completely private schools.  I would absolutely support the right for private schools to exist, though; surely aiming to improve education by dragging the best down is the wrong thing to do, when you should aim to improve the worst?

 

[Genghis Khan]

Besides, the concept of 'emotional trauma' that the children go through is a naive one.  If not at 11, when are you going to actually expose them to what they'll have to go through in real life?  Sheltering children until they leave school is going to do them no favours at all.  The universities certainly aren't going to pity their fragile feelings, and neither will employers.  Mollycoddling the nation's youth by using such euphemisms as 'Did not achieve his potential' for 'fail' and not marking in red ink (it's a negative colour) is just so symptomatic of our politically-correct culture.

To sum up, the education system in NI is in a markedly different position from the rest of the UK.  With regards to the debate over public vs. private, it only partially applies here, since there are no completely private schools.  I would absolutely support the right for private schools to exist, though; surely aiming to improve education by dragging the best down is the wrong thing to do, when you should aim to improve the worst?

The political correctness and the "mollycoddling" is just as true in the Ontario school board.  For those of you who may not know.  I've taught before as a teacher in my own class and as a supply teacher.  We have such a permissive system here.  There are countless "recovery classes" where students re-take the same subjects at an easier level.

Back on track... with the Swedish private school and religion issue.  Here is the interesting article again.
Article.
Notice that the UK author supports the Swedish rule of law and wishes such a law existed in UK.

 

[Invader]

The private schools can CHOOSE their students, and the state schools cannot. The private schools might want to only take on the students with excellent grades, and that leaves the common schools with the students that might need extra education, and that's not good. You need a mixture.

How is this not good?  It's a waste having good students being mixed with bad students, because their potential is diluted.  If you have a class of good students and a class of less good students, both can advance at their own pace.  This way, good students don't get bored with going too slowly, and bad students don't have to struggle to keep up with going too fast.

Your other points are fairly true for some countries, I guess, but I'm not too familiar with private teaching in other countries.  In Finland, private schools generally don't cost you anything extra, and are pretty much exactly like public schools except the quality of education is generally better, so I'm very much pro-private school (I'm in one myself).  I'd guess it's pretty similar in Sweden? (or not?)

 

[porcnoz]

Having private schools doesn't exempt any State to keep an eye on the education teached.  I've spent all my studies in private schools, and I've never been told Darwin's theory was wrong, or all other stuff like that.

Here in France, politics think how they could allow muslim schools.  All our teachers are civil servant.  I know that's hardly understandable that teachers in private schools are civil servant, but it's the way it works.  They all have the same diploma and choose, once they had it, if they want to teach in public or in private schools.  That's how our state keep an eye on the education teached.

 

[Shadow]

I think the debate of public versus private schools is given far too much room. It's not of much interest to me whether a school is run publicly or privately, what matters is the education itself.

The real problem with school ownership in Sweden at the moment is that public schools are run by municipalities instead of the state. It is most apparent at gymnasium level, which is the Swedish equivalent of high school/upper secondary school/sixth form/whatever. When you've finished your compulsory education, you select the school and programme you wish to attend, and provided your grades are high enough you get in. However, if you apply for a school outside your municipality, you can only get in if your selected programme is not available in your own municipality (it's possible to get in even if it is, but your chances are slim).

So in order to attract students from neighbouring municipalities, schools offer large numbers of "specialized programmes" which are variations of national programmes that try to sound all cool and exciting. For example, my own school not only has a regular natural science programme (which I attend), but also a natural science/adventures programme, and starting next year, a natural science/digital photography programme. These work by the principle of lifting out serious subjects and replacing them with cheap thrills and junk. Obviously, this means a dilution in the quality of education, and believe me, there are much worse examples than those I just mentioned.

 

[Yax]

Obviously, this means a dilution in the quality of education, and believe me, there are much worse examples than those I just mentioned.

I hope you don't mean SMNV mate  !

 

[Anomica]

I don't have a problem with private schools and the issue, to me, is not about private versus public schools; the issue with the Swedish government's standpoint (which is one of the few points of their's that I actually support) is that we have a very strongly stated freedom of religion here. No religion must be allowed - in school! - to claim to be the single Truth above and beyond every other religion. Even during the times until just a few years ago when we actually had a stated state religion (protestant lutheranism) we were taught about different religions and their claims, differencies and similarities. What I believe politicians are trying to get to is the mind programming (?) that it can be if a youngster is put in a religious private school - whether it's islamic, judaic, catholic or hindu. We want our young to grow up forming their own opinioins.

On another note, I'd love to see imams coming to public school to teach about islam, rabbis to teach about judaism and so on. That would be truly religiously unbiased, I think. Besides, if a young muslim is pressured by his family to turn hard towards religion, a non-religious school might be an asylum for him or her, a place where religious pressures are lessened for a while. I want our schools to focus on teaching the young the basic skills - reading, writing, maths. Some claim that as many as 20% of 16-year olds lack proficient skills in reading and writing when they leave the compulsory school system (10 years, starting at 6 y/o) and can't manage secondary school, the stage before university. That's a bigger issue than religion, I think, and a damn shame considering Sweden used to be top 5 in the western world 10-15 years ago. Now we're about 15-20 or worse, I believe.

