4 ms·

My dad always told me that during the 40s and 50s children would be paddled for being disrespectful. Students wore uniforms. Parents would be angry at their chi

by 0F 5y ago

My dad always told me that during the 40s and 50s children would be paddled for being disrespectful. Students wore uniforms. Parents would be angry at their children if a teacher or administrator scheduled a meeting. The parents would be mad at the kids. it is clear that times have changed dramatically so I think it’s insane to expect the model of the old times to work. If you want a good result for your child then enroll them in a program that is suited for these times. I suspect private school is the only good option.

ravenstine 5y ago
There's middle ground, I think, but we don't live in a time of balance, and we have completely swung the other way in terms of raising children. Ironically, we may be doing more psychological damage to them in the long run than we did when we paddled them or put soap in their mouths or make them chew spruce gum (not that I condone any of that).
Overtonwindow 5y ago
But WHY is private education better?
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Selection and Ejection. If you can say that a child is a bad fit for your school because they’re not academically gifted so you won’t accept them you’re ahead of the game. Even more true if you can kick out violent or disruptive students, which public schools can’t for much short of assault resulting in prison time.
- icecap12 5y ago
  The key difference is that it's a conscious choice on the part of the parents to invest in the child's education. But there are other factors. For example, most private education at the gradeschool level requires heavy parent involvement and even volunteerism. Private schools are generally much smaller. The school also has the ability to kick out troublemakers or those who obviously don't want to be there. Not to say there aren't problems in the private schools - there are. But you don't have to deal with people who are just there because the state law says they must attend school.
- giaour 5y ago
  The whole curriculum isn't beholden to No Child Left Behind.

by 0F 5y ago

ravenstine 5y ago

There's middle ground, I think, but we don't live in a time of balance, and we have completely swung the other way in terms of raising children. Ironically, we may be doing more psychological damage to them in the long run than we did when we paddled them or put soap in their mouths or make them chew spruce gum (not that I condone any of that).

Overtonwindow 5y ago

But WHY is private education better?

barry-cotter 5y ago
Selection and Ejection. If you can say that a child is a bad fit for your school because they’re not academically gifted so you won’t accept them you’re ahead of the game. Even more true if you can kick out violent or disruptive students, which public schools can’t for much short of assault resulting in prison time.
icecap12 5y ago
The key difference is that it's a conscious choice on the part of the parents to invest in the child's education. But there are other factors. For example, most private education at the gradeschool level requires heavy parent involvement and even volunteerism. Private schools are generally much smaller. The school also has the ability to kick out troublemakers or those who obviously don't want to be there. Not to say there aren't problems in the private schools - there are. But you don't have to deal with people who are just there because the state law says they must attend school.
giaour 5y ago
The whole curriculum isn't beholden to No Child Left Behind.