Private School Trash talk thread

[east hockey]

Howie Hanson lays it down in the STrib about an early look at this season. Only A team he bothers to mention is everyone's favorite.

http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvo ... 81961.html

Actually, it looks like Howie managed to copy down Loren Nelson's opinions.

Which, as far as Howie's coverage of anything hockey-related goes, is actually a dramatic improvement.

Howie who? Howie what? Reminds me, I gotta take my dog out for a crap.

Lee

[thefatcat]

My lil' Johnny Superstar will attend BSM not because of athletics in spite of the fact that his life goal at age 7 is to play hockey for the Red Knights....but because my hardcore Catholic wife (who attended a Catholic school) insists that he will attend BSM. At first I was against it but then I realized that the schools in ISD 281 aren't that great

[deacon64]

My lil' Johnny Superstar will attend BSM not because of athletics in spite of the fact that his life goal at age 7 is to play hockey for the Red Knights....but because my hardcore Catholic wife (who attended a Catholic school) insists that he will attend BSM. At first I was against it but then I realized that the schools in ISD 281 aren't that great

Not a fan of private schools, reality is the quality of education in today's public schools is disappointing! Not all but too many.

[MNHockeyFan]

...reality is the quality of education in today's public schools is disappointing!

That's being generous.

[rainier]

...reality is the quality of education in today's public schools is disappointing!

That's being generous.

The belief that private school education is significantly better than public school education is a MYTH. What drives me insane is that these private schools only allow in the top students-students that would excel at any school they attended-and then claim that they have better academics.

You have to pass entrance exams to get into STA, Duluth Marshall does not have special education students, etc. These private schools thrive on the quality of their students, not the quality of their academic programs.

I would love to see Minneapolis North and STA switch student bodies for a year, and then compare test scores. I'm guessing they would be the same as before the switch.

Some public schools have deteriorated academically, but the vast majority of public schools are just as good as any overpriced academy.

Don't believe the hype.

[bemused]

...reality is the quality of education in today's public schools is disappointing!

That's being generous.

The belief that private school education is significantly better than public school education is a MYTH......

I would love to see Minneapolis North and STA switch student bodies for a year, and then compare test scores. I'm guessing they would be the same as before the switch.

i can't read anymore..

[MNHockeyFan]

As a rule private schools attract more motivated students than public schools. To use your example, just look at the student bodies of Mpls. North vs. STA. How would you think they compare in terms of the percentage of kids who graduate, or get accepted into top colleges?

Being surrounded by more motivated students can only help those who come in not being as motivated. Teachers also thrive in the more educational atmosphere, and everyone benefits. Competition between schools and smaller class sizes make a difference.

P.S. Look at politicians who go to Washington D.C. to serve in Congress, etc. How many do you think put their own kids into the local public school system?

[thestickler07]

The talented and bright can be found and can succeed in any public school around. Central has a good number of kids in their AP/CIS programs that would excel at any academic program in the state, public or private.

As a rule private schools attract more motivated students than public schools. To use your example, just look at the student bodies of Mpls. North vs. STA. How would you think they compare in terms of the percentage of kids who graduate, or get accepted into top colleges?

You pretty much hit it on the head. At the top there is probably a lot more parity between the SPA/Breck/STAs and the Central/Mpls Norths of the world, but top to bottom the private schools obviously have a sizable edge in kids attending college, graduation rates, etc.

How many do you think put their own kids into the local public school system?

Not many if any.

[almostashappy]

The belief that private school education is significantly better than public school education is a MYTH. What drives me insane is that these private schools only allow in the top students-students that would excel at any school they attended-and then claim that they have better academics.

You have to pass entrance exams to get into STA, Duluth Marshall does not have special education students, etc. These private schools thrive on the quality of their students, not the quality of their academic programs.

I would love to see Minneapolis North and STA switch student bodies for a year, and then compare test scores. I'm guessing they would be the same as before the switch.

Some public schools have deteriorated academically, but the vast majority of public schools are just as good as any overpriced academy.

Don't believe the hype.

Great points, but it is also fair to point out that we have drifted far from "The Minnesota Miracle" and the days of public school funding that is equalized across the state. As more and more of the school tax burden has shifted from State government to local property taxes, adequate funding of local schools increasingly depends on how rich a school district is (or how willing its local residents are to vote higher property taxes upon themselves). Money doesn't guarantee success, but it certainly doesn't hinder academic achievement.

