  Inquisitor Member Username: Inquisitor Post Number: 19 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 205.56.129.194 |
Don't want this post to sound bad. When I was in high school (in the burbs), there was an old annex part of the school that was closed off and not used anymore. Being mischevious a couple of friends and myself slipped in through a crawlspace. When we got inside it was eerie as hell. Writing still on the chalkboards from god knows when. Anyhow, we ran into signs at a drinking fountain saying "colored only" or "whites only". This shocked the hell out of us. Eventhough you grow up learning about those times it is still hard to grasp, to actually see it. I was wondering if anybody knows of any past history like that. I mean "untouched", like there one minute and gone the next. I don't know why those signs would've still been up, but I am glad I had the experience. It opened my eyes. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8710 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.54.69.58 |
It is still happening today. Check out the book by Jonathan Kozol called "Savage Inequalities - Children in American Schools." A profound but terrifying look at the segragation of schools that still exist today. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 48 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
Read Juan Williams book "Enough" which talks about how urban schools receive more money per capita to educate its students. Yet, a large portion of that money is spent on ensuring the availability of jobs rather than educating the children (I'm paraphrasing).Its almost as though the school system is there to ensure the availability of jobs for Black professionals rather than to ensure a proper education for Black children. The resources are there...the wherewithal is sadly missing. The past is the past. We must never forget. We do need to acknowledge and come to terms with the degree that Blacks have screwed themselves post-Civil Rights era. | ||
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289 Post Number: 1209 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.183.223 |
what school ? | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.153.35.244 |
Separate and Unequal was the name of a commentary that Tom Brokaw had on recently. It showed black American children and teen agers who are not adjusting to society. It showed about 10 or so high school students that had dropped high school or were going to because they all had babies at the age of 14, 15 and 16. Separate and Unequal also showed another group of black students that stated they were 'ridiculed" by other black students in their school for studying, working hard to acheive good grades and ultimately becoming honor students. Separate and Unequal was a great piece, it showed how hard it was for kids, latch key kids, who were raising themselves because there was no father figure in their lives, as well as having their mother in the work force . It really opened my eyes to the problems plaguing inner city black kids. ... | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 386 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Unfortunately, I see situations such as these each day. Detroit does have Ferguson school, for teen mothers. It allows the girls to stay in school and take their babies (while receiving parenting classes). I see honors kids ridiculed (but, they are quick witted and always come back with something snappy). Wish it were different. Anyone is welcome to sit in on my classes and see what goes on among kids. They are also riduculed if their complexion isn't dark/light enough. That is the sad truth... | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 49 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
"Separate and Unequal also showed another group of black students that stated they were 'ridiculed" by other black students in their school for studying, working hard to acheive good grades and ultimately becoming honor students." White students have always done this. The term "nerd" is not a Black inner-city phenom? In the White community, doesn't the "nerd" get bullied? The White culture even embraced this phenom in Hollywood. "Revenge of the Nerds" anyone? What about the jocks, freaks, preps, "poor White trash," or Fat Suzy? White children bully based on intellect, physical appeal, and socio-economic status. That's why predominantly White schools are always under the threat of another Columbine. Serves you right! | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 917 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Come on get off your white, liberal, christian guilt trip of always blaming whites for black problems. Blacks aren't the only one's with problems. Eveyone has problems in this life! No one is blamed for having problems but they are accountable for dealing with their problems. There are plenty of Blacks and non-Blacks that overcome their difficulties to go on and have a productive life. Livedog2 | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4131 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Should this be in the "Detroit Discussion" board, just wondering? | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 807 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
LMich, I agree with you, but I will continue the discussion as well. Firefly, I don't think anyone questioned "nerds" being ridiculed. They questioned Honor students being ridiculed. In my experience, a big difference between a nerd and someone who excels in school. I was president of my business honor society in college, and while they were not exactly the kids out there partying like crazy, they were overwhelmingly socially well-adjusted, normal, well-bred individuals..... not at all nerds. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 251 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.65.11.152 |
That's what all the nerds say  | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 309 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 12.75.43.161 |
