Public and Private Schools
In my previous post, I mentioned my new job, working at a private Jewish day school. I also said the following: "While I am a strong proponent of public education, this particular school meets all of my requirements for an acceptable private school (non-discriminatory and purposeful.)" I figured I should explain what the hell I meant.
(Note: All of the following applies to education through 12th grade.)
One of the greatest privileges conferred to citizens of the United States is a free public education. Over the years, due largely to a law called IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), this privilege has been extended to all individuals, with the stipulation that they must be educated in the "least restrictive environment." This means that any individual, regardless of background or disability, must be provided with the same education as a non-disabled student, as much as is possible. Thus, schools must provide the support needed by each individual student to succeed. In theory, this is an effective and fair system. Problems generally arise when schools do not receive adequate funding to successfully support their students. As you might guess, I fully support public education.
For various reasons, some people feel that their children can be better educated in private schools, which are not funded publicly. Some people, such as President Bush, actually believe that these private schools should in some cases receive public funds, but the whole voucher issue would take up another post entirely. My problem with private schools is two-fold: they are often discriminatory, and often serve no unique purpose.
Private schools are often discriminatory in a number of ways, which, I should stress, is perfectly within their rights. They are private institutions and can do pretty much whatever they want; I just don't happen to agree with it. Firstly, private schools almost always discriminate on the basis of income. In short, private schools cost money to attend, and many families, even with financial aid and vouchers, cannot afford to attend. Secondly, and more pertinent to my current position, these schools can choose which students to accept or reject. From my perspective as a teacher of students with disabilities, this is particularly upsetting. If a student has a learning disability and will therefore be difficult to educate, most private schools will simply choose not to accept that student. Even if they do accept a student, they are under no legal obligation to provide any educational supports for that student (IDEA only applies to public schools.) Thus many students with disabilities in private schools struggle academically and have a considerably higher drop-out rate. Private schools are able to claim that they provide a better education in part because they are able to accept only those students who are ready to succeed.
My second point is a little more difficult to explain. When I say that private schools often serve no unique purpose, I mean that many private schools exist only to remove students from public school. A private school with essentially the same curriculum as a public school, only with more expensive materials and facilities and a limited student population does not, in my mind, serve an adequate purpose. A public school with adequate funding could educate those students as successfully. I know there may be some argument on the last point, but I'm trying to build a distinction between what I consider to be "purposeful" private schools and "non-purposeful" private schools, i.e. those which exist merely to provide a more exclusive education. When I say purposeful, I mean schools which have a goal which can only be accomplished in a private school setting. The most significant example is probably religious schools, especially (at least in this area) Catholic schools. Some parents want their children to receive a religious, moral education and feel that this education should be part of the everyday curriculum of their children's school. For these parents, private school is the only option, as public schools cannot legally provide any religious education. While I would not make that choice with my own children, I see the need some parents feel for that type of educational environment. Likewise, certain foreign language schools (there is a Russian school not too far from here, for example) and certain specialized schools (such as schools for the deaf and blind) usually must be private institutions. In the case of the latter, public school districts will foot the bill to send students to those specialized schools if they determine that option to be the "least restrictive environment." In these cases, and perhaps a few others, there is a distinct purpose to private education which cannot be met in a public school setting.
All of my previous teaching experience has been in a public school setting (though I have worked in a private tutoring capacity) so I had my initial concerns about taking a job with a private school. However, this particular school meets both of my requirements for private education. Firstly, the school includes classes in Judaica and Hebrew, neither of which would be available in a public school setting. For parents who want their students to be educated in Judaism within the curriculum, private school is the only option. Thus, I consider the school to be "purposeful." Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, I have been hired as a learning specialist, specifically working with students with special needs. Most private schools don't have any sort of special education program, while this school has a large, well-organized, and thriving program. Thus, in the sense which is most important to my field, I consider the school to be non-discriminatory. With these two criteria met, I felt comfortable taking a position at this particular private school.
