Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Where do you feel the elementary school "education quality" is better, in private schools or in public schools, and why??
Cars 
-
robinseggs
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:01 am
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
As a former elementary edu. teacher that has taught in both..........you are opening a huge can of worms!!! However, I believe there are pro's and con's to BOTH systems. I have seen good and bad come out of both. I believe true educational quality is directly linked to what is going on in the child's home. That's what matters most.
Nature laughs Last
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
I believe public schooling is the best for children, to allow them to develop sufficient social skills and to understand the importance of interaction with other human beings in an attempt to resolve situations given to them that is helpful in most invironments adults encounter on a daily bases. I believe it is up to the parents to monitor their childs success in the work itself, so that they can decide wether or not their child needs exstensive tutoring, or if their child is simply unchallenged.
Also sports is one of the best things a child could ever do and home schooled children do not have that luxury(I dont believe).
Also sports is one of the best things a child could ever do and home schooled children do not have that luxury(I dont believe).
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Public Schools - A greater diversity of people, problems and teachers. You want your children to get exposure to real life? Here it is...along with cigarettes, drugs, bullies, and profanity. Your kids certainly will develop interpersonal skills, just to survive! One thing's for sure, though, with the new accountibility systems in place, the teachers are all highly qualified. (or you're fired!)
Private Schools - Want to shelter your young one from the evil world? This is the place for you. Less negative influences, less behavior, less social interaction, less of everything except studies. Private schools get to pick and choose who they let in. You think they let in any special education kids or behavior disordered kids? Not bloody likely. They also have the ability to instantly expell any trouble maker.
Take your pick. A good education without any social skills. Or a mediocre education with the social skills of the real world.
Private Schools - Want to shelter your young one from the evil world? This is the place for you. Less negative influences, less behavior, less social interaction, less of everything except studies. Private schools get to pick and choose who they let in. You think they let in any special education kids or behavior disordered kids? Not bloody likely. They also have the ability to instantly expell any trouble maker.
Take your pick. A good education without any social skills. Or a mediocre education with the social skills of the real world.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Thankyou for your candid replies. Why I asked that question is that our Daughter is contemplateting on sending our Granddaughter to a "private" school for grades 6,7,8. I will offer our Daughter your opinions for her consideration. I myself only went to "public" schools, so. . . . . . ?
Cars
-
robinseggs
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:01 am
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Jives wrote: Public Schools - A greater diversity of people, problems and teachers. You want your children to get exposure to real life. Here it is...along with cigarettes, drugs, bullies, and profanity. Your kids certainly will develope interpersonal skills, just to survive! One thing's for sure, though, with the new accountibility systems in place, the teachers are all highly qualified. (or you're fired!)
Private Schools - Want to shelter your young one from the evil world? This is the place for you. Less negative influences, less behavior, less social interaction, less of everything except studies. Private schools get to pick and choose who they let in. You think they let in any special education kids or behavior disordered kids? Not bloody likely. They also have the ability to instantly expell any trouble maker.
Take your pick. A good education without any social skills. Or a mediaocre education with the social skills of the real world.
Jives, what you say seems plausible, and what so many may think to be true. In reality, there are some things that need to be considered. Having attended BOTH public AND private schools growing up and having taught (I am certified in MO) in BOTH also, I felt I must speak up.
You are right, public offers a greater diversity of people. Cigarettes, drugs??? They certainly don't allow it in the school building. And neither does the private school. But both sets of students will go home, to mall, out cruising... and do as they please or whatever it is they can get away with. The kids are all same generation with same interests, pretty much doing same things. Yes in the public school the teachers are highly qualified...must be degreed/cerfified. One must be careful with the private system as too often the teachers have no teaching qualifications or may be teaching math because they "were a math major". This does not qualify a person to TEACH math.