When I was in high school, there were various cliques of smart kids, some of which were more accepted than others. The burnouts picked on pretty much everybody who was smart or got good grades, but by 11th grade they had all dropped out of school or else they were bussed off to a vocational school called SEOVEC. I knew quite a few extremely intelligent burnouts who remained in school and took academic courses, but they goofed around, slacked off, copped an attitude, or simply didn't show up for class very often. The jocks and cheerleaders were a mixed group in terms of their academic abilities. Some were honors students, while others could barely read. I didn't know any of these kids too well, so I have no idea if there was any in-fighting among these kids over grades, intelligence, which courses they took, or anything like that. But for the most part, these kids stayed in school and even the slowest ones didn't go into the vocational programs. This was mainly a social class thing, as the jocks/cheerleaders all came from middle-class families while the burnouts were mostly working-class or welfare kids. The honors students, too, were middle-class kids. Some had parents who were teachers. In terms of popularity, there were honors students who were also class officers and members of the homecoming court. Others weren't "popular" in the traditional sense of the word, but they had plenty of friends and were involved in various school activities. Most of the ones I knew were involved in band, choir, theatre guild, the school newspaper, and stuff like that. Some of these kids got picked on from time to time, but for the most part it wasn't serious. The kids who got picked on the most at my high school were the special ed kids. The jocks would throw food at them in the cafeteria. Then the cheerleaders would act all sweety-nice to them and make them believe that some popular boy wanted to go out with them. It was like a scene out of the movie "Heathers." Some stereotypical nerds were treated the same way, but it wasn't because they were smart. They got picked on because their clothes and mannerisms were like the special ed kids'. Then there were the few minority students in my otherwise all-white high school. They got treated like absolute crap. It was worse in junior high and in the early years of high school, because the burnouts were the worst offenders here. Anyhow, I do think what happens in black, inner-city schools is different than the way white suburban kids tease white "nerds." When black kids pick on other black kids for being smart, they almost always accuse the smart kid of betraying his race. He's an "Uncle Tom" or she's an "Aunt Jemima", trying to "act white". Smart white kids never have to deal with these kinds of issues. Some smart poor whites are resented by other poor whites (the whole "you think you're better than me" crap), but it's not racial. | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1123 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
That is truly sad and disgusting. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 50 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Obviously, you all don't quite understand the Black culture as a whole and how this translates over into the school environment. From what I observed, it was more or less about a fashion show, which girl was considered "fast" (sexually active), whose parent(s) worked, etc. The children that had college-educated parents were highly regarded and automatically popular (even the fat ones). The children that had parents that worked in the factories were popular to a degree (if they wore the right clothes and kept up their appearance--most did). If a girl was pretty and from the "hood," then she could get by on her looks. Of course, the "bad boy" or the athlete was going to automatically be popular as long as he wore the right clothes, shoes, etc. All of this talk about Blacks students bullying other Black students because of grades is nothing more than hogwash. Black people are very external beings. For as long as I can remember, "clothes make the man." The "smart kids" were never picked on. No one picked on me and I did very well in school. In fact, most people respected me because I was considered "smart." What Jenniferl explained regarding the special ed. students is what I remember. Except for the "really uppitty" Blacks (ones with educated parents), most Blacks did not form socio-economic clicks. It was all about style. As long as you wore the latest fashion, no one really cared what grades you made. That is the true problem in Black America: style over substance. There's a saying in the Black community that goes something like this: if a White person is poor, they can be easily spotted. If a Black person is poor, you can't tell. How do you think the myth of the "Welfare Queen" came about? It came about simply because White people did not understand how poor Blacks lived. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2845 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.78.208 |
Firefly, your analysis is pretty dated. These days, there is absolutely a great deal of negative pressure in many "Black schools" in regards to students with good grades. Also there is a good deal of teasing in regards to two-parent families, let alone two college-educated parents. Your factory observation is completely dated, likewise your observation about "fast girls" (again, that crosses racial lines these days). If anything, the opposite is now true in regard to the latter. The clothing observation is accurate, however, that phenonmenon pretty much crosses all racial lines these days. Likewise when it comes to the popularity of student-athletes. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4135 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Metrodetguy, which high school did you attend, just wondering? | ||
Jltyler Member Username: Jltyler Post Number: 281 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.220.63.156 |