 

[Yax]

How is this not good?  It's a waste having good students being mixed with bad students, because their potential is diluted.  If you have a class of good students and a class of less good students, both can advance at their own pace.  This way, good students don't get bored with going too slowly, and bad students don't have to struggle to keep up with going too fast.

Your other points are fairly true for some countries, I guess, but I'm not too familiar with private teaching in other countries.  In Finland, private schools generally don't cost you anything extra, and are pretty much exactly like public schools except the quality of education is generally better, so I'm very much pro-private school (I'm in one myself).  I'd guess it's pretty similar in Sweden? (or not?)

No, it doesn't cost extra. But if the student want to change back to a public school, then the state won't get the money back that they lost when the money got transfered to the private school, which it gets automatically.

And you can't have a school filled with only good students and one school with "bad" students. You've got to spread it out, because it'll ruin the school with only "bad student" who might require extra help, because extra resources (teachers and so on) are not cheap. It costs a fucking lot.

 

[Raven]

No, it doesn't cost extra. But if the student want to change back to a public school, then the state won't get the money back that they lost when the money got transfered to the private school, which it gets automatically.

And you can't have a school filled with only good students and one school with "bad" students. You've got to spread it out, because it'll ruin the school with only "bad student" who might require extra help, because extra resources (teachers and so on) are not cheap. It costs a fucking lot.

Surely, the whole point of having a publicly-funded education system is to enable the government to provide for everything the school needs?  Besides, if you have academically very able students who are placed in a class or school with less able students, they're going to get bored very quickly, which inevitably leads to disruption.

Look at it this way.  Suppose you were being tutored in guitar, as a class, and you were clearly way beyond the rest of the students, technically.  Would you not want to be able to get tuition more suited to your own skills?  Dragging down the best in any field just so that the worst will feel better is just as much a crime as ignoring those who need more attention.

 

[Onhell]

As Invader and Raven pointed out, you'll have your bad and good students and nothing wrong with separating them. It happens already. In the U.S we have "honors" or "advanced placement" courses for good students. There are schools specifically for good students and there are schools that while not intentionally designed for bad students, because of its poor staff and demographics, it has a lower than average score... So aiming for a perfect "mix" is ridiculous.

And I'm not backing down, while I may disagree with what they are teaching, private schools do have the luxury to teach what they want (to an extent, because they have to prepare everybody with the basics at least), precisely because they are private.

The private school I attended had a few mandatory classes it had to teach to satisfy state qualifications, but once those minimums were met, they could teach us monkeys could fly if they wanted to.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

The private school I attended had a few mandatory classes it had to teach to satisfy state qualifications, but once those minimums were met, they could teach us monkeys could fly if they wanted to.

Yes, but such a thing ("monkeys can fly") is clearly false. Private schools may be legally entitled to teach such nonsense, but that doesn't make it right. The problem is that some private schools may exist because some adults want to spread their vision of the world, when a school really ought to be about educating the students, which means teaching the truth.

No, I don't have any good reason for ending every sentence with italics.

 

[porcnoz]

The problem is that some private schools may exist because some adults want to spread their vision of the world, when a school really ought to be about educating the students, which means teaching the truth.

I have problems while understanding what you mean, and it's true for all of you who posted here actually.  Like I said, all our teachers are civil servant, and, from time to time (I don't know the frequency), someone who belongs to the "national education" (ministry) comes to judge how and what they teach, "in live" and also how the lessons are being prepared.

But it seems that your governments don't supervise enough your teachers (very personal opinion).

I think it's a good thing to teach the main religion of the country in schools, not in the way that you have to follow its precepts, but in the way to help you understand the "codes" of the country you're living in.

 

[Onhell]

Yes, but such a thing ("monkeys can fly") is clearly false. Private schools may be legally entitled to teach such nonsense, but that doesn't make it right. The problem is that some private schools may exist because some adults want to spread their vision of the world, when a school really ought to be about educating the students, which means teaching the truth.

No, I don't have any good reason for ending every sentence with italics.

What? Monkeys can't fly? . That is the problem with religious schools and the source of Yax ire and pie slinging. Clearly these people think they are teaching the truth. And honestly when it comes to belief no one can tell them any different. Are Buddhists wrong? Christians? Jews? Atheists? We don't know, each one likes to think they're right and more power too them.

But it seems that your governments don't supervise enough your teachers (very personal opinion).

Quite the opposite. Here in the U.S public school teachers are supervised like felons on a chain gang. Also the only difference between public school teachers and private school teachers in the U.S is that Public School teachers need state certification to teach and private school teachers do not. They both get the same degree (B.A in education), but public school teachers get paid more (not that much more) than private, because of the extra mile (and pain in the ass) they went in getting state certification.