16:07 here again. And this has already probably been said (coming late to this debate and haven't read the pages of responses already). But moving funding away from local property taxes could help things. I'd be in favor of that. But it wouldn't solve all of the problems, like common core, or NCLB / testing, or the drudgery aspect, or what they expect of young kids, or homework, etc. But it might help with funding, at least, and resources.

First: does slate offer anything besides click baiting pieces? Serious question there. Seems like that's what you get there. But, yeah...disagree.

I went to public school because my parents had no other options. There was gang violence and one child was raped in a stairwell while I was in school there. (Yes, really). My son is in a private school that we bend over backwards to afford for two reasons - one: the school we are in-bounds for was recently in the news - a teacher had molested one of the elementary children there. 2. I don't want my child to be forced to sit in a row and cram reading and math at the expense of all other things, and put up with the homework bullshit that you get at public school. My kid is shy and sensitive and would not thrive in that situation. My experience with public school, as a child, was not just "bad" or inadequate, it was truly traumatizing. I had my head flushed down a toilet.

I think Benedikt has a very limited idea of what public education amounts to in this country, informed by her own fortunes (both as a child, and as a parent of children who are / were in a SAFE space).

The author did crack me up when she was talking about how limited she is, but turned out "just fine." I had to chuckle thinking that someone who writes a judgmental manifesto and almost boasts about her lack of education and then somehow uses it to say "but hey, look at me, look what I'm doing, writing trollbait articles for a d-list publication" gave me a little giggle.

I will say that in an ideal world, all of the idealists would group together and get behind public schools. So this sense that you should send your kid to public school for the greater good makes sense in the same sort of way socialism makes sense - on paper only. Because the truth is, public school cannot offer me what I need for my kids, no matter how desperately I wish this weren't so. Maybe someday if I move to her neighborhood, or somewhere in upper NW, or inbounds for Brent (maybe, still not sure about any DC school to be honest) I would also be a big public school booster again.

PS. I'm SO not a conservative. I was super anti school choice / vouchers / etc for years, and still am, kind of. It's not that I don't see the point of the article. But it's so complicated. Because the schools aren't safe spaces, they suck the good out of education, I truly believe that. I do what I can to change public schools, but I cna't personally change NCLB. It seems the R's have won this one - public schools have been completely ruined, so if you want your kids to be safe and get a good, loving, nurturing environment (and if you live in my neighborhood) you do private or do the charter school thing.

You're arguing against a public school parent not too familiar with private school but who still thinks alternative education is important. Common Core as I've read it indicates the standards to be learnt for each grade. They are pretty specific such as 1st graders should know phonics and be introduced to fractions. Not just children should improve in math and reading. Another school might focus on something entirely different for 1st grade leaving those things to be taught later. Take Waldorf for example, a school I'm a little familiar with. They leave phonics till later but focus heavily on reading comprehension and play acting in early grades. Those ideas trickle into public school classrooms as enrichment or a project the teacher takes on or a play 1st graders put on. They also have a class called Eurythmy which is basically creative movement. PE teachers are now incorporating dance, yoga, and creative movement much more into the public schools than before. They also teach the recorder in Waldorf. This is also something a lot of public schools implement in more recent years as teachers realized this was a great first instrument to start kids off with. Waldorf also teaches knitting and teaches math such as addition and multiplication with it. They also use pictures and manipulatives to teach math operations. Now public schools are using more manipulatives to teach these operations. This is just one type of school system compared in a small way to public schools, however I'm trying to demonstrate that charters and private schools often try out new methods which can result in some better ways of teaching which are then implemented by the mass public school system and therefore they have a benefit to society. With the flexibility like in Finnish schools, you can probably get away with not having privates, but the current US school system does not operate that way. Also the US is all about free choice, so I doubt it will ever do away with private schools.

What specifically won't Common Core let teachers do?