Its utterly amazing how everyone other than Blacks seems fit to speak for Black people and what goes on in Black communities. I should've never lived it I could just asked any one of you. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2852 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.78.208 |
Jltyler, I'm Black, so I'm speaking from experience and from the experiences of other Black people that have shared their insights with me. LMich, I would rather not say, nor would I ask you. I will say that it was not DPS. | ||
Superduperman Member Username: Superduperman Post Number: 131 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.242.221.36 |
It actually sounds pretty accurate,I attended several schools,Cass,RenCen,Inkster,Li ncoln,Ypsi,Ann Arbor Huron and I graduated from Pioneer(dont ask why so many) and there were these same groups,whats weird is that alot of these kids(who weren' popular because of their fashion) got out of high school,went to college and tried to reinvent themselves by dressing and acting cool,I observed this quite frequently at WSU. | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.152.233.178 |
Firefly, sorry , didnt mean to get you fired up. The black students that were speaking to Tom were stating that they were called "toms" and "uppidity" N's for thinking they were white. Again, this had to do with punks that were dropping out, or had already dropped out of school and were attempting to intimidate the black honor role students that were in the process of applying for college admission. The documentary also had one girl who was 15, lived at home with her grandmother, had a baby at the age of 14, and stated " I had no idea that I would be spending prom night at home washing diapers and cleaning up after my baby." The father had no relationship with the baby, as the 15 y.o had to raise the baby alone with the grandmother. Sorry if you took this wrong firefly | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 51 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
Janesback, just taking a passionate standpoint, that's all. Metrodetguy, the discussion was focusing in on Black students, hence the emphasis on making a point from this perspective. Even though, as you stated, these same arguments cross racial lines, there is undue emphasis on the Black culture. The arguments that are currently available paint Black students as not at all concerned about academic achievement. At the same time, White students are seen as overachievers, etc. I made my points to illustrate that both Black students and White students are equally guilty of bullying and academic slothfulness. Blacks downfall has always been the "good for the goose, good for the gander" syndrome. A lot of Blacks think that it is ok to do such-and-such because "White people do it, too." When White students bully the smart, uncool kid, it's considered normal human growth and development. When Black students bully the smart, uncool kid, it's considered a crisis in urban education. When White kids drink alcohol, engage in drug use, and is sexually promiscuous, they are merely having teenage fun. Likewise, when Black kids engage in the same pattern of behavior, there is a crisis in the Black community. When White kids talk back to their parents, they are learning to assert themselves. When Black kids talk back to their parents, there is a breakdown in the Black family structure. Basically, when you are White it is raining; when you are Black it is storming. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 1751 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 69.209.179.156 |
Good point, Firefly. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2857 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.78.208 |
Firely, I see the concern of some of your points, however, I disagree with many of your assertions and to their scope and overall meaning. Yes bad behavior crosses all racial lines, however, certain behaviors affect the Black community more acutely. I think you also overstatated the examples of "crisis in the Black community". High dropout rates, high imprisonment rates, single parent families, low income, etc. are generally what is being refered to...not talking back to parents and other less serious teenage behavior. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 54 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
"Yes bad behavior crosses all racial lines, however, certain behaviors affect the Black community more acutely." My point exactly. Acuteness in the Black community is looked upon as a normality in the White community. A minute percentage of Black America wholly embraces the drug culture. The rest of us are merely casualties of this personal and social slothfulness. There are few things that the Black community is doing very, very badly. There are many more things that the Black community is doing absolutely correct. The emphasis is on the former. The latter is simply ignored | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2859 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.78.208 |
Firely, acuteness in the Black community is also looked upon as normal by a sizable portion of the Black community. It is not necessarily the majority in a given case, however, it is a sizable minority (not merely a minute percentage). Example: 70% of children are now born into single families in Detroit. For the majority of this generation, that is the norm, and two-parent families are actually the exception. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 57 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
