In families with more than one child, parents usually assume—at least when the kids are very young—that they'll end up attending the same school. Often, parents move to an area specifically for the schools, planning their lives around the likely educational paths of all their children.
As kids get older, however, sometimes a school that seemed right for the first child isn't as good a fit for the second or third. The children may have very different personalities or learning styles; one child may thrive in a particular school while another seems to languish.
In such situations, carefully evaluating the educational needs of each child is crucial. Although sending everyone to the same school may be more convenient or desirable from other standpoints, doing so is not always the best decision.
Consider, for example, a family where the oldest child is quiet, introverted, and "bookish," while the youngest is highly social and very involved in sports and other school activities. The former may not do well in a large public high school where no one notices her and she feels too shy to approach teachers or other students. Her sibling, on the other hand, may be much happier and more successful in that environment than in a small, academically rigorous private school.
Financial considerations may also play a role in deciding whether or not to send kids to the same school. Although children from the same family might all do well at and be admitted to a nearby private school, their parents may only be able to afford to enroll one. This type of situation is particularly difficult, and because of the potential long-term ramifications of choosing one child over the other(s), keeping all the kids in public school may well be the best decision.
In sum, deciding whether or not your children should attend the same school isn't always easy. Sometimes the answer is clear, but more often, it isn't. Taking a close look at each child's educational needs, learning style, and personality—as well as the family's finances and any other relevant factors—is key to making a decision that will be in the best long- and short-term interests for as many family members as possible.
Showing posts with label Private vs. Public Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Private vs. Public Schools. Show all posts
Legacy Enrollment in Public School Districts
We've all heard of legacy admissions, which give preferential treatment to children of alumni, in private school and college admissions. But what if public school districts adopted similar enrollment policies for their K–12 students?
According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, two Southland school districts—Beverly Hills Unified and Santa Monica–Malibu Unified—have recently begun offering preferential enrollment to kids whose parents attended their schools (and, in the case of Beverly Hills, whose grandparents have lived in the district for at least 10 years). The idea is to strengthen ties both with alumni, who may be more likely to donate money or help out in other ways, and with grandparents still residing in the district—and voting on school-related measures—who no longer have a "direct stake" in area schools.
Critics question, among other things, the fairness and utility of legacy enrollment in public schools, while supporters argue that districts already offer spots to nonresident children whose parents work in the district or whose attendance will help boost state funding or achieve other district goals. So far, the percentage of students admitted under this new policy is minuscule: In Beverly Hills, just 11 out of 5,100 students.
In these dire economic times, when school districts are struggling with drastically cut budgets, instituting a policy offering preferential enrollment to those few students whose alumni parents may be more likely to offer support that will benefit the many seems worth trying. Doing so is particularly justifiable given that much larger numbers of nonresident children with no district school affiliation are already allowed to enroll. If a legacy enrollment policy proves problematic, with too many parents taking advantage of the situation, district officials can always revise or eliminate it. Remaining flexible and open to change is key if schools are to survive the current financial crisis.
According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, two Southland school districts—Beverly Hills Unified and Santa Monica–Malibu Unified—have recently begun offering preferential enrollment to kids whose parents attended their schools (and, in the case of Beverly Hills, whose grandparents have lived in the district for at least 10 years). The idea is to strengthen ties both with alumni, who may be more likely to donate money or help out in other ways, and with grandparents still residing in the district—and voting on school-related measures—who no longer have a "direct stake" in area schools.
Critics question, among other things, the fairness and utility of legacy enrollment in public schools, while supporters argue that districts already offer spots to nonresident children whose parents work in the district or whose attendance will help boost state funding or achieve other district goals. So far, the percentage of students admitted under this new policy is minuscule: In Beverly Hills, just 11 out of 5,100 students.
