"What do private schools offer that public school can’t? And why do you think that is?"
Choice and accountability for each family's notion of "success".
There has been a high level of frustration with agendas in public education. With school choice a family can "vote with their feet" without having to actually relocate.
As a resident of a wealthy suburb I think the “secret sauce” is this based on an observation from a good friend who had a kid in kindergarten with mine and had also been a teacher in a school with a very economically disadvantaged population in the city: On the first day of kindergarten here more than half of the kids in our kids’ class could read and many of them were reading several years above grade level. Almost all of the others knew their letters and had some pre-reading skills. In the school in which she taught First grade, none of her students came in reading and less than a quarter knew their alphabet. Wealthy school districts have such a leg up from the start that it’s not the money and the teachers so much as the resources that the students are lucky enough to be provided with at home, that makes a true difference.
I have worked for 45 years in both public and private schools, dealing with kids from kindergarten to college in all socio-economic categories, as a classroom teacher and an administrator. The only special sauce that I have experienced is for students to have engaged parents who value education. In a nutshell, students with these "good parents" will do well wherever their school is located; students of "bad parents" will struggle. The problem with educating students is how to make all parents "good" parents. As parents are the students first and foremost educators, the other issues of teacher quality, school locations, funding, etc. are secondary in comparison. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions; but for me, I'll take that special sauce of engaged parents over anything else. Unfortunately, I don't know how to realistically do this.
I'll take a flyer and agree with Ken Bissett and predict that you will vote for (or have voted for) Vallas. Also, I'll agree with your "non-adjustment" that Vallas will win by 7-8% - which is based on nothing other than my gut feelings after withstanding the campaign ad bombardment of the last couple of weeks.
On the one hand I was sorry that the disqualified "winning" visual Tweet entry had been photoshopped, and thus DQ-ed. On the other hand, I had voted for the "Parents on their way to school" Tweet (and had loved it when it originally ran).
I also agree with Joan A and Edward Fee that children of wealthy parents, and children of motivated parents (together with the charter/private schools' ability to effectively "select" their student bodies) are the "secret sauce" which leads to successful student outcomes. Major city school districts MUST educate everyone who lives within their attendance districts - regardless of circumstances (socioeconomic or otherwise).
However, I must say that while I support teachers' unions, my spouse and I were treated to an ice-water bath of reality when we moved our then-parochial educated kids into a (very well-funded) public school district school. Most of our kids' public tenure-protected public school teachers were committed to their students and their profession. But, the attitude expressed by (admittedly, a few of ) our kids' teachers towards their charges (and their charges' parents) was night-and-day different from the attitude of their parochial school counterparts who are employed on annually-renewed teaching contracts. As it is does in the ivied halls of university academia, tenure can have a horrible effect on some teachers, (at least in my experience).
I think there are some further factors to discuss concerning public schools. Some parents want a Catholic viewpoint included in the school agenda - thus the large Catholic school system in Chicago.
Public schools cannot and should not take over this role. We can add in other schools where other religions are included.
I think a really important factor is safety - parents want their kids to be safe and teachers want to teach without being a policeman all the time. You cannot get a good education in a violent environment.
Next let’s talk about parents - private schools put skin in the game for parents. My personal experience with my son attending Catholic schools was that parents participated in the kids education, did service projects and helped build up the school. Kids and parents that did not work together within the school requirements got dropped. I found the parents to be varied in wealth and background but formed a cooperative force in helping the kids learn.
Right now many public schools struggle with violence, parents who could care less or are not around and a teacher’s union who represent the teachers but not the parents or students.
I do not know how you can easily remedy the violence, lack of parental concern and Union control of some of these public schools except by going elsewhere.
I do not think public schools will ever be the answer for all children in Chicago.
Brandon Johnson has, and needs, only one reason to remove Dr. Arwady. She failed to toe the CTU line on all things Covid related to the public schools. If she had only checked with the CTU before making any public policy recommendations she would have known what to say. That would have saved her from saying absurd things like 'children should be back in school'.