Specific mention was made of ISD281...this is a classic example. There's a school district boundary line that runs down the center of the City of Plymouth. Live one house to the east of that line, and your kids go to Robbinsdale School District. Live one house to the west...and your kids are in the Wayzata district. Now, there's nothing wrong with going to schools in ISD281 (especially if you compare them with schools outside of Minnesota). But to claim that Armstrong or Cooper High School offer just as much opportunity as Wayzata University would be silly. Look at the value of comparable homes on either side of the boundary, and you can actually monetize the perceived value of one school district over the other.

Of course, if it really was the poor quality of local public schools that was driving a family to enroll their kids at BSM, then the simple solution would be to move your family into a better school district. The homes might cost more and the local taxes might be higher, but I doubt that the incremental increase in mortgage payments and property taxes would exceed the aggregate tuition costs for a private high school (especially if there is more than one kid in the family).

[Shinbone_News]

The belief that private school education is significantly better than public school education is a MYTH. What drives me insane is that these private schools only allow in the top students-students that would excel at any school they attended-and then claim that they have better academics.

You have to pass entrance exams to get into STA, Duluth Marshall does not have special education students, etc. These private schools thrive on the quality of their students, not the quality of their academic programs.

I would love to see Minneapolis North and STA switch student bodies for a year, and then compare test scores. I'm guessing they would be the same as before the switch.

Some public schools have deteriorated academically, but the vast majority of public schools are just as good as any overpriced academy.

Don't believe the hype.

What a silly thing to say. You're taking the "talent trumps coaching" argument to new and irrational heights. Quality private schools attract and keep quality students, yes, by offering great academics. It's not a scam as you make it out to be. If they didn't keep those kids engaged, they wouldn't keep them enrolled.

Can public schools offer great academics too, and keep motivated kids challenged? Of course they can. Do they? Some do, some don't. But when your "customer" is paying public school taxes AND private school tuition, you can bet they're probably scrutinizing their return on investment pretty closely.

I sort of love your populist argument, but it's actually kind of a crock. I agree on one point: great students can excel WHEREVER they go to school.

I say all of this as the parent of two public high school students who have some great teachers, and some lousy ones. But their most common complaint is that they aren't challenged enough -- in their words, "it's frickin' boring half the time." Oddly, I have never heard that complaint from their luckier, wealthier friends who are at private schools and whose most common comment is how much homework they have and how hard it is.

If they wanted to go to a private shcool, and if i could afford it, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

[C-dad]

Of course, if it really was the poor quality of local public schools that was driving a family to enroll their kids at BSM, then the simple solution would be to move your family into a better school district. The homes might cost more and the local taxes might be higher, but I doubt that the incremental increase in mortgage payments and property taxes would exceed the aggregate tuition costs for a private high school (especially if there is more than one kid in the family).

We moved our kid from one of the top public school systems in the state to a private school this year. The difference is remarkable already. My kid is smart, but not organized or well motivated (as are many 15 yo boys). the difference at the private is that the teachers ALL really care how every kid is doing. At the public they were concerned about keeping the trouble makers in line and helping the high performing kids. Admittedly the private will simply boot a trouble maker out so they don't have that distraction.

My wife put it well after parent-teacher conferences. In previous years we heard all the things that our son was not doing, or not doing well. This year we heard "how can I help him?"

We were motivated because we know several families who had gone through the same things with their sons and had seen similar dramatic improvements when they moved to a private school. It sure as hell wasn't for athletic reasons because my kid has no more chance of making varsity at the private than he did at the public (next to none given my genes I passed on to him).

[almostashappy]

We moved our kid from one of the top public school systems in the state to a private school this year. The difference is remarkable already. My kid is smart, but not organized or well motivated (as are many 15 yo boys). the difference at the private is that the teachers ALL really care how every kid is doing. At the public they were concerned about keeping the trouble makers in line and helping the high performing kids. Admittedly the private will simply boot a trouble maker out so they don't have that distraction.

My wife put it well after parent-teacher conferences. In previous years we heard all the things that our son was not doing, or not doing well. This year we heard "how can I help him?"

