<p>Interesting how so many rich elites shill for public schools but send their own kids to private schools, while opposing reform that would allow poor kids trapped in crappy public schools to go to good private/parochial schools.</p>
<p>I don’t see any problem with this at all. Many, many people, including myself, support public schools. I feel it is very important to do so and to have the best possible public schools. And I put my money where my mouth is because I am paying the taxes for an excellent public school OPTION. Note I say OPTION as that may not be the right place for some or any of my kids or any of the kids living in our distrcit. But if that is the best or only option, I want it to be the best it could be. There are many who live n my district who have NO option but that public school one, and for them it is important that it is the best it could be.</p>
<p>My DH has groused for years that we pay so much in local taxes when we don’t and didn’t use the public schools system. In fact, some of my kids went to schools that were decidedly not as good in ratings and many provisions as the public ones in our district. Other factors came into play for them. So yes, one can support the public schools and yet not find them the best choice to take. </p>
<p>Many politicians,including the president of the US who advocate public schools send their kids to privates. When Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to the public school, it cost tax payers a huge premium in the security measures that required. But sending your child or frequenting a place is a whole other thing than supporting funds for it. I don’t see any hypocrisy in this at all. </p>
<p>Though I sent my kid to parochial schools that want the tax breaks, and, yes I would have so benefitted from them with 5 kids having gone that route, and paying so much for the public schools that I did not use, I feel as Matt Damon and others who do not support the vouchers that the money is better used towards a better public school OPTION for all in the district to have, then for those lucky enough in that district to have parents intrepid enough and to be able to be accepted to the private schools. Yes, you pay for that option. Why should that be supported over the school that is AVAILABLE for all. YOu want private, you pay for private for whatever the market will bear. And believe me, when you give such vouchers, the schools reset their cost based on that new goodie, and it gets swallowed up as any entitlement program does. I would prefer my tax dollars to go to the betterment of the public school, because that is always available to most everyone in the district. The private is not.</p>
<p>Why are you in favor of vouchers given the very positive outcome?</p>
<p>Why do you think the problem is that we are not spending enough money on public education given that we are spending more on education than nearly every country on earth?</p>
<p>Don’t you think that competition through a voucher would improve public schools?</p>
<p>Are you a public school teacher or a union member?</p>
<p>One unintended consequence of vouchers might be to attract middle class parents back to cities. Much of the flight of the middle class in the 60’s and 70’s was due to integration of schools in which the parents had NO choice. If you give parents the opportunity to choose a better school within a city they may come back bringing their income and their taxes with them. That would provide a larger tax base for the schools, not a smaller one. Just a thought.</p>
<p>I also sent my kid to private school but have always believed in was also my responsibility to support the public schools in my district. To that end I’ve always voted for my districts school budget and never complain about the thousands of dollars a year it costs. I am adamantly opposed to my tax dollars going to private schools.</p>
<p>If you read the article, the reason Damon doesn’t put his kids in public schools is because they aren’t progressive enough. I mean seriously, not progressive enough in LA!!!</p>
<p>Matt Damon’s whole thing is raising teachers’ salaries because I have heard him say that teaching is a shi**y job. And excuse me if I don’t feel sorry for them, but they all knew what they were getting into and virtually all the teachers I know are happy with their jobs.</p>
<p>It’s ironic how many elitists who send their kids to private schools have no sympathy for poor inner-city children who have traditionally been stuck in sub-par schools.</p>
<p>I remember thinking long and hard about this matter back when the Clintons decided that they were going to send Chelsea to Sidwell Friends instead of DC Public Schools. I remembered the Carters’ sending Amy to public school. At the time, I finally decided that it’s all well and good to have political positions, but it’s not always fair to use your children to make your own political statement. </p>
<p>When it comes to schooling, I think parents’ first obligation is to make the best choices for their children that they reasonably can. When those choices don’t align with their stated political positions, I try not to be critical.</p>
<p>Of course, if what you really want is just to bash the “Hollywood liberal elite,” what I say isn’t going to change any of that.</p>
<p>I also agree with cptofthehouse that it’s not necessarily inconsistent to send your children to private school and yet oppose vouchers. Tax dollars support education that is public, secular, and available to everyone. Many private schools are private because, whether it’s for political reasons or religious ones, they don’t want the government meddling in the education that they provide. That’s fine. But if you don’t want the meddling, you don’t have much of a claim on the public money.</p>
<p>Some people put their children in private schools because they offer other things such as religious education, or are going for a specific talent such as theater or music, which the public schools may not be able to offer. :)</p>
<p>I feel differently than you, Geo. I think teachers are between a rock and a hard place, reporting to many different constituencies, having restrictions on what they can do, requirements they have to meet, many balls to juggle, sometimes lack of funding, and lack of support. Oh, and meet the needs of how many kids who are each unique human beings while maintaining classroom control at all times. There’s a reason teachers burn out.</p>
<p>Same here. I wholeheartedly support public schools, and I feel that where I live we do not pay enough in property taxes to provide decent educational opportunities, especially to the brightest kids. I stay aware of school issues, and typically vote in favor of school bonds, even though I pay private school tuition. Unfortunately my local high school has to expend significant resources dealing with a 30% dropout rate and an average SAT of 870. They don’t have resources available for the high academic achievers, so I enrolled my kids in private school where they had more opportunities for AP and Honors classes, better extra-curricular offerings, and an environment more conducive to learning. I’m also not a huge supporter of vouchers. I would prefer to strengthen rather than undermine public schools. Yes, the kids who take advantage of the vouchers do better, but what about the kids left behind? The ones whose parents can’t transport them to a private school, or the ones whose parents don’t care enough? They’re left with public schools that get progressively worse. Those kids need a decent education too.</p>
<p>That study was done by the Heritage Foundation, which on its website says “Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”</p>
There’s a difference between being politically liberal and actually progressive when it comes to education. I know many teachers who’ve taught in LAUSD or other comparably bad ones. Of the ones I was close to, most reported far more curricular freedom at my good suburban high school than they had at their prior inner city school districts since they could reasonably expect that the students at the suburban high school could actually read and do things beyond basic arithmetic (remember, I’m talking about high schools here).</p>
<p>It’s all well and good to talk about a progressive curriculum, but what good are reenactments of historical events, or using a proof based system to teach calc if the students can’t read the Constitution or add up fractions?</p>
<p>Deborah, I said nothing about feelings. I said most of the teachers I know, who happen to have been doing the job for 25+ years, are happy with their jobs. And it doesn’t matter what your job is, there is always BS that one has to deal with.</p>
<p>With many it’s a status thing to send their kids to private school even when the publics are highly rated and have excellent teachers and scores on SATs and other standardized tests.</p>
<p>I have no idea, riprorin, why you see Damon’s support of public schools as hypocrisy. Many people support private schools because they offer choice, yet when someone selects one option over another, you now say they’re hypocritical. If you support people being free to choose, why don’t you feel they are free to choose?</p>
<p>The only thing that would be hypocritical would be if Damon were against private schools and sent his kids to private schools.</p>
<p>Both my kids went to inner city schools from kindergarten to graduation so I (and they!) not only walk the walk but talk the talk. And I fully support Matt Damon or anyone else sending their kids to whatever school they think is best. It makes me sad, though, because in many cases people choose alternatives without trying the public schools, when both the schools and their kids might have benefitted. Even in a troubled district, not every school is bad, and certainly not every kid is a troublemaking low achiever. </p>
<p>BTW, I would have moved either of my kids in a flash at the first sign of trouble. It never happened.</p>