Schools in the US have never been that far off from one another. You don't see knitting like you would in a Waldorf school or geography the way you would in a Montessori school. US schools for some time have not been known to be pretty cookie cutter and not focused on innovation.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I said that wrong. Common Core is very specific and many states are following this same curriculum model such as with MD's 2.0 curriculum such that many students are getting a very similar education across the US. Does that make more sense? Privates and homeschoolers can deviate more from the common core curriculum which often leads to new innovations in teaching.

Common core is brand new. But evidently PP sees fit to retroactively place blame for failed schooling on the curriculum model only now going into effect? What logic!

Maybe I said that wrong. Common Core is very specific and many states are following this same curriculum model such as with MD's 2.0 curriculum such that many students are getting a very similar education across the US. Does that make more sense? Privates and homeschoolers can deviate more from the common core curriculum which often leads to new innovations in teaching.

Anonymous wrote:Finnish schools have a lot of diversity among them because they allow their teachers a lot of flexibility. US schools have 2.0 which dictates everything. Private schools and homeschools for better or worse are among the more innovative schools in this country and public schools have the benefit of watching them and implementing best practices without dealing with the learning curve that private schools go through.

"US schools have 2.0 which dictates everything?"

I'm speechless.

Are wealthy people showing off and sending their kids to private really the problem in this country with education? Typically they pay large real estate taxes and aren't typically the ones complaining about the tax rate. Public schools need to stop blaming them for the problems with American education. I'm not wealthy or sending my kids to private, but many times wish we could just for the smaller classes and more innovative learning time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are mainly a way for rich parents to show off. Which means they will never go away, because there will always be people with money who have to set themselves apart.

So true!

I couldn't disagree with you more. There are many differences between the educational experience at a good private school and even the best public school. I really wish there was a way for them to get the same experience in public, but there isn't. Thus, we sweat the tuition bill and remind ourselves why it's worth it.

Not true. We do private and there are a few families who cram a couple kids into a one bedroom apartment, using every penny they have for private. Definitely not wealthy people showing off, rather a different outlook on education.

Just because there are a few families sacrificing for education doesn't mean that nobody else is showing off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are mainly a way for rich parents to show off. Which means they will never go away, because there will always be people with money who have to set themselves apart.

So true!

I couldn't disagree with you more. There are many differences between the educational experience at a good private school and even the best public school. I really wish there was a way for them to get the same experience in public, but there isn't. Thus, we sweat the tuition bill and remind ourselves why it's worth it.

Not true. We do private and there are a few families who cram a couple kids into a one bedroom apartment, using every penny they have for private. Definitely not wealthy people showing off, rather a different outlook on education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that school choice is one of the reasons public schools are improving. Previously (for example in those dismal 1980s) there had been no real reason or incentive for public schools to improve.

But now they are in a fight for their survival. In that light, having privates and charters is a very good thing, because it increases competetiveness, because families have options, and all schools will be in a fight for the money. They need to be able to improve and show results or face closure.

Except that Finland has no private schools and no school choice.

There's a huge cultural difference between Finland and DC. They actually value education there, and understand the power that an excellent education has toward improving one's lifestyle, instead of just considering it to be a wack white-people chase to nowhere the way many in DC do.

Finnish schools have a lot of diversity among them because they allow their teachers a lot of flexibility. US schools have 2.0 which dictates everything. Private schools and homeschools for better or worse are among the more innovative schools in this country and public schools have the benefit of watching them and implementing best practices without dealing with the learning curve that private schools go through.

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that school choice is one of the reasons public schools are improving. Previously (for example in those dismal 1980s) there had been no real reason or incentive for public schools to improve.

But now they are in a fight for their survival. In that light, having privates and charters is a very good thing, because it increases competetiveness, because families have options, and all schools will be in a fight for the money. They need to be able to improve and show results or face closure.

Except that Finland has no private schools and no school choice.

I'd argue that school choice is one of the reasons public schools are improving. Previously (for example in those dismal 1980s) there had been no real reason or incentive for public schools to improve.

But now they are in a fight for their survival. In that light, having privates and charters is a very good thing, because it increases competetiveness, because families have options, and all schools will be in a fight for the money. They need to be able to improve and show results or face closure.