In these dire economic times, when school districts are struggling with drastically cut budgets, instituting a policy offering preferential enrollment to those few students whose alumni parents may be more likely to offer support that will benefit the many seems worth trying. Doing so is particularly justifiable given that much larger numbers of nonresident children with no district school affiliation are already allowed to enroll. If a legacy enrollment policy proves problematic, with too many parents taking advantage of the situation, district officials can always revise or eliminate it. Remaining flexible and open to change is key if schools are to survive the current financial crisis.
College Admissions: Making the Most of Your Opportunities
Yesterday a former admissions officer at Harvard spoke at a local school about college admissions. One of her main points was that what Harvard and other selective schools want to see is that applicants have made the most of whatever opportunities have been available to them. This means that where you've gone to high school doesn't matter nearly so much as which classes you've taken and your level of involvement with any extracurricular activities you've chosen, given the particular resources of your school.
As an admissions interviewer I've met with countless students from well-endowed top private prep schools to underfunded, languishing public schools. Although I'm always struck by the range of experiences students from the former often present, I'm just as impressed with what students from the latter have been able to achieve despite much more limited options.
In a very real sense, students who've had relatively few possibilities open to them and little personal attention over their high school careers may actually be better prepared for the real world. Because they've essentially had to forge their own way in high school, from appropriate course planning and selection to the entire college admissions process, they may well be more able to cope with the challenges of independent adulthood in college and beyond.
Students who have attended high schools with abundant academic, extracurricular, and personnel resources, however, have often been able to go further academically. Moreover, because of the wealth of their personal experiences, such students frequently offer a broader, more contemplative (as opposed to pragmatic) perspective on life.
The best thing about college is that students from diverse types of schools and dramatically different walks of life end up there together. No matter how limited or plentiful the opportunities were at your high school, the entire playing field is leveled once you arrive at college. And having to interact with students from very different backgrounds than your own is just as much of an education—and, often, stretch—as the classes themselves, regardless of where you went to high school.
As an admissions interviewer I've met with countless students from well-endowed top private prep schools to underfunded, languishing public schools. Although I'm always struck by the range of experiences students from the former often present, I'm just as impressed with what students from the latter have been able to achieve despite much more limited options.
In a very real sense, students who've had relatively few possibilities open to them and little personal attention over their high school careers may actually be better prepared for the real world. Because they've essentially had to forge their own way in high school, from appropriate course planning and selection to the entire college admissions process, they may well be more able to cope with the challenges of independent adulthood in college and beyond.
Students who have attended high schools with abundant academic, extracurricular, and personnel resources, however, have often been able to go further academically. Moreover, because of the wealth of their personal experiences, such students frequently offer a broader, more contemplative (as opposed to pragmatic) perspective on life.
The best thing about college is that students from diverse types of schools and dramatically different walks of life end up there together. No matter how limited or plentiful the opportunities were at your high school, the entire playing field is leveled once you arrive at college. And having to interact with students from very different backgrounds than your own is just as much of an education—and, often, stretch—as the classes themselves, regardless of where you went to high school.
The Importance of Giving Teachers Time
The other day I was chatting with a parent, and the conversation turned to a comparison between private and public schools. The topic is common among parents, particularly those who send their children to private schools after having had them in public schools. Understandably, parents generalize from their own children's individual experiences in their attempts to assess the differences between private and public schools (and, perhaps, to justify their hard-earned tuition dollars).
Although some observations private-school parents make can be questionable—such as that the teachers are "better" or the kids more motivated—one that came up in my recent conversation was that teachers in private schools have more time available to devote to students (which, in turn, helps kids academically and enriches their educational experience).
In general, this perception is true. Because of inadequate funding, classes in public schools are often much larger, which means public school teachers have less time available per student than do their private school counterparts. Moreover, free time can be—and often is—built into the schedules of private school teachers, allowing them to spend more hours correcting papers, giving feedback, meeting with students, and developing creative ways of teaching their subject matter.
This doesn't mean that private school teachers are inherently better—many, in fact, have years of public school teaching under their belts, and plenty of public school teachers devote countless hours of their own time to their students and classes after school, in the evenings, and on weekends. It simply means that private school teachers have an important resource—more time—that teachers in public schools typically don't.