And, as I mentioned before, in one of Johnson's speeches to supporters he said that he would replace all city leadership positions with 'our people', which I took to mean CTU and Democratic Socialists. There is no doubt that the appointed members of the new CPS board will all be CTU members or approved people.
His failure to talk about these things like a traditional politician is not because he lacks skills or advice. It is because he is a far left ideologue, his advisors are the same, and they think the general public are fools that won't notice. His failure to pay his utility bills and his assumption that it wasn't important is again representative of how he views his personal responsibilities while professing that others are not doing their part.
Why are students from wealthy communities better prepared and more successful in school? To start with, their preschool vocabulary and language processing skills are more advanced than children living in lower economic and high poverty areas. They’re more likely to have college educated, professional parents, while young children from homes with working class parents lag behind children of the same age.
“The landmark Hart and Risley study in 1995 identified “remarkable differences” in the early vocabulary experiences of young children. Researcher and author Betty Hart described the results of their observations: “Simply in words heard, the average child on welfare was having half as much experience per hour (616 words per hour) as the average working-class child (1,251 words per hour) and less than one-third that of the average child in a professional family (2,153 words per hour)” (Hart & Risley 2003, 8). This is important because vocabulary development during the preschool years is related to later reading skills and school success in general.” The study also focused on the way children process new vocabulary Here, too, young children from homes with low incomes lag behind children of the same age who are growing up in more affluent circumstances.
These children begin their education far behind their more affluent peers and are more likely to find barriars to equitable education and private schools. It’s easy to blame the parents, who may not have the time or skills needed to help their children. The answer is universal preschool to start, and more services for students with language, behavior and special ed needs, which usually are not provided in charter or private schools.
Part of the issue of school choice is a matter of perspective. As a parent, I want what is best for my child and I am willing to make sacrifices to get it. If I have a choice between a lower performing public school and a better performing public (traditional or charter) or private school, I will opt for the later. I don't care why the landscape is as it is, and I cannot change it a timeframe that meets my child's needs. I want a choice and I will do what I must to get it. If the public school system is low performing and does not offer better performing options then I will send my child to private school or I will move. I support vouchers because they provide the similar opportunity for choice to all. It also allows parents that believe their child, and society, benefits from attending a lower performing public school to do so.
It is a canard that providing choice will result in the inevitable collapse of public schools or their general impoverishment. Unless you also believe that public schools are incapable of providing a competitive educational experience.
Charter schools in CPS are public schools and are just another version of the selective enrollment schools. If the Charter schools are an expensive variation that does not provide educational advantages to the students that have chosen them, then they should be dropped. CPS is an overly complex, over-built, and over-staffed hodgepodge of educational strategies. Its primary mission is further hobbled by continuously layering on additional social services roles in an attempt to address other social needs. CPS probably should be more like suburban school districts - simple, monolithic, properly sized, area-based schools.
Yes - there is a gap/battle for resources but Johnson's rhetoric comes across as someone NOT wanting to come in and pull the city together. Do people want a high risk liberal or status quo "Daley-ian democrat?" I'm not concerned about school vouchers - that'll be a big push for any mayor.
3) Standardized testing that allows the schools and parents to assess their children's progress
4) Orderly classroom and school environments that put the needs of the academically oriented students first.
5) Tracked/honors curriculum that provides the superior students with enhanced learning opportunity, while providing for skill appropriate development of all students.
6) Vocational education for non-university track students in high school
All of this is provided in some public schools and could be provided in all public schools. But public schools are subject to political, legal and activist initiatives that undercut and distract from the primary goal.
"What do private schools offer that public school can’t? And why do you think that is?"
Choice and accountability for each family's notion of "success".
There has been a high level of frustration with agendas in public education. With school choice a family can "vote with their feet" without having to actually relocate.