Everyone lauds two-parent households without recognizing the reality: Two-Parent Families Rise After Change In Welfare Laws By Elaine Harden, New York Times Sunday, August 12, 2001 MILWAUKEE - Five years after Congress overhauled welfare laws, with the intention of creating more two-parent families, the proportion of poor American children living in households with two adults is on the rise, two studies say. Nagging questions remain, however, about the stability of these new households and the well-being of the children growing up in them. The most significant change in family structure, the studies suggest, has occurred among low-income blacks. After a decade-long slide, the proportion of black children living with two married parents increased significantly from 1995 to 2000. An analysis of census figures shows a 4.1 percentage point jump, to 38.9 percent from 34.8 percent. A separate survey by the Urban Institute found that single mothers are increasingly likely to live with unmarried partners. The increase in cohab- itation has been sharpest among those who have felt the prod of welfare change, the institute, a research organization based in Washington, said. Here in central Milwaukee, in a rented house with a sign saying "No Loitering or Prowling," Ophelia and Lament Burks are on the front lines of the changes that Congress wanted to engineer. After eight years on welfare and seven out-of-wedlock births, Mrs. Burks found a nursing aide job in 1997 and, in 1998, married Mr. Burks, then the father of five of her children. Wisconsin's welfare-to-work law, she said, nudged along her decisions to get a job and a husband. "I knew if I got married, my husband would be reliable for the kids while I was at work," she said. "And I would be reliable for them, while he was at work." The Burks's marriage, however, has had more than its share of trouble." The low point came in 1999, when Mr. Burks, 35, became addicted to crack cocaine and quit his job as a house painter. To get clean, he left Milwaukee for five months of drug-abuse treatment. Without his paycheck, his wife could not pay rent and was evicted from their apartment. Children in tow, she moved in with a cousin who had a live-in boyfriend. He put a pistol to the temple of Mrs. Burks's oldest son, 11-year-old Kwame, she said. She moved out in a panic and placed her children in a homeless shelter. A number of social workers and ministers in Milwaukee, along with several national experts in child welfare, say the Burks's problems are an all-too-typical reality check for those inclined to get carried away, after just five years, with the family- engineering success of the welfare overhaul. "These marriages and cohabiting households are all about survival," said Helen Gee, a supervisor at Community Advocates, the largest advocacy agency in Wisconsin for low-income families. "They are crisis-driven. Women need help with high rent, utilities, child care and transport. Their struggle is so great they think that two heads are better than one. Many women are leaving their kids at home all day with these guys they hardly know. We are seeing a lot of stressed-out clients." In the partisan minefield of American welfare policy, a powerful consensus has emerged in recent years among social scientists, as well as state and federal policy makers. It sees single-parent families as the dismal foundries that produced decades of child poverty, delinquency and crime. And it views the rise of such families, which began in the early 1960's and continued until about five years ago, as a singularly important indicator of social pathology. From a child's point of view, according to a growing body of social research, the most supportive household is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Yet, in many of the two-adult households that have been cobbled together by necessity in Milwaukee and across the country in the wake of the welfare overhaul, a primary ingre- dient for child development - stability - often goes missing. "You just can't say that these are low-conflict families and they are not likely to be any time soon," said Ramona Bell, who counsels families for Community Advocates. For poor children, growing up in a household with cohabiting - but unmarried - adults is probably not an improvement over growing up in a single-parent family, said Kristin Moore, a social psychologist and president of Child Trends, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington. "Mostly they don't seem to be better off," said Dr. Moore, adding that more research needs to be done on the subject. "There is a lot of turbulence in those families and turbulence is really hard for kids." Despite concern about the stability of two-parent households formed in the aftermath of welfare change, there is widespread agreement among welfare experts that something remarkable has been going on in poor urban communities, particularly in the last five years. The confluence of positive trends includes falling rates of crime and drug abuse, the greatest decline child poverty, particularly black child poverty, since the 1960's, and sharp increases in employment among mothers who head families, especially those who have never been married. In the last decade there has also been a steady decline in the teenage birth rate, with the steepest decline among black teenagers. In 1996, there were dire predictions by advocates for children that welfare change, by ratcheting up stress in families where mothers were required to find work, would lead to an increase in child abuse and neglect. Yet, so far, several national studies show no increase. Here in Milwaukee, as across Wisconsin, reported cases of domestic violence have declined since 1995. A Michigan study has shown that former welfare mothers with jobs are significantly less likely than mothers still on welfare to report domestic violence or homelessness. There are exceptions to the pattern. Early studies of families in three welfare-to-work programs, all of them precursors to the federal welfare overhaul, have found unexpected evidence that adolescents have more behavior problems and lower performance in school than children in other welfare households. On balance, however, the dovetailing of positive trends has surprised and intrigued many social scientists. "There seems to be something going on - people are talking about a tipping point," Dr. Moore said. "It is hard to achieve social change, but once the norms have changed, it can pick up speed." While the sustained economic boom of the 1990's probably supported all of these trends, including the increase in two-parent families, there is considerable