What's better?

I'm torn as to whether to keep my kid in private school or to switch to public school to save money. She will be four yrs old in June. I've been paying for private school for almost a year now and montessori before that since she was 2 yrs old. She seems to be learning lots, she is definitely way more advanced that i was at her age as my parents didn't have the resources to send me to private school.

I've done some research and some people say that french immersion is a good way to get a good schooling free here in Canada. It's kind of the poor man's private school. So, if you have to go public then french immersion is the way to go.

Thus, I've thought of keeping her in private school till age 6 then sending her to french immersion (min age is 6). That way she can get a decent education and I can save more money. I can afford to send her to private school but i'm having another kid soon. Two kids in private school is still affordable but I'd rather not have to if I don't. I'm so torn. I feel bad if I don't give my kids the best that I can afford but i'm not so certain that private school is necessarily better. I went to public school and turned out half decent. FWIW i became a dentist. I'm not rich but i do ok.

I don't know anything about public schools in Canada, but I do know that there are some great public schools in the US and some terrible ones. Check out your options. It may even be worth moving if the finances of selling and buying another house work out. When Dave and I bought our house, the school district was a key factor for me. I ruled out certain areas due to their schools.

French immersion sounds cool, btw.

Yeah, I think you have to look around and compare schools and results and costs and see what you can afford.

Here in MN, private schools are better, but public schools are pretty good, so unless you are rich, private schools are not worth it. In most of NJ, when I lived there, public schools were terrible (except for the richest suburbs), and sending your kid there was a form of abuse. For example, I worked with a guy in NJ who was one of 8 people who graduated from his class of over 200. Here in MN, in St. Cloud, high schools graduate over 98% of their students (maybe it's just one school, I'm not sure).

Schools are very, very local, so unless someone here lives in your town, advice here will be patchy.

save money for what? what are you going to use that money on thats more important? i'd guess nothing.

fancy watches obviously

Maybe a private instead of public college if his kids want to go to one.

Yeah, not sure about the school systems in Canada. I live in Loudoun County, VA (right outside DC), and it is the richest county in the country, and the public schools here are some of the best in the country, so I have no reason to send them anywhere else (and I am by no means rich, although some of the bastards that live near me are).

A question for anyone that wants to answer. When I lived in Indiana we were going to send our kids (twins) to a private preschool, and they teach them French. Now I can understand it in Canada where it is a part of your heritage and all, but why would you teach kids in America French? I mean, about 136 million people speak French as a first language, compared to over 1 billion that speak Chinese and about 340 million that speak Spanish. Especially for future business, I would think Spanish, Chinese, or Japanese would be way more beneficial than French. I understand that, at least here in the states, French is considered a "cultured" language, but what good will it do in the future business world. Just a question.

Peace.

I can't really comment on what it's like today as my kid is 7 months old. I went to public school.

I have a lot friends who went to private school & catholic schools, only know a couple of people who went to french immersion in grade school. Private school was mostly the wealthy & preps, although the same bullying exists in every school, that's unavoidable. Whether or not the education is that much better is up for debate, I tend to think real education starts after high shool, where money would be better spent.

Your situation might be a lot different though, being in school at the age of 2, I'm sure your child is much more advanced than the average kid going into kindergarden.

Here in Canada you take French from grade 1-9 regardless of the school you go to. Je ne parle pas francais.

Languages are a gateway to culture and communication. Any opportunity to introduce a child to a new language should be embraced.

False.

I totally agree with you, just thinking that wouldn't a different language be better?

Maybe, but French is so accessible. It can also be a solid foundation for understanding and learning Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, which opens up the entire Western Hemishpere.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the impact of Arabic and Mandarin, but they are very different language groups. However, the earlier a child is exposed to a language, the likelihood of fluency is increased on an almost exponential basis, unless there is exceptional natural aptitude.

but, but, the children are the future.

but, but, the children are the future.

Why...the kids speaks english already.

Let everyone else learn our language.

I mean, we are the rulers of the free world.

I sent one kid to private, 3 to public.

The private schools are often times the way for rich people to get their problem kids into some school rather than actually spend time with them at home. So you get a lot of disruptive kids some times.

But they have much better control to kick kids out for minor infractions should they feel the kid is disruptive.

Overall though the question you must ask is: "Which one will give my child the best chance to quit school and play online poker?"

I did my schooling in Quebec, Canada. In elementary I went to a bit of a unique public school program where from kindergarten to grade 3 it was exclusively french, then from grade 4 to 6 it was one day french and one day english. Within the same small city there were french schools and english schools and I know people from both those schools who are fluent in one language and poor in the other. In that sense I came out way ahead of both of them. They can get by in each language, but when they are doing an interview and they struggle to speak the language fluently they are disadvantaged. Being in Canada, french is the best choice for a second language (more so in Quebec obv), I would assume Spanish would be more useful in the US.

I live and work in Montreal and being fluent in french and english is so valuable to me. I definitely recommend teaching your kid a second language, it'll give him/her a huge leg up on everyone else.