As for my experience with the private school kicking bad kids out, it usually never happened. Usually the offender was a very spoiled rich kid and the school would rather have kept them around for their tuition and donations/grants. This is reality. Yes the environment definately felt warm/safer. Classes were always smaller which meant more attention to each student. Lunch was better too!! LOL Overall, there are pros and cons to both, but I felt like some of the things you pointed out were just what typical society thinks. Those who have not really experienced both systems for real. I like you Jives, I hope I didn't offend you!!
Private Schools - Want to shelter your young one from the evil world? This is the place for you. Less negative influences, less behavior, less social interaction, less of everything except studies. Private schools get to pick and choose who they let in. You think they let in any special education kids or behavior disordered kids? Not bloody likely. They also have the ability to instantly expell any trouble maker.
Take your pick. A good education without any social skills. Or a mediaocre education with the social skills of the real world.
Jives, what you say seems plausible, and what so many may think to be true. In reality, there are some things that need to be considered. Having attended BOTH public AND private schools growing up and having taught (I am certified in MO) in BOTH also, I felt I must speak up.
You are right, public offers a greater diversity of people. Cigarettes, drugs??? They certainly don't allow it in the school building. And neither does the private school. But both sets of students will go home, to mall, out cruising... and do as they please or whatever it is they can get away with. The kids are all same generation with same interests, pretty much doing same things. Yes in the public school the teachers are highly qualified...must be degreed/cerfified. One must be careful with the private system as too often the teachers have no teaching qualifications or may be teaching math because they "were a math major". This does not qualify a person to TEACH math.
As for my experience with the private school kicking bad kids out, it usually never happened. Usually the offender was a very spoiled rich kid and the school would rather have kept them around for their tuition and donations/grants. This is reality. Yes the environment definately felt warm/safer. Classes were always smaller which meant more attention to each student. Lunch was better too!! LOL Overall, there are pros and cons to both, but I felt like some of the things you pointed out were just what typical society thinks. Those who have not really experienced both systems for real. I like you Jives, I hope I didn't offend you!!
Nature laughs Last
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
robinseggs wrote: Jives, what you say seems plausible, and what so many may think to be true. In reality, there are some things that need to be considered. Having attended BOTH public AND private schools growing up and having taught (I am certified in MO) in BOTH also, I felt I must speak up.
That makes you more qualified than I! I've never attended or taught at a private school!
Cigarettes, drugs??? They certainly don't allow it in the school building. And neither does the private school.
The parking lot, however, is an entirely different matter.
As for my experience with the private school kicking bad kids out, it usually never happened. Usually the offender was a very spoiled rich kid and the school would rather have kept them around for their tuition and donations/grants. This is reality.
Fascinating! I never thought of that! Very enlightening!
I like you Jives, I hope I didn't offend you!!
With an excellent, thoughtful, information-filled post?! Not hardly!
That makes you more qualified than I! I've never attended or taught at a private school!
Cigarettes, drugs??? They certainly don't allow it in the school building. And neither does the private school.
The parking lot, however, is an entirely different matter.
As for my experience with the private school kicking bad kids out, it usually never happened. Usually the offender was a very spoiled rich kid and the school would rather have kept them around for their tuition and donations/grants. This is reality.
Fascinating! I never thought of that! Very enlightening!
I like you Jives, I hope I didn't offend you!!
With an excellent, thoughtful, information-filled post?! Not hardly!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
If I could afford to send my kids to Private School that is what I would do. I know kids on both sides of this issue. My opinion private education is a plus if you can afford it. Private schools today are excellent and from the kids I see that come out of them, they are just as skilled socially as public school kids if not more so.
It is then up to the parent to see that their children are will rounded with social skills. Who wouldn't want to protect their children if at all possible from drugs, gangs, behavior issues and just a average education.
Having said that there are many public school here in California that children can receive a fine education as well. It comes down to what the parents want to do and can afford to do.
As always this is my opinion...!
It is then up to the parent to see that their children are will rounded with social skills. Who wouldn't want to protect their children if at all possible from drugs, gangs, behavior issues and just a average education.