agreement, even among skeptical policy analysts, that welfare change deserves considerable credit. "In many ways welfare reform is working better than I thought it would," said Wendell Primus, who in 1996 resigned as deputy assistant secretary of health and human senices to protest what he feared would be the severe impact of the welfare overhaul on children. "The sky isn't falling anymore. Whatever we have been doing over the last five years, we ought to keep going." Working with census surveys, it was Mr. Primus and his colleague Allen Dupree from a Washington-based research group called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who uncovered the decline in single-parent families and the increase in marriage and cohabitation, particularly among lower-income blacks. The Urban Institute study, which found that single mothers, especially poor single mothers, are increasingly likely to live with unmarried partners, was based on different data - a survey of 100,000 people in 13 states in 1997 and 1999. Echoing many welfare experts, Mr. Primus speculates that there is a complex cluster of possible reasons, including welfare change, behind the decline in single-parent families. They include a community-based fatherhood movement that insists that young men take responsibility for their children, as well as an aggressive effort to establish paternity and enforce child support. "Last year was the first year in which we had more legal paternities established - more legal connections between Dad and Baby - than we had out-of-wedlock births," Mr. Primus said. But, like the social workers in Milwaukee, Mr. Primus said that the desperate need for cash among welfare-to-work mothers is also a key to understanding the trend toward two-parent households. The squeeze shows up clearly in census figures. While the poorest 40 percent of single mothers increased their yearly earnings by $2,300 from 1995 to 2000, their disposable income increased just $292, mostly because of lost welfare benefits and food stamps. Stephanie Brown, a welfare-to-work mother in central Milwaukee, was told this month that she made too much money to receive food stamps. Mrs. had been getting $200 worth of stamps a month. "It will be hard, but I just have to budget a little better," said Mrs. Brown, 30, who has five children. Seeking both respectability and financial security, she got married last year to Truneil Brown, 26, the father of her youngest child. "The welfare reform was a push for me," she said. "We were going to get married anyway, but it speeded things up." Marriage has worked out well in some ways, she said. "We did it pretty much for the family sake," she explained. "He was good with the kids. Marriage is a better example for the kids. They feel more secure experiencing the wedding. They feel like an average American family." But Mrs. Brown said that her financial squeeze, so far, has not been eased much by marriage. Her husband has bipolar disorder, a mental illness that can be characterized by extreme mood swings. He lost his warehouse job at the beginning of the year and is unemployed. Mrs. Brown, who left welfare in 1998, holds two jobs to pay her bills. She works 40 hours a week, from 3 p.m. to II p.m., with mentally disabled adults, making $7.60 an hour. In the mornings, she is on call as a home-health aid. "It's stressful," she said. "But you just feel better because you know what you are working for is not handed out." The Rev. LeHavre Buck is in the business of trying to teach young black men to take responsibility for their children. As director of the Fatherhood Initiative at the YWCA of Greater Milwaukee, he has come into contact with more than 2,000 families since the welfare overhaul began. The movement toward "responsible fatherhood" has received enthusiastic support from the Bush administration, which has pledged $200 million in grants over five years to community groups promoting fatherhood and marriage. Mr. Buck said he wished that he could report that the movement was already infusing responsibility into the family lives of the young fathers he counsels. But so far, he said, the going has been slow. "I know there are many more guys in the home than there used to be and not necessarily with women who are the mothers of their children," he said. "Many of them are there because of lack of employment and lack of options. These guys are one argument from being homeless." Arguments, the minister said, come along quite often. "They are in conflict with their babies' mama on a regular basis and they are often in conflict with the women they are living with because they don't have any parenting skills," Mr. Buck said. The arguments that Lament Burks provoked in 1999 with his wife, Ophelia, when he became addicted to cocaine, were by far the worst of their marriage. The Burks, however, have somehow worked it out. He is back at home and learning to be a forklift operator, with the help of a state program. After the birth of Ophelia's eighth child four months ago, Mr. Burks said he decided enough was enough. He had a vasectomy. His wife said the operation proved "he really loves me." She said she knew that Lament had to endure the ridicule of his friends, who accused him of throwing away his manhood. "It was the right move to get married," her husband said. "It forced me to grow up." http://www.americanvalues.org/ html/page12495.html | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 8712 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.54.69.58 |
Firefly, urban schools "may" receive more funds than suburban schools but the urban schools need much more money to cope with the problems they have. Crumbling infrastructure, tenure (or the difficulty in retaining good teachers due to lower pay scales), inner city family problems caused by limited money at home and crime. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 61 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
