student loan forgivemess

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn, yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn,yes, for the most part yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.BC it will make the public schools worse skimming off the "cream of the crop"


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

Agree - mainly bc I went there also. I don't know that we had "poor" kids. Prob. blue collar. Most teachers (public and private) have summer jobs in the summer. Atleast the younger ones.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Agree - mainly bc I went there also. I don't know that we had "poor" kids. Prob. blue collar. Most teachers (public and private) have summer jobs in the summer. Atleast the younger ones.

You went to ND? Great! I liked it there. We had plenty of poor kids when I was there. Not abject poverty, but not middle class either.

Paul, can you explain how the public schools are made worse, if the few kids who actually want to learn, are sent somewhere where they can learn?

You're saying you're willing to punish those few heroic families, for what, exactly? What's the upside of forcing those kids to remain where they are? It keeps some more public teachers employed (which is a big reason why liberals oppose school choice), but what's the point of education? To give children the best chance of realizing their dreams? Or something else?

The troublemakers left behind in public school, obviously won't care if a few dedicated students leave.

So who does it hurt, and how does it hurt them, to send those few kids to a better school?