Having said that there are many public school here in California that children can receive a fine education as well. It comes down to what the parents want to do and can afford to do.
As always this is my opinion...!
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
-
CrazyCruizChick
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:43 am
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
magenta flame;623159 wrote: that is a load of Bollocks!
I have been to both types off schools.
For myself I wish I could have finished my education in private but I didn't only because I didn't want to But if I didn't have a choice I probably wouldn't be where I am now? Maybe! Who knows...
But for now I have no choice but to send my kids to Public school and that is why I only had the choice to move out of grater London and have a more better chance for my kids to get a better education outer London. To much to go in to at the moment.
That's all I can offer on this subject.
I have been to both types off schools.
For myself I wish I could have finished my education in private but I didn't only because I didn't want to But if I didn't have a choice I probably wouldn't be where I am now? Maybe! Who knows...
But for now I have no choice but to send my kids to Public school and that is why I only had the choice to move out of grater London and have a more better chance for my kids to get a better education outer London. To much to go in to at the moment.
That's all I can offer on this subject.
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
cars;183323 wrote: Where do you feel the elementary school "education quality" is better, in private schools or in public schools, and why??
I prefer Private Schools as long as they do not have religious orientation. The classes are typically smaller than Public School and students tend to get more individualized attention. They will prepare most students for higher education more readily than most Public Schools. The only real drawback is the cost for some parents.
I prefer Private Schools as long as they do not have religious orientation. The classes are typically smaller than Public School and students tend to get more individualized attention. They will prepare most students for higher education more readily than most Public Schools. The only real drawback is the cost for some parents.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
robinseggs;183424 wrote: As a former elementary edu. teacher that has taught in both..........you are opening a huge can of worms!!! However, I believe there are pro's and con's to BOTH systems. I have seen good and bad come out of both. I believe true educational quality is directly linked to what is going on in the child's home. That's what matters most.
I went to public and private school in high school.
I fully supprt the smaller classes in private school as well as the money that supports the better drugs and be so smart as to fool your parents as to the Friday night activities.
I also support the public school in high school. The drugs aren't so good but they are plentiful and the kids are still smart enough to fool most of their parents.
You want to know about education??????
If a kid wants to learn - they will apply themselves.........public or private.!!!!
I went to public and private school in high school.
I fully supprt the smaller classes in private school as well as the money that supports the better drugs and be so smart as to fool your parents as to the Friday night activities.
I also support the public school in high school. The drugs aren't so good but they are plentiful and the kids are still smart enough to fool most of their parents.
You want to know about education??????
If a kid wants to learn - they will apply themselves.........public or private.!!!!
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
I asked once on ForumGarden why government funds education from the age of 5 to 18 at all. I didn't get a reasonable answer then and I'm still wondering.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
magenta flame;624806 wrote: Because you would have extremely underdeveloped schools in poorer areas. Education in western society is a right not a privilage.
In fact it's law to educate your offspring as to avoid an under class of illiterate ignorant people . Would you prefer to go back to the early 1800's?
I liked to know why you ask?
The law you're talking about dates back to 1880, in England and Wales anyway, not the early 1800s.
Education in western society is only "a right not a privilege" up to the age of 18. Why isn't it a right beyond that point? Why does the government not fund tertiary education in the same way that it funds education between 5 and 18?
If education in western society were merely a right not a privilege up to the age of 18 it would be means-tested. That's not what happens, though. It's provided free universally regardless of the income of the child's provider.
Western society obviously has an underclass of illiterate ignorant people even with the current educational regime. Why, if there is to be universal free education, is the upper age limit not 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, given that some children make no progress educationally beyond those ages? Why is performance not an issue in allowing a child free access beyond a given age? How does society benefit at all from allowing further participation beyond a lower cutoff age, for those who will remain the underclass of illiterate ignorant people when they finally leave school?