In Indianapolis, Spanish is the best choice. Our Latino population has exploded in the past decade. We have 200 ESL kids at the school where I work. >190 of them speak Spanish as their first language.

Of course, my 9th grader decided to take German. Go figure.



You took French for 9 years and you don't speak it? Damn! I'm pursuing my bachelors degree in Spanish. I wanted to choose French, but it's not very useful here in the Midwest.

I am Canadian, and was in French Immersion from the earliest it was available.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP's understanding is correct. Immersion in most Canadian schools is basically free private school. You will find a much higher level of learning there. In some smaller schools, it is such a discrepancy that special education classes do not exist - the remedial and non-immersion classes are combined. Even ignoring those highly offensive examples, immersion is a great program regardless of what you think of learning a different language. Immersion programs are designed to provide extra challenge at a younger age, rather than just teach french.

I grew up in Toronto, so what goes for Toronto public schools may not be the same for all. But Toronto public schools are almost aristocratic. It's for people who think public schools are for poor kids and/or that they are better than other people...not for people who want to learn more. Any parents who I've talked to who sent their kids to private school did so because they expected someone with a degree from a recognizable school would have a better chance at getting into a good American university. There is a big difference (in my limited experience) between the public/private decision in Canada and the US.

In my opinion, a private school only makes sense in Canada if you're local school(s) are particularly bad.

You'd be better off saving the money and putting it in an RESP so your kid can take a degree or two without working and start his adult life without significant debt.

Thx everyone for their responses, most were very enlightening except for the stupid comments of suitedaces21 and grocerymony, obv they are either immature idiots or teenagers/early twenties that don't have families of their own.

Balloonguy of course i know is just a jokester. wondering y you sent one kid to private school and the others to public? was the one kid really bad?

Danny, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you and what do you do? Im glad you confirmed that french immersion is good. I'm leaning heavily toward sending my girl there when she is old enough. I would rather save the money towards her post secondary education/future house/wedding/other if the free schooling is good.

The conclusion i get here is that public schools are largely area dependent, more so in the US than here in Canada. Private schools are not necessarily better, that it is largely a function of the area and the type of kids that are in there. Thus, one cannot in generality say one is better than the other.

BTW, has anyone here ever read freakonomics? if so, you may know the point that i'm thinking of right now.

From the guy that trolls S7S every chance he gets.

I am in my early (mid?) 20's. I have a decent job with a bank.

In the interest of full disclosure, I only took immersion until grade 3. After that, I transferred to an enriched program. I didn't want to then, and still think it was a bad decision. The education the immersion kids received was every bit as challenging as the enriched kids, and probably more so.

I recommend visiting the school, and talking to some of the french teachers about their backgrounds. There is a big difference in the quality of teachers in this type of program.

I took nine years of French, but it was maybe an hour a day. I can count and say the alphabet. I know the days and the months and the basic words. I can get the gist of things when I read it, but I can't understand it at all or speak it in more than a simple connection of basic words, mostly nouns.

where i grew up, the second language offered was ukrainian.

Home

I don't troll S7S. I just don't like Steve. I have no issues with any of his students if that's what you are. I don't even know you. Let the man fight his own fight, I have no legit beef with you other than the senseless squabbling in this thread, so if it's ok with you, let's drop it.




thx danny, i was also in the enhanced program since grade 3. Honestly i didn't really like it too much, i just felt like I was getting extra homework all the time. Maybe it did help me though, who knows but I know other kids that were in the regular program that ended up becoming dentists as well so dunno if it helped me that much.




yah, me too. i took french till i finished high school.

Are you just referring to Levitt's point that people have a bad habit of believing that because something costs more, it is necessarily better (e.g. carseat versus seatbelt)? Or is there a deeper point you're referencing? Haven't read Freakonomics yet, but I've seen him give a couple talks.

not a deeper point just a different point. The general idea that how well a child does in earlier years in school is largely a function of their socioeconomic status which is largely a function of a person's genetics as it relates to intelligence. In the book, it said that kids that come from better socioeconomic backgrounds tend to do better in school because their parents generally are more well to do and highly educated which means that their kids tend to be naturally smarter.

There are some examples they sight in the book, just off the top of my head as I remember them, here they are:

1) Which child will do better in school? Child A has books at home and his parents read to him all the time, Child B has books at home and his parents never read to him and Child C has no books at home but the parents take him to the library all the time to read. Which child does the worst in school? I thought the answer was B but apparently it's C. They say the reason is because since Child C's parents cannot afford to have books at home, they have a lower economic status thus they have inferior genetics with regard to intelligence.

2) An adopted child in a rich family will do worse in school than a natural born child in the same environment. Again it's related to the socioeconomic and genetics issue. A well educated, smart set of parents in a good socioeconomic background is unlikely to give their child up for adoption.