We were motivated because we know several families who had gone through the same things with their sons and had seen similar dramatic improvements when they moved to a private school. It sure as hell wasn't for athletic reasons because my kid has no more chance of making varsity at the private than he did at the public (next to none given my genes I passed on to him).

I would never begrudge or complain about parents who do what they think is best for their children (unless, maybe, they were motivated by racism). I would find more fault with a parent who didn't provide their kids with the best possible learning environment that they could afford. And it would be a bit hypocritical...when we bought a house within a city that is split between three different school districts, we told our agent to not even bother showing us listings that were located in two out of the three.

I do think that it's a bit unfair to imply that public school teachers don't care as much about their students as private school instructors. It's a helluva lot easier to show that you care for ALL of your students when you only have HALF as many of them in your classroom (and NONE of trouble makers). Not to mention better equipment, a much higher percentage of involved parents, and fewer special needs students to service.

[karl(east)]

P.S. Look at politicians who go to Washington D.C. to serve in Congress, etc. How many do you think put their own kids into the local public school system?

Well, few (if any) politicians move their families with them to DC. Presidents do, and they put their kids in private schools, but this is first and foremost a security and privacy-related call.

DC (where I lived while in college) is also one of the most segregated cities you'll ever see (not just in terms of race, but also wealth). Suburban DC has some of the top-rated school districts in the country. The public schools in the northwest part of the city proper are just fine--not up to the levels of some of the incredibly wealthy, well-endowed, centuries-old private schools in the region, but places where plenty of very well-off people feel comfortable sending their own kids. East DC, on the other hand, is a house of horrors when it comes to education. Conditions are appalling, security is a real concern, and the graduation rate is pitiful.

My opinion on all of this is a bit skewed, since I realize I'm one of the few people who chose a public school over a private school for the academics. I then went to a fairly well-known private university where many of the students were graduates from the nation's top private schools. There was no real intelligence gap between the private school and the public school kids, though I think some of the private school kids were better at working within "the system." (And I'm not judging that one way or the other--obviously it has its advantages, but it also comes with a certain mindset, and some critics--though I don't really buy this--will argue that the private school grads will thus have gained advantages that they didn't really deserve.)

I also think going to a public school exposed me to a certain class of people that I never would have interacted with at a private school. I thought that was a good thing for me, as I think I understand these people better than people raised in a private school bubble. However, I can see how that class of people could be a negative influence on some kids, and also that this just doesn't matter to plenty of people, and I'm not one to hold that against them.

[C-dad]

We moved our kid from one of the top public school systems in the state to a private school this year. The difference is remarkable already. My kid is smart, but not organized or well motivated (as are many 15 yo boys). the difference at the private is that the teachers ALL really care how every kid is doing. At the public they were concerned about keeping the trouble makers in line and helping the high performing kids. Admittedly the private will simply boot a trouble maker out so they don't have that distraction.

My wife put it well after parent-teacher conferences. In previous years we heard all the things that our son was not doing, or not doing well. This year we heard "how can I help him?"

We were motivated because we know several families who had gone through the same things with their sons and had seen similar dramatic improvements when they moved to a private school. It sure as hell wasn't for athletic reasons because my kid has no more chance of making varsity at the private than he did at the public (next to none given my genes I passed on to him).

I would never begrudge or complain about parents who do what they think is best for their children (unless, maybe, they were motivated by racism). I would find more fault with a parent who didn't provide their kids with the best possible learning environment that they could afford. And it would be a bit hypocritical...when we bought a house within a city that is split between three different school districts, we told our agent to not even bother showing us listings that were located in two out of the three.

I do think that it's a bit unfair to imply that public school teachers don't care as much about their students as private school instructors. It's a helluva lot easier to show that you care for ALL of your students when you only have HALF as many of them in your classroom (and NONE of trouble makers). Not to mention better equipment, a much higher percentage of involved parents, and fewer special needs students to service.

I don't know what the teachers' motivations are, I just see the results. It was clear that the public school teachers and administrators could not be bothered by us and our son - he was not a trouble maker and not failing so why did we keep bugging them was the attitude. While the top public school my kid used to go to had some great teachers, it had some mediocre ones and some genuinely crappy ones as well. So far (limited sample admittedly) I only see great ones at the private.

[rainier]

Why do I think the notion that private schools have better academics is a myth?

Because research supports it. I had to write a paper on this topic a few years ago and my research found study after study showing it is indeed a myth.