As a resident of a wealthy suburb I think the “secret sauce” is this based on an observation from a good friend who had a kid in kindergarten with mine and had also been a teacher in a school with a very economically disadvantaged population in the city: On the first day of kindergarten here more than half of the kids in our kids’ class could read and many of them were reading several years above grade level. Almost all of the others knew their letters and had some pre-reading skills. In the school in which she taught First grade, none of her students came in reading and less than a quarter knew their alphabet. Wealthy school districts have such a leg up from the start that it’s not the money and the teachers so much as the resources that the students are lucky enough to be provided with at home, that makes a true difference.
I’m going to go out on a limb, and predict you will vote for Vallas.
Want to know how people really feel about “school choice”? Note any community’s response to adding subsidized, multi-family housing.
I have worked for 45 years in both public and private schools, dealing with kids from kindergarten to college in all socio-economic categories, as a classroom teacher and an administrator. The only special sauce that I have experienced is for students to have engaged parents who value education. In a nutshell, students with these "good parents" will do well wherever their school is located; students of "bad parents" will struggle. The problem with educating students is how to make all parents "good" parents. As parents are the students first and foremost educators, the other issues of teacher quality, school locations, funding, etc. are secondary in comparison. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions; but for me, I'll take that special sauce of engaged parents over anything else. Unfortunately, I don't know how to realistically do this.
I'll take a flyer and agree with Ken Bissett and predict that you will vote for (or have voted for) Vallas. Also, I'll agree with your "non-adjustment" that Vallas will win by 7-8% - which is based on nothing other than my gut feelings after withstanding the campaign ad bombardment of the last couple of weeks.
On the one hand I was sorry that the disqualified "winning" visual Tweet entry had been photoshopped, and thus DQ-ed. On the other hand, I had voted for the "Parents on their way to school" Tweet (and had loved it when it originally ran).
I also agree with Joan A and Edward Fee that children of wealthy parents, and children of motivated parents (together with the charter/private schools' ability to effectively "select" their student bodies) are the "secret sauce" which leads to successful student outcomes. Major city school districts MUST educate everyone who lives within their attendance districts - regardless of circumstances (socioeconomic or otherwise).
However, I must say that while I support teachers' unions, my spouse and I were treated to an ice-water bath of reality when we moved our then-parochial educated kids into a (very well-funded) public school district school. Most of our kids' public tenure-protected public school teachers were committed to their students and their profession. But, the attitude expressed by (admittedly, a few of ) our kids' teachers towards their charges (and their charges' parents) was night-and-day different from the attitude of their parochial school counterparts who are employed on annually-renewed teaching contracts. As it is does in the ivied halls of university academia, tenure can have a horrible effect on some teachers, (at least in my experience).
EZ - By the way, why do you allow daily voting for regular (Thur) ToTW, but only a single vote (over the span of the contest) for Visual (Tue) ToTW?
I think there are some further factors to discuss concerning public schools. Some parents want a Catholic viewpoint included in the school agenda - thus the large Catholic school system in Chicago.
Public schools cannot and should not take over this role. We can add in other schools where other religions are included.
I think a really important factor is safety - parents want their kids to be safe and teachers want to teach without being a policeman all the time. You cannot get a good education in a violent environment.
Next let’s talk about parents - private schools put skin in the game for parents. My personal experience with my son attending Catholic schools was that parents participated in the kids education, did service projects and helped build up the school. Kids and parents that did not work together within the school requirements got dropped. I found the parents to be varied in wealth and background but formed a cooperative force in helping the kids learn.
Right now many public schools struggle with violence, parents who could care less or are not around and a teacher’s union who represent the teachers but not the parents or students.
I do not know how you can easily remedy the violence, lack of parental concern and Union control of some of these public schools except by going elsewhere.
I do not think public schools will ever be the answer for all children in Chicago.
I was born and raised in Chicago and now live in Evanston. From my personal point of view the mayoral race is a race to the bottom.
Neither candidate is what I would look for in a mayor.
Its a campaign of extremes with most Chicagoans stuck in the middle.
Bleh!
