5 ms·

This is very cool, but I can't help remembering that the Wahhabi schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan (incorrectly called "madrassas", which is just a generic Ar

by shaddi 16y ago

This is very cool, but I can't help remembering that the Wahhabi schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan (incorrectly called "madrassas", which is just a generic Arabic word for "school") would also fall into this category of small, private, low-cost schools. I wonder what can be done to ensure that schools like this that are run by potentially less scrupulous proprietors provide a quality education. I know that's not well defined, but I do not think we don't want to go down the Wahhabi road of teaching only a corrupted religious/political doctrine to advance political ends at the expense of promoting reading, math, and science -- or any number of other educational scams that one could devise. It seems that one of the advantages that a public program could have in volatile areas is some manner of centralized curriculum oversight. How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)?

_delirium 16y ago
> How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)? In practice, market forces do a decent (though not perfect) job: most private schools want to produce students who have a chance of getting into a good college, and one of the more effective ways to convince colleges you aren't insane is to: 1) have your students do well on standardized tests like the SAT; and/or 2) be accredited by an organization like the National Association of Independent Schools.
- amalcon 16y ago
  The caveat is that this works now because most parents who pay to send their children to a private school do so to improve academic outcomes, and because getting into a good college is considered a very positive academic outcome.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Yeah, that's true, and there's also a possible negative feedback loop if strongly religious colleges that weren't as interested in secular education made a revival. Super-Christian private high schools feeding into super-Christian colleges won't have the same sort of check on whether the student got any sort of decent secular education, because right now, the need to look good to a college with a mostly secular admissions process (even schools like BYU look at secular academics in the admissions) is one of the main motivators for religious high schools to do a decent job on their secular education.
- shaddi 16y ago
  Thanks, I wasn't aware of the NAIS.
barry-cotter 16y ago
1. You're assuming your conclusion. 2. Curriculum oversight is just another way of saying state sponsored indoctrination. 3. If parents believe that the schools are better than the alternatives, what right does anybody else have to butt in? In the American case they already pay for them through (local property) taxes anyway so they probably have good reason to pay a second time for the private version. 4. Would you support the abolition of the Amish's special privileges under which children are withdrawn from formal education at ~14, in contrast to the normal school leaving age? Why are they even allowed to have their own schools? After all they're weird religious fanatics with a self-perpetuating sub-culture, shouldn't we break that up and force them to assimilate by making their children go to schools with normal children? [Not actually a USAn] As to private school oversight, I imagine it varies by state like the position on homeschooling. But the big discipliner is that parents can take their children out. they have real right of exit, to a far greater extent than with public schools
- shaddi 16y ago
  I don't think I'm making any assumptions -- these outcomes have been seen, as I've said, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am not going to respond to your second point... I think that is a point of debate that you're making out to be far more black-and-white than it really is. There is further complexity than you are admitting in your last two examples. There is a broad-reaching social impact that schooling, or lack thereof, has. This is true locally as well as globally, as seen by what the Wahhabi schools produce. Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. Would I oppose a private school system that was teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education, if that system was the only option serving a large area of my country? You bet I would, and that goes for government or private systems. Again: this is a complicated issue -- and no one should pretend otherwise. It is a false dichotomy to declare that our options are "state sponsored indoctrination" and forcible assimilation, or a free-market utopia where parents pick what school works best for them. A non-trivial number of people would pick the degree mill school given the choice: I am trying to figure out how we disincentive that option in an areas that don't have the social infrastructure to stigmatize that decision.
patio11 16y ago
This is exactly what teachers unions have said in court briefs opposing schools opened by noted extremist religious groups like Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reform Jews, etc. (There are constitutional amendments in some states which were written for the express purpose of making it harder for Catholics to open schools. Guess why they'll never get repealed?)
ajju 16y ago
It is somewhat sad how transparent your bias is. You seem to be painting all low cost private schools with the same brush as institutions where the rote learning of religious texts is the main goal by calling it "the Wahhabi road of teaching".

by shaddi 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago

> How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)? In practice, market forces do a decent (though not perfect) job: most private schools want to produce students who have a chance of getting into a good college, and one of the more effective ways to convince colleges you aren't insane is to: 1) have your students do well on standardized tests like the SAT; and/or 2) be accredited by an organization like the National Association of Independent Schools.

amalcon 16y ago
The caveat is that this works now because most parents who pay to send their children to a private school do so to improve academic outcomes, and because getting into a good college is considered a very positive academic outcome.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Yeah, that's true, and there's also a possible negative feedback loop if strongly religious colleges that weren't as interested in secular education made a revival. Super-Christian private high schools feeding into super-Christian colleges won't have the same sort of check on whether the student got any sort of decent secular education, because right now, the need to look good to a college with a mostly secular admissions process (even schools like BYU look at secular academics in the admissions) is one of the main motivators for religious high schools to do a decent job on their secular education.
shaddi 16y ago
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the NAIS.

barry-cotter 16y ago

1. You're assuming your conclusion. 2. Curriculum oversight is just another way of saying state sponsored indoctrination. 3. If parents believe that the schools are better than the alternatives, what right does anybody else have to butt in? In the American case they already pay for them through (local property) taxes anyway so they probably have good reason to pay a second time for the private version. 4. Would you support the abolition of the Amish's special privileges under which children are withdrawn from formal education at ~14, in contrast to the normal school leaving age? Why are they even allowed to have their own schools? After all they're weird religious fanatics with a self-perpetuating sub-culture, shouldn't we break that up and force them to assimilate by making their children go to schools with normal children? [Not actually a USAn] As to private school oversight, I imagine it varies by state like the position on homeschooling. But the big discipliner is that parents can take their children out. they have real right of exit, to a far greater extent than with public schools

shaddi 16y ago
I don't think I'm making any assumptions -- these outcomes have been seen, as I've said, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am not going to respond to your second point... I think that is a point of debate that you're making out to be far more black-and-white than it really is. There is further complexity than you are admitting in your last two examples. There is a broad-reaching social impact that schooling, or lack thereof, has. This is true locally as well as globally, as seen by what the Wahhabi schools produce. Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. Would I oppose a private school system that was teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education, if that system was the only option serving a large area of my country? You bet I would, and that goes for government or private systems. Again: this is a complicated issue -- and no one should pretend otherwise. It is a false dichotomy to declare that our options are "state sponsored indoctrination" and forcible assimilation, or a free-market utopia where parents pick what school works best for them. A non-trivial number of people would pick the degree mill school given the choice: I am trying to figure out how we disincentive that option in an areas that don't have the social infrastructure to stigmatize that decision.

patio11 16y ago

This is exactly what teachers unions have said in court briefs opposing schools opened by noted extremist religious groups like Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reform Jews, etc. (There are constitutional amendments in some states which were written for the express purpose of making it harder for Catholics to open schools. Guess why they'll never get repealed?)

ajju 16y ago

It is somewhat sad how transparent your bias is. You seem to be painting all low cost private schools with the same brush as institutions where the rote learning of religious texts is the main goal by calling it "the Wahhabi road of teaching".