Slashdot Mirror
Why One Woman Says Sending Your Kid To Private School Is Evil
theodp writes "Slate's Allison Benedikt is ruffling some feathers with her recent manifesto, If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person. 'Not bad like murderer bad,' Benedikt writes, 'but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.' If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.'"
I say that sending your child to public school is akin to child abuse.
Thanks for telling me up front that you don't know what you're talking about so I got to save time by not reading the rest.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
That is a very poor assumption. Lots of private organizations use money unwisely, even to the point of committing outright fraud.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
where most schools are private, and the public ones are more prestigious than the private ones.
The fundamental issue is not private versus public.
But if you have only one school system, then it's a monopoly, and the lack of competition leads to bad schooling.
Of course there are good teachers in a public system, same as they are bad ones. But a monopoly guarantees that the system will be bad.
I really hate people that tell me I'm a bad person because I do what I think is best for my kids. They still get my taxes to pay for public education so why the hell should I be a bad person for sending my kids to a better school?
She's just another damned collectivist who thinks that they should have the right to control another aspect of my life.
That's a terrible assumption. First of all, private organizations use money unwisely all the time. It's just that no one makes a big deal about it because "well, it's their own money, they can waste it if they want." They aren't actually any better than public organizations.
Secondly, most schools don't actually waste money. The schools you see spending shitloads of money on fancy laptops for students or things like that are almost always in rich neighborhoods which are swimming in money. They've covered all their necessary expenses (i.e. enough desks for everyone, plenty of textbooks, etc.) but they have money left over, so they spend it on luxuries. Nothing wrong with that. When a school does this and isn't in a wealthy neighborhood, you'll find that the expenses were covered by a private donation. In this case, someone donates money to the school and states that the money may ONLY be used to purchase fancy equipment. The school couldn't use the money on textbooks or school renovations even if they wanted to.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Sadly (and really only generally speaking - there are exceptions), private schools' quality is driven by market forces whereas public school policies are driven by politics. School officials obtain and maintain decision making positions and power by there connections. There is little to nothing even a group of parents can do to address this. When they do, it gets taken away.
For example, in my city, parents organize "booster clubs" to raise money for their local schools and improve the quality. But parents in poorer sections of the city are often genuinely unable to do this. For example, they have a disproportionate number of families with a single parent who barely makes ends meet and works too many hours to have time to invest in a booster club. Since this is unfair, the school system is working to take money from the booster clubs to distribute to the poorer areas. So, the parents have the incentive removed and, disheartened, give up. The school system has decided, essentially, "If those schools are going to fail, it's only fair that all schools fail."
The parents can't do anything to fix their public school, so the ones who can afford it take their kids out and put them in private schools. Ms. Benedikt is correct that there are Bad Persons at play. She is dead wrong about who those Bad Persons are.
First of all, private organizations use money unwisely all the time.
Yes, but when they do, you can take your money elsewhere. For example, if I were to find out that my daughter's private school was wasting money, I'd pull her out and send her to a different school. However, if I find out that my daughter's public school is wasting money, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO because I have to send her there or I go to jail, CPS takes my daughter away and sends her to the school anyway.
Love the sig, by the way.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Of course, placing the long-term benefit of the community before ones own is something that requires altruism, or for those of simpler spirit "patriotism". The latter is often claimed, but rarely lived.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You can vote for a new school board. Volunteer to help their election campaign. Or run for election yourself. You actually have MORE voice there than with a private school, where losing 1 customer is quite frankly not a big deal.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The national motto is "IN GOD WE TRUST"
In reality, since you invented neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus, Ayn Rand and the Chicago School,
it really should be: "BUGGER YOU JACK, I'VE GOT MINE".
Your primary duty is to your child. I promise you, responsible parents agonize about the best options for their children. Sometimes private, sometimes public.
We started private and then left. The early years at private were probably worthwhile. I tell myself that. They were expensive.
But we've been delighted with the quality of our public schools. They operate from one third the budget of the private school (per pupil). The buildings and landscaping are dramatically tougher, but we're happy with the change. The teachers have been high quality, highly dedicated to the job and responsive to us. My kids are engaged and enjoy their schools.
You have essentially no control over the private school or the public school. In both cases, you will monitor your kids' work, talk regularly to their teachers, meet their friends and their friends' parents. Your recourse in both cases is to find a different school.
No one should demonize a parent for trying to do the best they can for their child. Your first duty is to your child. Social welfare and activism should come after family.
I dont coment often but i had to do it this time.