I remember watching a program (60 Minutes, I believe) where the academic progress of inner-city children that attended a Catholic School versus a public school were monitored. The children in the Catholic School received a little over $3,000 dollars in funding. However, they fared better than the children in the public schools that received almost 3X that amount in funding. There is a disconnect somewhere that we are not aware of or we are ignoring. Children in impoverished third world countries are receiving far superior education than inner-city children. They attend school under much dire circumstances. The most poorly funded American school still has a socio-economic advantage over your typical third world school. Yet, our society still is hoodwinked into believing that money changes everything. Even our parents, many that faced segregation, discrimination, and social violence fared better than the inner-city students of today that DO have an abundance of resources available to them (and are not faced with the social pressures many experienced during the Jim Crow era). We are better off in some ways and worse off in others. (Message edited by Firefly on August 16, 2006) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4159 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
The difference (at least between in this country) between an inner-city public and private education is usually smaller school size, smaller class-size/student-teacher ratio, more personalized service, more efficient administration...It's not always about money, but many times it is. | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 311 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 12.75.44.25 |
Private schools are also selective. They don't have to take every kid who shows up at the door. Public schools do. If a kid in a private school has persistent behavior problems, he gets kicked out. In public school, they have to keep him. Parents are another factor. Private school parents are more involved in their child's education. They picked that particular school, for whatever reason. Now they're paying thousands of dollars a year in tuition. If the kid acts up or doesn't do his work, he's out of there and the parents don't get their money back. The kid is in an environment where his classmates come from families that value education. If the school is affiliated with a church, many of the kids' families already know each other. It's harder for a kid to fall through the cracks. | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 62 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
School debate: Public vs. Private Will Your Child Thrive More In One Setting Than The Other? Many parents believe children fare much better at private schools than public ones. But that may not be the case. By Victoria Clayton, MSNBC contributor Aug 2, 2005 Q: Our daughter is about to start kindergarten and the public schools in our area have a reputation for being so-so. Because of this, my husband and many other parents say a private school is the only way to go. I’ve always believed public school can be just as good as private. What’s the truth? A: In many areas of the country, there’s a lot of middle-class anxiety and guilt these days about sending children to public schools. Much of this can be attributed to one thing — what parents hear “over the back fence” about public schools. “I certainly worry when people talk about a school’s reputation,” says Michael Pelman, an educational psychologist in Thousand Oaks, Calif. “When many people discuss schools — good or bad — what they’re talking about is their own belief system, not real information gathered through research and experience.” To wit, many of us believe, hands-down, that private schools are better than public schools. However, a recent study by the husband-and-wife team of Sarah Thuele Lubienski and Christopher Lubienski, researchers at the University of Illinois-Champaign, found that when they controlled for a family’s socioeconomic background, public-school kids slightly outperformed private-school kids. Using data from the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the researchers looked specifically at the scores on a federal math exam for 28,000 fourth- and eighth-graders. The reason for this, explains Christopher Lubienski, is because math is the one area that’s least likely to be influenced by other activities that supplement education (i.e. reading to your child at home). “Math scores show in a more pure way the quality of instruction,” says Lubienski. Studies in other countries have also reflected the Lubienskis’ findings. Of course, the researchers warn that this study says nothing about a specific school. But it is reassuring to know that overall public-school education should not necessarily be seen as second-rate compared to private schools. SPECIAL REPORT When it comes to deciding where to place your child, however, the only way to do it properly is to “test-drive” a school (and perhaps even specific teachers, if that’s possible) much like you would a new car, says Pelman. Call the school and ask to come for a tour and class visit. Once there you should be able to find out about class size, the types of resources available and the programs offered for advanced and remedial children. You may even want to attend a few PTA meetings, chili suppers or school fairs to get a feel for the children, teachers and parents. Pelman notes that some children will do well no matter the school and circumstance, but for the majority of children it boils down to whether the child and the teacher get along. So whenever possible try to meet the teacher and get a feel not only for his/her curriculum but also personality, discipline style and philosophy. Make your best guess as to where your daughter will do well and then also know that you can make changes if you must. For instance, if your public school seems fine after you pay a visit, enroll your daughter there. If your daughter doesn’t thrive, the first change you might consider would be to a different class at the same school. But you may also be able to request transfers to different schools in your system. Many school systems also have magnet-type schools (public schools that children have to apply to but often have a particular focus such as science or the arts). Many private schools will also allow students to transfer in even after the school year has begun... Complete article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/87 43221/ | ||
