Could private schools be safer for children?
The following is a Counterpoint.
By Hal Koger
The article, "Students rule the classroom," (Nov. 21) reminded me once again that there seems to be major differences in public and private schools, differences seldom mentioned in the press.
My grandsons attend Vandalia Christian School, so I have the opportunity to interface with the school's administrative staff, teachers and students. They give the general impression that their school environment is very similar to the kind I had from 1948 to 1959.
Back then, teachers and parents seemed to work in harmony to create a disciplined place for children to learn educational basics. Students did not rule the schools I attended in my youth and they don't in my grandsons' school.
I'm well aware that this anecdotal testimonial is narrow, and I'm probably not seeing the negative details of private school education, but I feel certain that the press typically ignores these non-public schools, especially if the publicity casts a negative light on public education. Is this good journalism?
The Nov. 21 article by David Hoggard was well-written and informative but did not consider whether discipline in private schools might be a lesser problem. If it is a smaller problem, as I suspect, would this data not be newsworthy? Could it be that it might encourage more migration from public to private schools?
And if it did, would this be bad if it helped turn out good citizens?
Back on July 12, 2006, an article about school safety appeared in the News & Record, which reported the results of a survey of 2,572 students, but none of them were private school students.
The article was interesting enough that I retrieved a copy of the survey from the newspaper's online Chalkboard, and printed a copy. I thought then, and still think it would be interesting to ask a large sampling of private school students to answer those same questions, and report the findings.
Wouldn't this be a great project for a reporter, or maybe a college student? But would the paper print the results? And if it did, would it draw a 2-inch article deep inside the paper so they could declare objectivity, or would it command the same space reserved for public schools?
I suppose we'll never know.
The writer lives in McLeansville.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
" I feel certain that the press typically ignores these non-public schools, especially if the publicity casts a negative light on public education. Is this good journalism?"...
"Could it be that it might encourage more migration from public to private schools?"...
"Wouldn't this be a great project for a reporter, or maybe a college student?"...
"But would the paper print the results?"...
..."would it command the same space reserved for public schools?"
No
Yes
Yes
No
Definitely no.
Posted on November 30, 2007 6:22 AM
"The article, 'Students rule the classroom,' (Nov. 21) reminded me once again that there seems to be major differences in public and private schools, differences seldom mentioned in the press."
I've gotten a lot of mileage --- in addressing the rowdiness problem public schools face --- with an argument, most recently used in the New York Post:
City Schools Under Siege
New York Post
Letter, August 30, 2007
Whether the schools' crime surge is due to better reporting or real, our systems of schooling are invitations to unruliness because they are based on coercion.
Families have no choice about whether to send their children to school. And schools, with rare exceptions, cannot choose students.
This "choicelessness" is a formula for tension.
Let families choose schools, thereby enhancing family status and getting them to buy in to their children's educations. And let schools choose pupils, with supplemental funds attached to more challenging students.
Coercive systems are not healthy for anyone.
Tom Shuford
Lenoir, N.C.
Posted on November 30, 2007 7:07 AM
Tom,
Fair question:
What do you do if 10,000 kids choose Southwest and 25 choose Central and Andrews?
Personally, I believe that we're going to see more and more of an exodus from public schools. I don't know if that is good or bad, honestly.
It's kind of a vicious cycle. If parents who were committed and involved were in public schools, they might not be so bad. However, as they leave, then the public schools end up being worse and worse. This causes concerned parents to be very apprehensive about sending their kids into these detention centers.
I think one major issue is the administration's disregard for parents' concerns. Parents who have tried to be involved have become disenfranchised by a school board and administration who constantly ignores their pleas and actually works against their involvement.
So, I'm in a dilemma. Stick with the public school and bet my child's future on my wanting to change the system. Or realize the system is broken and secure the best possible education and environment for my child.
Private schools, charter schools and magnet programs are providing options to parents who choose the latter.
Posted on November 30, 2007 10:30 AM
I know of a man who at one time worked in the GCS (not sure if he's still there). He attended one of the private "Christian" schools in the county. He shared some of his experiences there. Suffice it to say that the very same things that are in the public schools exist in the private ones as well. Probably not to the extent of the public ones.
Remember, when students are taken out of public schools, for whatever reason, and placed in private schools; their behavior goes with them. So, if a student is disruptive, a druggie, sexually active, thuggish, gang member, etc.; going to a private school will not automatically change those facts. The difference is that the atmosphere may make it a little more difficult to act out on these behaviors.
nit, you are faced with a real dilemma. The question is will things change in GCS? I am still not under the belief that private schools are the sole answer. Yet, until GCS obtain leadership, the status quo is all that we have. The citizens need to keep the pressure on and hopefully that will help to enact change. If there is no pressure, the change is virtually assured not to happen.
This reminds me of comments regarding the LTTE today about war. Do we rush to war or just sit idly by and just let the proverbial "chips" fall where they may. The "war" aspect is definitely not the answer, nor is sitting idly by. There needs to be involvement and action. This is a foundational aspect of our Republic, involvement by the citizenry.
Let me help to enact change and let me be the change that I hope to see!
Shalom
Posted on November 30, 2007 11:21 AM
Darryl: "There needs to be involvement and action. This is a foundational aspect of our Republic, involvement by the citizenry."
Eloquently stated.
Alas, trends are in precisely the opposite direction. Giant sytems of schooling, growing larger by the day, have evolved from very modest, one-room school beginnings --- with LOTS of citizen involvement and TEN TIMES as many school board members (before the consolidation of some 120,000 districts into the15,000 or so we have today). These vast empires, with the cookie-cutter formulas for schooling, preclude effective, empowered citizen involvement.
Welcome to the age of the bureaucrat, the functionary, the "professional" --- the pharmacist (proliferation of medicated children) and the social worker.
Neighborhoods and communities are managed by outsiders belonging to this new class of government employees.
"Involvement of the citizenry"? That's a quaint idea from the distant past.
Posted on November 30, 2007 11:45 AM