Isnt it a tragedy if our public education system is not good enough to make sure your kids get a education that is good enough for them to actually pursue their goal. I mean most families doesnt have the luxury to pay alot of extra money for their kids to go to private schools.
I think its a serious problem for the future when important personalities like Matt Damon, Bill Gates, and the american president says that public shools wont give their own offspring the skillssets needed to progress in the american society. This means essentially that for +80% of the population the "american dream" is stone dead. All the big paid jobs/popular jobs will be reserved to the rich minority who are lucky enough to be born into a rich family, that can afford private schools for their children. The rest of the population will be left in the dust, fighting for the scraps.
I really dont see how a country can keep up the stability and prosperity with that policy and mindset from the people we see at the top of our society today.
Yes, those who doubt massive, growing, and all-encompassing government, and don't wish to be pwned by it, are morally suspect.
Dictators throughout history could not be more pleased useful idiots are trying to build this meme.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Indeed concrete individuals should take priority. I think she's approaching from a kind of categorical imperative. Hence her statement, "Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it." Or, again, her rather annoying, "ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad." In other words, she would prioritize the needs of the "nation" over those of your "spawn" [her word, not mine]. After all, wouldn't it be wrong to put your own children before the common good? Isn't it selfish to secure for your own what humanity is often denied?
This kind of thinking always puts me in mind of a passage from the Brother Karamazov. In the passage a woman declare to Elder Zosima her great love for all of humanity, but her apparent inability to actively love an individual. Zosima replies:
Loving and caring for abstractions like humanity or the nation is comparatively easy. Humanity, nations, or the people are objects which can be loved without fear. They will never leave or reject you. They can be readily idealized, so one never doubts the worthiness of loving them. And since they're abstracts, one needn't have to worry about them remembering those times you didn't particularly feel like caring for them. It's also very rewarding. In some cases, all we need to do is vote the way we think best, and then we can hold our heads up high, even regarding neighbors in scorn who have failed to see our good sense.
Loving and caring for concrete individuals is quite hard. They are sometimes ungrateful--in the case of infants and teenagers, it can seem almost constantly so. They have bodily needs which require unpleasant cleaning. They have wills of their own and cannot be idealized. They can remember your bad days. They can suffer and you may feel responsible, even when you're not. They can break your heart. They die.
This, I think, is at the heart of the preference many have, particularly among the educated and white collar, for giving priority to abstracts. A person such as Benedikt can hold you in contempt, for she prioritizes the higher ideal of the national good, while you privilege your "spawn" by giving them the
If every single person took public transportation, would public transportation improve?
If every single person lived in public housing, would public housing improve?
If every single person was on food stamps, would food stamps improve?
History indicates that way of thinking doesn't work out well.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
The question is not if you can outperform in average education levels. The question is whether those who benefit the most from education get the best education. All countries have average students who forget everything they ever learned in school. But it is those who remember what they learned and who go on to advance the world that benefit the most from the education. The extensive schooling exists to give them a chance to progress. It's not about the money. Private schools admit quite a few talented students who go there for free. In fact, the rich who pay for private schools pay for the clout of rubbing shoulders with the talented poor (I am oversimplifying the dynamics of it, but not by much).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Even if I didn't agree with it all, the Slate article was pretty well written and had some pretty insightful points to make.
In comparison, I found Larry Correia (who is he anyway, some no-name pulp fiction author?) to be someone with an axe to grind against liberals, and nothing more than corny rebuttals.
His comments lacked much, nay, any insight, and just sounded like an angry diatribe. I hadn't read the original article, but after reading Larry's idiotic rebuttal, I went back and read it, and if anything, the rebuttal made me feel more sympathetic to Allison's position.
Maybe he should stick to writing crappy monster novels and leave the real writing to those with talent.
It's the parent's prerogative to send their children wherever they see fit. It's also the parent's prerogative to prepare their children the best they can for "real life". Some parents are well equipped to actually fully participate in their children's environment, try to make it better, implicate themselves, do activities, vote, give time, money, opportunities and trying to make the school a genuine good place for their children to be.
Not everyone is able to do that. My parents were able to do that. They were able to actually send me to alternative (and public) school, to participate fully in the school's life, always be there for me. It was a hard choice for them, not only needing to drive me an hour every day, then go to work, but also participate many nights and even some days to school life. Even for them, they eventually gave up one such school, and went to another one because it was plainly too demanding. So I wouldn't expect everyone to give the dedication to bring their prized school up to par to their expectations. Some parents are just able to pay up, are not able to speak or talk adequately, or they don't have time to dedicate themselves to such hard work, and we have to respect that. Alas, today in this world where parents are paying premium and expecting their young bastard children (exaggeration intended here) to do well, and screaming to the teacher (instead of screaming at your own children) whenever they don't have straight As is the norm, I expect the school system to remain crooked.