As with other aspects of K–12 education, however, this difference is more important for some kids than for others—and at certain points in their schooling than at others. In other words, not only is the teaching in private schools not intrinsically superior to that in public schools, it also may not affect a particular student's educational achievement one way or the other—there are individual differences in how students respond to varying educational environments. As always, what's important is to evaluate the needs of your particular child at his or her specific developmental stage and choose a school—public or private—that will be a good fit.
Although some observations private-school parents make can be questionable—such as that the teachers are "better" or the kids more motivated—one that came up in my recent conversation was that teachers in private schools have more time available to devote to students (which, in turn, helps kids academically and enriches their educational experience).
In general, this perception is true. Because of inadequate funding, classes in public schools are often much larger, which means public school teachers have less time available per student than do their private school counterparts. Moreover, free time can be—and often is—built into the schedules of private school teachers, allowing them to spend more hours correcting papers, giving feedback, meeting with students, and developing creative ways of teaching their subject matter.
This doesn't mean that private school teachers are inherently better—many, in fact, have years of public school teaching under their belts, and plenty of public school teachers devote countless hours of their own time to their students and classes after school, in the evenings, and on weekends. It simply means that private school teachers have an important resource—more time—that teachers in public schools typically don't.
As with other aspects of K–12 education, however, this difference is more important for some kids than for others—and at certain points in their schooling than at others. In other words, not only is the teaching in private schools not intrinsically superior to that in public schools, it also may not affect a particular student's educational achievement one way or the other—there are individual differences in how students respond to varying educational environments. As always, what's important is to evaluate the needs of your particular child at his or her specific developmental stage and choose a school—public or private—that will be a good fit.
Obama's School Choice
It's now common knowledge that Barack Obama sends his kids to private school—specifically, the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, one of the nation's leading independent schools (and, in the interests of full disclosure, one of my own alma maters). Some pundits have criticized this choice as being hypocritical since Obama favors reforming public schools and opposes school vouchers that would allow parents who might not have the wherewithal to send their children to private schools to make that same choice.
Although this criticism may seem well founded, it confuses the personal with the political, and individual circumstances with overarching ideals. The school choices we make for our children may not necessarily be the ones we would make in a perfect world—rather, they are the ones we make given a host of factors: each child's unique personality and needs at a particular developmental stage, the quality of public and private schools in our community, the amount we can afford to pay for education, and so on.
It is true that some parents have more choices than others, simply by virtue of their financial and educational circumstances. But this doesn't mean that less well-off or educated parents have no choice and are inevitably forced to send their children to crowded, poorly performing public schools.
Nor does it mean that private schools are always better than public schools or that private school is the default best choice. School vouchers are a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Sending one's child to a good private school—with or without financial aid—in a community with relatively poor public schools, while simultaneously supporting the reform of public schools and opposing school vouchers, is a realistic, rational, and, perhaps most important, individual parental position.
Whatever our political persuasion on this issue, though, today is an opportunity to make our feelings known. Only by voting will there be any chance of improving the status quo.
Although this criticism may seem well founded, it confuses the personal with the political, and individual circumstances with overarching ideals. The school choices we make for our children may not necessarily be the ones we would make in a perfect world—rather, they are the ones we make given a host of factors: each child's unique personality and needs at a particular developmental stage, the quality of public and private schools in our community, the amount we can afford to pay for education, and so on.
It is true that some parents have more choices than others, simply by virtue of their financial and educational circumstances. But this doesn't mean that less well-off or educated parents have no choice and are inevitably forced to send their children to crowded, poorly performing public schools.
Nor does it mean that private schools are always better than public schools or that private school is the default best choice. School vouchers are a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Sending one's child to a good private school—with or without financial aid—in a community with relatively poor public schools, while simultaneously supporting the reform of public schools and opposing school vouchers, is a realistic, rational, and, perhaps most important, individual parental position.
Whatever our political persuasion on this issue, though, today is an opportunity to make our feelings known. Only by voting will there be any chance of improving the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