Brandon Johnson has, and needs, only one reason to remove Dr. Arwady. She failed to toe the CTU line on all things Covid related to the public schools. If she had only checked with the CTU before making any public policy recommendations she would have known what to say. That would have saved her from saying absurd things like 'children should be back in school'.
And, as I mentioned before, in one of Johnson's speeches to supporters he said that he would replace all city leadership positions with 'our people', which I took to mean CTU and Democratic Socialists. There is no doubt that the appointed members of the new CPS board will all be CTU members or approved people.
His failure to talk about these things like a traditional politician is not because he lacks skills or advice. It is because he is a far left ideologue, his advisors are the same, and they think the general public are fools that won't notice. His failure to pay his utility bills and his assumption that it wasn't important is again representative of how he views his personal responsibilities while professing that others are not doing their part.
Why are students from wealthy communities better prepared and more successful in school? To start with, their preschool vocabulary and language processing skills are more advanced than children living in lower economic and high poverty areas. They’re more likely to have college educated, professional parents, while young children from homes with working class parents lag behind children of the same age.
“The landmark Hart and Risley study in 1995 identified “remarkable differences” in the early vocabulary experiences of young children. Researcher and author Betty Hart described the results of their observations: “Simply in words heard, the average child on welfare was having half as much experience per hour (616 words per hour) as the average working-class child (1,251 words per hour) and less than one-third that of the average child in a professional family (2,153 words per hour)” (Hart & Risley 2003, 8). This is important because vocabulary development during the preschool years is related to later reading skills and school success in general.” The study also focused on the way children process new vocabulary Here, too, young children from homes with low incomes lag behind children of the same age who are growing up in more affluent circumstances.
These children begin their education far behind their more affluent peers and are more likely to find barriars to equitable education and private schools. It’s easy to blame the parents, who may not have the time or skills needed to help their children. The answer is universal preschool to start, and more services for students with language, behavior and special ed needs, which usually are not provided in charter or private schools.
Agreed, Marc. In fact, there are good reasons for parents not prioritizing education, such as basic survival.
Part of the issue of school choice is a matter of perspective. As a parent, I want what is best for my child and I am willing to make sacrifices to get it. If I have a choice between a lower performing public school and a better performing public (traditional or charter) or private school, I will opt for the later. I don't care why the landscape is as it is, and I cannot change it a timeframe that meets my child's needs. I want a choice and I will do what I must to get it. If the public school system is low performing and does not offer better performing options then I will send my child to private school or I will move. I support vouchers because they provide the similar opportunity for choice to all. It also allows parents that believe their child, and society, benefits from attending a lower performing public school to do so.
It is a canard that providing choice will result in the inevitable collapse of public schools or their general impoverishment. Unless you also believe that public schools are incapable of providing a competitive educational experience.
Charter schools in CPS are public schools and are just another version of the selective enrollment schools. If the Charter schools are an expensive variation that does not provide educational advantages to the students that have chosen them, then they should be dropped. CPS is an overly complex, over-built, and over-staffed hodgepodge of educational strategies. Its primary mission is further hobbled by continuously layering on additional social services roles in an attempt to address other social needs. CPS probably should be more like suburban school districts - simple, monolithic, properly sized, area-based schools.
Yes - there is a gap/battle for resources but Johnson's rhetoric comes across as someone NOT wanting to come in and pull the city together. Do people want a high risk liberal or status quo "Daley-ian democrat?" I'm not concerned about school vouchers - that'll be a big push for any mayor.
Secret Sauce:
1) Grades based on grade level skills achievement
2) No social promotion or graduation
3) Standardized testing that allows the schools and parents to assess their children's progress
4) Orderly classroom and school environments that put the needs of the academically oriented students first.
5) Tracked/honors curriculum that provides the superior students with enhanced learning opportunity, while providing for skill appropriate development of all students.
6) Vocational education for non-university track students in high school
All of this is provided in some public schools and could be provided in all public schools. But public schools are subject to political, legal and activist initiatives that undercut and distract from the primary goal.