In the end, people are voting with their attendance. If your school system is bad enough to fear for lives just by attending, I'd expect people to try to move away from these places. There's preparing for real life and there's plain madness... and I'm truly sorry for the dedicated teachers giving their lives and soul for these schools; my mom is such a teacher (nearing her last working years now), giving her life to people with learning disabilities (or missed opportunities); her and many fellow teachers are giving what they can, but sometimes, it's not enough to convince parents.
On my side, I actually moved to a place where active outdoor life is adequate, near good quality schools (not the best - but in the >75%), and I plan my children to have a good chance in life, using neighbourhood friends, public school system, dedication, caring and be with my (future) children for anything they might need. That's where I decided to give my money, that's where my vote is going, even if I have to take the train and public transportation 3hr every single work day.
So basically the NAZI's and the Soviets were allies, you know.. shared a common ideology
Yes the Nazis and Soviets were allies. They had a non-aggression pact. They negotiated the invasion and splitting of Polish territory and executed that plan, each taking about half the country of Poland. Eventually Hitler surprised Stalin and betrayed and invaded his Soviet ally. Basically they were allies, in name and deed, before they were enemies.
As far as ideology they were also quite similar. Citizens must obey the state, citizens must sacrifice for the state, citizens must not challenge/question the state's leadership. Unwillingness to obey/sacrifice or willingness to challenge/question leadership is treason.
There are more people in NYC than all of Finland. Also, Finland does not have much Diversity:
Finland:
80% Evangelical Lutheran
The child-poverty rate is 4 percent
Ethnic groups: Finn 93.4%, Swede 5.6%, Russian 0.5%,...
aka 99% one race and 93% one culture.
So the plan is to have no accountability at all? There has to be some objective measure of performance. If the tests don't measure what is important for the kinds to know then change the tests.
So many people use the old "liberal" and "conserative" labels wantonly, when they don't really correctly identify a modern division.
Statist is a word that does correctly distinguish the major division of our times. Are you primary for, or against the state supporting each and every person, to the extent that some (or all) choices are removed at the directive of the state?
The people falling on one side or the other are both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.
So instead of stopping reading, you should read more carefully when you encounter the term as it's someone who realizes there is more depth to the matter than the classic labels that would otherwise be shallowly applied.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I agree 100%. I actually moved to a better town to get my kids into a better school. The local school from my former home town had a crackhead blow his brains out on the playground. The kids found him the next day inside a playground feature. Allison can eat a bag of dicks.
And hey! If you really want to have a better school experience for everyone - take 5% of the defense budget and put it into schools. It would probably be 100 times the money they're used to having.
Garbage in, garbage out. So forgive me if I don't feel like playing. I'd like my kids to wind up better than the baggy pants wearing drug addled dipshits from my previous home town.
And good luck to you. I hope you get your children into the best place they can be.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If it really bothers you that much to pay that small social security amount each month, then stop whining and get a raise. That's the entrepreneurial spirit, or whatever.
Getting a raise does not address the issue that I pay Social Security and I'll never get it back. There won't be a Social Security when I retire because the federal government will not have the resources to pay it out.
Are we going to let them die on the streets? No, we are going to take care of them, so you will be taxed either way.
People taking care of other people does not mean taxes. There are other social structures to care for the elderly if the government does not. Too many people have become accustomed to government programs "solving" all our problems that these people cannot imagine any other solution except more government.
Do you think that if we did not have public schools that all our children would be uneducated? Of course not. People would solve this problem on their own without government encouragement or intervention. Public schools are a relatively recent social development. People were educated before public schools. I believe we'd be more educated without them.
Same goes for the care of the elderly. I believe we'd be better off without so called "social security".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
One way or another the elderly will be paid for by working age people. It's really just a matter of how to organize it and how many elderly people without support you're willing to let die.
Unless that can't be affordable. Then it won't happen. That's the problem with these fantasies. Someone has to pay for them. Social Security has the problem that it promises to pay out considerably more over the average lifetime of a recipient than they put in, but never does anything useful with the money that is put into that system. The money is used to buy US bonds, which are just a mechanism for tossing Social Security money into the general fund and squandered.
But even if we take those bonds at face value as some sort of investment that will always pay out, we still have the problem that they aren't earning enough to pay for current Social Security promises. The system is insolvent on several different levels.