Center on Education Policy: "Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance. Instead, it appears that private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment based on their previous performance and background."

University of Illinois: "a recent study by the husband-and-wife team of Sarah Thuele Lubienski and Christopher Lubienski, researchers at the University of Illinois-Champaign, found that when they controlled for a family’s socioeconomic background, public-school kids slightly outperformed private-school kids."

U.S. Education Department: "As with previous studies, this one debunked the widely held belief that public schools were inferior to their private and religious counterparts."

I'm glad the private schools are good at hockey, it gives me more villains to root against. But as for academics, I'll repeat what I said before:

Don't believe the hype.

[Shinbone_News]

Why do I think the notion that private schools have better academics is a myth?

Because research supports it. I had to write a paper on this topic a few years ago and my research found study after study showing it is indeed a myth.

Center on Education Policy: "Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance. Instead, it appears that private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment based on their previous performance and background."

University of Illinois: "a recent study by the husband-and-wife team of Sarah Thuele Lubienski and Christopher Lubienski, researchers at the University of Illinois-Champaign, found that when they controlled for a family’s socioeconomic background, public-school kids slightly outperformed private-school kids."

U.S. Education Department: "As with previous studies, this one debunked the widely held belief that public schools were inferior to their private and religious counterparts."

I'm glad the private schools are good at hockey, it gives me more villains to root against. But as for academics, I'll repeat what I said before:

Don't believe the hype.

Precisely the point we agree on: Good students will excel in any environment. But they'll be unhappy in an unchallenging one.

Just because public schools don't uniformly suck doesn't mean privates uniformly do, nor that the latter is automatically a waste of money.

Did any of your studies look at the average annual income of, say, a Harvard graduate versus a UW-Stout graduate? Just saying. What the metric is matters. Test scores? Average income? Relative happiness?

[Survey]

We moved our kid from one of the top public school systems in the state to a private school this year. The difference is remarkable already. My kid is smart, but not organized or well motivated (as are many 15 yo boys). the difference at the private is that the teachers ALL really care how every kid is doing. At the public they were concerned about keeping the trouble makers in line and helping the high performing kids. Admittedly the private will simply boot a trouble maker out so they don't have that distraction.

My wife put it well after parent-teacher conferences. In previous years we heard all the things that our son was not doing, or not doing well. This year we heard "how can I help him?"

We were motivated because we know several families who had gone through the same things with their sons and had seen similar dramatic improvements when they moved to a private school. It sure as hell wasn't for athletic reasons because my kid has no more chance of making varsity at the private than he did at the public (next to none given my genes I passed on to him).

I would never begrudge or complain about parents who do what they think is best for their children (unless, maybe, they were motivated by racism). I would find more fault with a parent who didn't provide their kids with the best possible learning environment that they could afford. And it would be a bit hypocritical...when we bought a house within a city that is split between three different school districts, we told our agent to not even bother showing us listings that were located in two out of the three.

I do think that it's a bit unfair to imply that public school teachers don't care as much about their students as private school instructors. It's a helluva lot easier to show that you care for ALL of your students when you only have HALF as many of them in your classroom (and NONE of trouble makers). Not to mention better equipment, a much higher percentage of involved parents, and fewer special needs students to service.

I don't know what the teachers' motivations are, I just see the results. It was clear that the public school teachers and administrators could not be bothered by us and our son - he was not a trouble maker and not failing so why did we keep bugging them was the attitude. While the top public school my kid used to go to had some great teachers, it had some mediocre ones and some genuinely crappy ones as well. So far (limited sample admittedly) I only see great ones at the private.

What would be this so called Top Public School you are referring to?

[thorhockey]

a Harvard graduate versus a UW-Stout graduate?

Hey, watch what example you use for your low end school
I happen to be a grad of Stout. At the time I felt "when in doubt go to Stout", but actually was making six figures until the economy bit me in the ass.
GO BLUE DEVILS

[stpaul]

Don't believe the hype.

C-dad, you apparently are not supposed to believe your own eyes.

[HShockeywatcher]

I don't know what the teachers' motivations are, I just see the results. It was clear that the public school teachers and administrators could not be bothered by us and our son - he was not a trouble maker and not failing so why did we keep bugging them was the attitude. While the top public school my kid used to go to had some great teachers, it had some mediocre ones and some genuinely crappy ones as well. So far (limited sample admittedly) I only see great ones at the private.