Firefly Member Username: Firefly Post Number: 63 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 198.30.81.2 |
BTW, privately-schooled children are no more disciplined than publicly-schooled children. Parents that privately-school their children do not care anymore about their children's education than the parent that is forced to or choose to educate their children in a public school setting. I was reading an article in a previous issue of Ebony magazine that detailed the lives of gifted, Black children. One child in particular is a member of the Menta society because she has a genius IQ. The child has had all sorts of offers to attend prestigious, predominantly White private schools in NYC. The child, whose mother is an attorney and whose father is also very educated and monied, decided against this choice for their child. They kept their daughter in a predominantly Black public school in NYC (one of the top high schools in NYC) because they realized that she needed to be well-rounded and more in-tune to her culture as well as her sense of self, history, and culture. This sentiment was echoed by quite a few of the parents in the article (yes, some of these gifted geniuses were living in single-parent homes and in inner-city communities. Not one time did any of the children mention being bullied, picked on, or insulted for their academic prowess). Also, parents of privately-schooled children with behavior problems oftentimes use their money and influence to keep their children enrolled in a particular school. Or, they play "musical school" by sending their child to this school and that school. I wonder how much good it does for a child to be shifted from one school to another? Also, boarding school is nothing more than another avenue for the wealthy parent(s) to shove their responsibility off on other people. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2876 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.190 |
Firefly, the parents keeping their child in public school to be "in tune to her culture" is reasonable, however, "in order to be well-rounded" doesn't fly. Also keep in mind that public school parents also use means at their disposal to keep kids with behavior problems in public schools. (Moving to another district, using false addresses, threatening legal action, using connections, and transfering kids to another school within the same district). Futhermore your portrayal of boarding schools was completely stereotypical and inaccurate. | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.153.12.99 |
Futhermore your portrayal of boarding schools was completely stereotypical and inaccurate I agree, I have known several people who had to work in the Middle East and in Europe and unable to take their children with them. Boarding school was the most logical step for this temporary unfortunate situation. I dont think all the kids who stay and board in these schools have rich parents who were unwilling to raise them, I think many had professions that would not allow the kids to join them. Jane | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 428 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
At public schools in Detroit, we see kids hopping school all the time. If they have too many absences or their grades may cause them to fail, they simply move to another school in district. Behavior factors into the equation. If they get suspended or expelled from one school, they simply move on to another. I had one student who was charged with murder in my class (I had NO idea). It wasn't until he disappeared (being sent off to prison) that I found out. He was a transfer kid from another school in district. My father went to military school (out of choice) and it was a great experience for him. He loved it. My son wanted to go but costs prohibited me sending him. Public schools do NOT offer a well rounded education. Music and electives are being phased out. Private schools and charters still can offer these programs, so well rounded as an excuse to keep kids in public schools is hooey. | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1149 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
DT, the stories you must have to tell! (Message edited by HYSTERIA on August 17, 2006) | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 432 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
From what I hear, most all public high schools are doing away with the arts programs (music, art, etc). Right now, though, I can only speak for Detroit. | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1151 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
That is unfortunate. I edited my above post after re-reading yours, but you must have some other interesting stories to share - to be saved for another thread! | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 434 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Hysteria: Most of my stories are happy ending stories. There are a few exceptions where I was even shocked and stunned but those are better left unsaid. | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1154 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Those are the best stories, DT. BTW, did you ever get your sander back from ___ ? | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 436 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
NO! No sander as of yet. I had to go buy a new one. | ||
Hysteria Member Username: Hysteria Post Number: 1156 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
UNBELIEVABLE !!! But kind of neat ... | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 318 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 12.75.43.165 |
Here's a link to an interesting article called "Acting White": http://www.educationnext.org/2 0061/52.html |