Providing free universal education seems to be the government's promise in exchange for demanding that all children attend school. If it weren't free, some people couldn't afford to send them. There are obvious alternative ways of achieving the same result, means-testing being involved in most of them. If society benefits from taking the educational level of a child to its highest potential, why on earth is government funding for education means-tested for those with the ability to benefit after the age of 18? Why not at 5? If there's a level playing field regardless of parental income, why pull the rug out at any given age?
In fact it's law to educate your offspring as to avoid an under class of illiterate ignorant people . Would you prefer to go back to the early 1800's?
I liked to know why you ask?
The law you're talking about dates back to 1880, in England and Wales anyway, not the early 1800s.
Education in western society is only "a right not a privilege" up to the age of 18. Why isn't it a right beyond that point? Why does the government not fund tertiary education in the same way that it funds education between 5 and 18?
If education in western society were merely a right not a privilege up to the age of 18 it would be means-tested. That's not what happens, though. It's provided free universally regardless of the income of the child's provider.
Western society obviously has an underclass of illiterate ignorant people even with the current educational regime. Why, if there is to be universal free education, is the upper age limit not 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, given that some children make no progress educationally beyond those ages? Why is performance not an issue in allowing a child free access beyond a given age? How does society benefit at all from allowing further participation beyond a lower cutoff age, for those who will remain the underclass of illiterate ignorant people when they finally leave school?
Providing free universal education seems to be the government's promise in exchange for demanding that all children attend school. If it weren't free, some people couldn't afford to send them. There are obvious alternative ways of achieving the same result, means-testing being involved in most of them. If society benefits from taking the educational level of a child to its highest potential, why on earth is government funding for education means-tested for those with the ability to benefit after the age of 18? Why not at 5? If there's a level playing field regardless of parental income, why pull the rug out at any given age?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
spot;624828 wrote: The law you're talking about dates back to 1880, in England and Wales anyway, not the early 1800s.
Education in western society is only "a right not a privilege" up to the age of 18. Why isn't it a right beyond that point? Why does the government not fund tertiary education in the same way that it funds education between 5 and 18?
If education in western society were merely a right not a privilege up to the age of 18 it would be means-tested. That's not what happens, though. It's provided free universally regardless of the income of the child's provider.
Western society obviously has an underclass of illiterate ignorant people even with the current educational regime. Why, if there is to be universal free education, is the upper age limit not 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, given that some children make no progress educationally beyond those ages? Why is performance not an issue in allowing a child free access beyond a given age? How does society benefit at all from allowing further participation beyond a lower cutoff age, for those who will remain the underclass of illiterate ignorant people when they finally leave school?
Providing free universal education seems to be the government's promise in exchange for demanding that all children attend school. If it weren't free, some people couldn't afford to send them. There are obvious alternative ways of achieving the same result, means-testing being involved in most of them. If society benefits from taking the educational level of a child to its highest potential, why on earth is government funding for education means-tested for those with the ability to benefit after the age of 18? Why not at 5? If there's a level playing field regardless of parental income, why pull the rug out at any given age?
Public schools are governmentally funded, but it's the peoples taxes in which the government uses(I believe)...
It's law for people to attend school from the age of 5-18 because governmental expenditures relies souly on the peoples taxes, in which are voted on and upon a vote not passing the school then doesn't see the right amount of money they need to keep the curriculum at the level it needs to be in order to see the kids benefit from it...To add to the fact that the profession of teaching isn't very highly sought after from what I can guess is the fact that people just quite simply find the work too draining in conjunction with the pay rate...
Education in western society is only "a right not a privilege" up to the age of 18. Why isn't it a right beyond that point? Why does the government not fund tertiary education in the same way that it funds education between 5 and 18?
If education in western society were merely a right not a privilege up to the age of 18 it would be means-tested. That's not what happens, though. It's provided free universally regardless of the income of the child's provider.