The issue with discussing this here is that people want to talk about reality as "attacks." There are many limitations that public schools nationwide face. The responsibility of students' test scores, regardless of what students do, is the sole responsibility of the teacher. The vast majority of educators get into the profession for all of the "right" reasons. Many learn to "play the game" and others leave the profession. There are reasons there is great turnover in the public education field. There are many factors to that.

The teachers at private schools and public schools are very rarely much different from each other. The situations they are put in are, though, much different.
Additionally, many public schools aren't "bad," it is the people that go to them that are "bad". Much like rainer's example, if you switch the students at "affluent suburban school of your choice" and "poor inner city school of your choice" the same students would likely do well. There are minor differences, but overall from what I have seen, it is not the school itself that is the issue.

rainer makes some good points. My issue is the extensions he makes from them:
If you are a committed hockey player, would it be better for your development to be on a) a team full of other committed hockey players or b) a team with some committed players and some not very as committed players?

Very few (myself included) say that "the academics are better." It is more along the lines of "the setting for learning/education are better" which doesn't dispute the quotes you gave.

I have seen both settings first hand on numerous occasions and know that it is more complex than saying one is better than the other.

I'd honestly be curious to hear how they measured the "achievements" between these socioeconomically controlled groups as there are very few measuring sticks that can be comparable between the two.

Don't believe the hype.

C-dad, you apparently are not supposed to believe your own eyes.

[old goalie85]

I think they should have an all Catholic Christmas tourny. Hill/St Thomas/R Lourds/St Cloud C/BSM/Holy Family/Breck ?/ SSM/ you get the idea.

[Tenoverpar]

Old Goalie...I'm with you except I would like to see an all-privates "section" for State

[elliott70]

Private schools, yuck.

We don't need them.

Put them all in Washington DC area and Massachusetts.

[oldschoolpuckster]

Be careful what you wish for...if there is an all private State tourney you will see the AA tourney turn into the JV tourney and the A turn into the Jr. Gold tourney. Many of the top players (and teams) are the privates and this will attract the better players (or parents) to play in the best State tournament.

Look at what's happening in youth!! Many kids are "moving" into programs that offer AA instead of just A at Squirts, Pee Wee and Bantams. This is a slippery slope and it is going to get out of control. Look at all of the threads on the youth side...more than a few talk about AA vs. A when last year they were all the same?!?!

Not good!!

[Shinbone_News]

Be careful what you wish for...if there is an all private State tourney you will see the AA tourney turn into the JV tourney and the A turn into the Jr. Gold tourney. Many of the top players (and teams) are the privates and this will attract the better players (or parents) to play in the best State tournament.

Look at what's happening in youth!! Many kids are "moving" into programs that offer AA instead of just A at Squirts, Pee Wee and Bantams. This is a slippery slope and it is going to get out of control. Look at all of the threads on the youth side...more than a few talk about AA vs. A when last year they were all the same?!?!

Not good!!

Totally agree. People don't remember back to the days of the Private School state championship. It always left a question in the air -- which team is really the best in the state?

What would people complain about if they didn't have the David vs. Goliath storyline of Hermantown against big bad old STA? Edina vs. Benilde?

Another thing: Go to STA's rink sometime. You'll see that concessions are run by Sibley. You'll see youth practices on the sheet -- mostly Sibley. Ask a Sibley stud where he wants to play high school. Odds are, he'll say STA. The fact is, most privates actually do have feeder community associations, and often the better players have aspirations to play for that private because that's what the studs in their association do/have done. Obviously, this poses a problem for Sibley's high school program. Same is true of Highland and Cretin-Durham. You don't see a lot of players "recruited" from OMG or Wayzata to attend Cretin or Hill-Murray. They have feeder associations.


At the other end of the spectrum, you have BSM who takes players from Edina, Wayzata, SLP and Minneapolis. In the first two cases, many players simply are looking for private options in an extremely competitive environment that seriously funnels down. (Consider Edina's EIGHT Bantam teams. How many of those kids will get to play varsity at EHS?) In the latter two, same sitch as Sibley. Programs that are struggling to keep the studs from their feeder associations, because they aren't competitive yet. That could change with guys like Podein and Dziedzic running the high school programs now, though.