I apologize for the length of the post, this was just the easiest way for me to explain my feelings on the matter.
(Note: All of the following applies to education through 12th grade.)
One of the greatest privileges conferred to citizens of the United States is a free public education. Over the years, due largely to a law called IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), this privilege has been extended to all individuals, with the stipulation that they must be educated in the "least restrictive environment." This means that any individual, regardless of background or disability, must be provided with the same education as a non-disabled student, as much as is possible. Thus, schools must provide the support needed by each individual student to succeed. In theory, this is an effective and fair system. Problems generally arise when schools do not receive adequate funding to successfully support their students. As you might guess, I fully support public education.
For various reasons, some people feel that their children can be better educated in private schools, which are not funded publicly. Some people, such as President Bush, actually believe that these private schools should in some cases receive public funds, but the whole voucher issue would take up another post entirely. My problem with private schools is two-fold: they are often discriminatory, and often serve no unique purpose.
Private schools are often discriminatory in a number of ways, which, I should stress, is perfectly within their rights. They are private institutions and can do pretty much whatever they want; I just don't happen to agree with it. Firstly, private schools almost always discriminate on the basis of income. In short, private schools cost money to attend, and many families, even with financial aid and vouchers, cannot afford to attend. Secondly, and more pertinent to my current position, these schools can choose which students to accept or reject. From my perspective as a teacher of students with disabilities, this is particularly upsetting. If a student has a learning disability and will therefore be difficult to educate, most private schools will simply choose not to accept that student. Even if they do accept a student, they are under no legal obligation to provide any educational supports for that student (IDEA only applies to public schools.) Thus many students with disabilities in private schools struggle academically and have a considerably higher drop-out rate. Private schools are able to claim that they provide a better education in part because they are able to accept only those students who are ready to succeed.
My second point is a little more difficult to explain. When I say that private schools often serve no unique purpose, I mean that many private schools exist only to remove students from public school. A private school with essentially the same curriculum as a public school, only with more expensive materials and facilities and a limited student population does not, in my mind, serve an adequate purpose. A public school with adequate funding could educate those students as successfully. I know there may be some argument on the last point, but I'm trying to build a distinction between what I consider to be "purposeful" private schools and "non-purposeful" private schools, i.e. those which exist merely to provide a more exclusive education. When I say purposeful, I mean schools which have a goal which can only be accomplished in a private school setting. The most significant example is probably religious schools, especially (at least in this area) Catholic schools. Some parents want their children to receive a religious, moral education and feel that this education should be part of the everyday curriculum of their children's school. For these parents, private school is the only option, as public schools cannot legally provide any religious education. While I would not make that choice with my own children, I see the need some parents feel for that type of educational environment. Likewise, certain foreign language schools (there is a Russian school not too far from here, for example) and certain specialized schools (such as schools for the deaf and blind) usually must be private institutions. In the case of the latter, public school districts will foot the bill to send students to those specialized schools if they determine that option to be the "least restrictive environment." In these cases, and perhaps a few others, there is a distinct purpose to private education which cannot be met in a public school setting.
All of my previous teaching experience has been in a public school setting (though I have worked in a private tutoring capacity) so I had my initial concerns about taking a job with a private school. However, this particular school meets both of my requirements for private education. Firstly, the school includes classes in Judaica and Hebrew, neither of which would be available in a public school setting. For parents who want their students to be educated in Judaism within the curriculum, private school is the only option. Thus, I consider the school to be "purposeful." Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, I have been hired as a learning specialist, specifically working with students with special needs. Most private schools don't have any sort of special education program, while this school has a large, well-organized, and thriving program. Thus, in the sense which is most important to my field, I consider the school to be non-discriminatory. With these two criteria met, I felt comfortable taking a position at this particular private school.
I apologize for the length of the post, this was just the easiest way for me to explain my feelings on the matter.