Western society obviously has an underclass of illiterate ignorant people even with the current educational regime. Why, if there is to be universal free education, is the upper age limit not 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, given that some children make no progress educationally beyond those ages? Why is performance not an issue in allowing a child free access beyond a given age? How does society benefit at all from allowing further participation beyond a lower cutoff age, for those who will remain the underclass of illiterate ignorant people when they finally leave school?
Providing free universal education seems to be the government's promise in exchange for demanding that all children attend school. If it weren't free, some people couldn't afford to send them. There are obvious alternative ways of achieving the same result, means-testing being involved in most of them. If society benefits from taking the educational level of a child to its highest potential, why on earth is government funding for education means-tested for those with the ability to benefit after the age of 18? Why not at 5? If there's a level playing field regardless of parental income, why pull the rug out at any given age?
Public schools are governmentally funded, but it's the peoples taxes in which the government uses(I believe)...
It's law for people to attend school from the age of 5-18 because governmental expenditures relies souly on the peoples taxes, in which are voted on and upon a vote not passing the school then doesn't see the right amount of money they need to keep the curriculum at the level it needs to be in order to see the kids benefit from it...To add to the fact that the profession of teaching isn't very highly sought after from what I can guess is the fact that people just quite simply find the work too draining in conjunction with the pay rate...
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
K.Snyder;625370 wrote: Public schools are governmentally funded, but it's the peoples taxes in which the government uses(I believe)...
It's law for people to attend school from the age of 5-18 because governmental expenditures relies souly on the peoples taxes, in which are voted on and upon a vote not passing the school then doesn't see the right amount of money they need to keep the curriculum at the level it needs to be in order to see the kids benefit from it...To add to the fact that the profession of teaching isn't very highly sought after from what I can guess is the fact that people just quite simply find the work too draining in conjunction with the pay rate...
So these taxes are local for your area, not federal? It would be interesting to see what happened if a local area cut off all funding for all local schools. Don't local areas occasionally become insolvent?
There's no benefit to society in educating every child. The benefit to society comes from educating those who go on to work in jobs which require that education in order to be performed. Pilots learn on the job, for example. They don't need to be able to read to get a plane off the ground safely or to land at the right airport. The same goes for truck drivers. Checkout operators, on the other hand, have to be both numerate and literate, schooling is essential for those who fill that role.
The benefit of a school education is in the improvement of the child's mental and social development, not in the improvement of society. It's altruistic. There are far cheaper ways of educating sufficient children to adequate levels for society to get the services from them which it currently achieves. Is that level of altruism a proper function of government, or should government funding of the education of all children between 5 and 18 be scrapped?
It's law for people to attend school from the age of 5-18 because governmental expenditures relies souly on the peoples taxes, in which are voted on and upon a vote not passing the school then doesn't see the right amount of money they need to keep the curriculum at the level it needs to be in order to see the kids benefit from it...To add to the fact that the profession of teaching isn't very highly sought after from what I can guess is the fact that people just quite simply find the work too draining in conjunction with the pay rate...
So these taxes are local for your area, not federal? It would be interesting to see what happened if a local area cut off all funding for all local schools. Don't local areas occasionally become insolvent?
There's no benefit to society in educating every child. The benefit to society comes from educating those who go on to work in jobs which require that education in order to be performed. Pilots learn on the job, for example. They don't need to be able to read to get a plane off the ground safely or to land at the right airport. The same goes for truck drivers. Checkout operators, on the other hand, have to be both numerate and literate, schooling is essential for those who fill that role.
The benefit of a school education is in the improvement of the child's mental and social development, not in the improvement of society. It's altruistic. There are far cheaper ways of educating sufficient children to adequate levels for society to get the services from them which it currently achieves. Is that level of altruism a proper function of government, or should government funding of the education of all children between 5 and 18 be scrapped?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
Funding is often an incoherant mishmash for public schools. There is a combination of local, state and federal funds (with many strings attached e.g. No Child Left Behind). Many states today use the excuse of school funding to get lottery's passed and then promptly divert the funds to other uses. Bonds are floated every few years for new construction and teachers..(followed by cyclical reductions in teachers aides and special programs in arts and sciences). Throw into the mess teachers unions who protect useless dead wood nad even child molestors and it can get really crazy. It's no wonder more parents are turning to home schooling and private schools.
Not sure what the answer is though. There is already a sort of means testing in place over here due to the tax structure. The wealthy and middle class tend to fund sending the children of the poor to school (who then complain because their kids go to schools that get less resources and poor teachers). The answer is to bus the kids all around the counties with the end result that all the schools begin to perform poorly. The problem with relying on apptitude to determine continuing education is that many kids from poor homes are born with two strikes against them and will never catch up unless they are helped.
Not sure what the answer is though. There is already a sort of means testing in place over here due to the tax structure. The wealthy and middle class tend to fund sending the children of the poor to school (who then complain because their kids go to schools that get less resources and poor teachers). The answer is to bus the kids all around the counties with the end result that all the schools begin to perform poorly. The problem with relying on apptitude to determine continuing education is that many kids from poor homes are born with two strikes against them and will never catch up unless they are helped.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
WonderWendy3
- Posts: 12412
- Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:44 am
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
I haven't commented, because I'm one of those people that would love to home-school all of my boys. My oldest son has schooled by all three...public, private and Home-schooled. He has done very well, I just think if he'd been home-schooled or private, the education is more focused --meaning one on one, which he needs due to ADHD....My youngest one has similiar problems.
Public schools are good, and I'm thankful for the good teachers that my boys have had through the years. But if I had my way they would be home schooled or Privately taught. I think one on one and hands on teaching are more effective. And when you have 20+ kids in a classroom, that's not possible.
Public schools are good, and I'm thankful for the good teachers that my boys have had through the years. But if I had my way they would be home schooled or Privately taught. I think one on one and hands on teaching are more effective. And when you have 20+ kids in a classroom, that's not possible.
Private Schools Vs Public Schools
WonderWendy3;625582 wrote: I haven't commented, because I'm one of those people that would love to home-school all of my boys. My oldest son has schooled by all three...public, private and Home-schooled. He has done very well, I just think if he'd been home-schooled or private, the education is more focused --meaning one on one, which he needs due to ADHD....My youngest one has similiar problems.
Public schools are good, and I'm thankful for the good teachers that my boys have had through the years. But if I had my way they would be home schooled or Privately taught. I think one on one and hands on teaching are more effective. And when you have 20+ kids in a classroom, that's not possible.
We sent Josh to private school when we first came to the States. Mainly because he knew no US history, and many other difference between UK and USA, things like temperature measurements etc. Things he had only just started to learn about in UK. Togther with his suspected dyslexia, we figured that he would benefit from the smaller classrooms (8 pupils in class). We since found out he was ADHD. He is now in public school, I am glad we sent him to private when we first got here as I think it helped him alot.
I prefer the private school, only trouble is we had to travel a long way to get him to school, and he was not getting to know the kids that lived in our area.
I have heard so many great things about homeschooling too.
Public schools are good, and I'm thankful for the good teachers that my boys have had through the years. But if I had my way they would be home schooled or Privately taught. I think one on one and hands on teaching are more effective. And when you have 20+ kids in a classroom, that's not possible.
We sent Josh to private school when we first came to the States. Mainly because he knew no US history, and many other difference between UK and USA, things like temperature measurements etc. Things he had only just started to learn about in UK. Togther with his suspected dyslexia, we figured that he would benefit from the smaller classrooms (8 pupils in class). We since found out he was ADHD. He is now in public school, I am glad we sent him to private when we first got here as I think it helped him alot.
I prefer the private school, only trouble is we had to travel a long way to get him to school, and he was not getting to know the kids that lived in our area.
I have heard so many great things about homeschooling too.