I was a little bit surprised to read that at first and they are bold claims. However, the book does say that the adopted child in a rich family can maximize his potential and end up with a good job, family etc. if they took advantage of a privileged upbringing. So, I was relieved to find that environmental issues can play a role in the long run. However, after I thought about it some more, genetics is a big factor in most things. If you are short, tall, fat, skinny, smart, athletic etc. all these things are largely determined by genetics, effort of course can change some of those things but we are all limited by our natural born limits.

good public school >> private school >>>> bad public school

It's all about your school district. But, if we're talking Freakonomics, your kids' friends will dictate how successful they are in high school and beyond more than any other external factor.

Geez, it's like Gattica.

I've never known anyone in category C. Have you? And maybe I just don't want to believe in the dominance of genetics, but another reason economic success predicts academic success is that the children of the very poor need to contribute more time for the material well-being of the family. E.g., the rich kid studies while the dish washer runs and the poor kid washes the dishes while the parents work second shift.

It's an interesting topic, and I certainly don't want to reject a conclusion just because it's uncomfortable, but I'm going to be skeptical.

It's a mix of a variety of factors involving socio-economics, genetic, etc...there are way too many correlation/causation issues to pin it on one thing.

I say we abolish all private schools and just lengthen the buses. It seems like the shorter the bus, the dumber the kids.

I don't really remember there being alot of french immersion schools around when i was young, i think there was only one in our city, so that was not really an option for me. However, after seeing my neice graduate from a french immersion high school and the opportunities that the education has opened for her, I would definately recommend it. I have a friend who also had a daughter go through the same program and she too is enjoying much more success. Especially in Canada, the ability to be bilingual (fluently) is so much more important. The french immersion program allows them to continue their education in either language (both are studying french in University), and opening more career choices for them. If i had children, i would think this would be the way to educate them, although i think they need to be open to it as well.

Private and it's not even close and should be obvious. More parents that care about their kids education.

I don't think it is as clear cut. There are some pretty crappy private schools and there are some exceptional public schools. It really depends on the area you live in.

If you spend as much time reading, talking, and playing with your kids as you do worrying about where you should be sending them for school, they'll be fine no matter where they go for school.

This is a very good point. If you live in Ontario, setting them up to go to immersion schools later will open up a lot of important opportunities. Of the few I know of, they are very good schools.

Wasn't his argument that the child's faith is already decided because of his parents upbringing and background? I don't remember him mentioning friends.

I think I remember a quick mention that, in the end, all the talk about nature vs. nurture (in terms of parenting) and crap like baby-naming is secondary to a child's friends, because that's been shown to have the strongest correlation to success in school (and therefore in life). I could be wrong or citing the wrong source.

Personally, the best grades I ever got were the years where my best friends were the smartest kids in school.

Therefore it must be true for everyone.

Yea I'm sure he said something like that but his biggest point was your child's name, school etc doesn't matter because its already been decided due to the parents education etc etc. I'm sure smart friends help too but what your parents background was is the biggest factor and names,schools etc had little effect which he "proved" through his stats.

Did you get good grades because you were friends with the smart kids or were you friends with the smart kids because you got good grades? Huh?! Think about that!

I think a good private school is better than a good public school. However, it could be true that a good public school is better than a mediocre or bad private school. A function of the area of course, the more affluent the area, the better the public school.



Great movie btw. I also think it's GATTACA. G-guanine, C-cytosine, T-thymine, and A-adenine. They are the base nucleotides that form base pairs in the DNA sequence, it's the etiology of the name of the movie. I like how the protagonist demonstrates that effort can overcome inferior genetics. I've always liked to believe this but unfortunately the amount of effort he had to put in was insane just to be normal in that society. He had surgery to lengthen his bones to be taller amongst other things. His willpower was second to none. we are unforunately bound tightly by our genetics and it's only with great effort that we can maximize our potential and even then, we may only be average.



Yes, C seems unlikely, however it is possible. When I was a kid we were not well off not because my parents were stupid but because they were immigrants and came over with nothing. However, my mom often took me to the library to read and I was academically gifted. So, C is possible. Again, A, B and C are generalities, of course there are always exceptions.







LOL



Good to know! thx. I'm leaning towards french immersion. Spoke with the school rep over the phone. Seems like a challenging program. If your kid can't handle it, they will let you know and you have the choice to put them in the regular program.




There is some truth to this. Again, it's the socioeconomic and genetics issue.




Also true. However, the good public schools will likely be in more affluent areas, so again linked to socioeconomics.




If i take this literally, obv the statement has to be untrue but i see your point. What you say is important but it does matter where they go to school.




This brings up another interesting point, kids with certain names do better than other kids (according to freakonomics).

I have the book in front of me and here is the gist of the material from page 191. A kid with a distinctively black name like Deshawn will do worse in life than a boy named Jake Williams. Again, likely that deshawn is linked to a low income, low education, single parent background.

Similarly, from page 197, girls named angel, heaven, misty or destiny likely have parents from low education backgrounds.

To address, the second issue, although it's not mentioned in the book, i'm sure a child's friends can influence the child. However, this is likely again linked to socioeconomic issues. If you live in an area with more highly educated people, the chances are that your child will have friends that are good influences and vice versa.

obviously, one cannot control too much of where they live since if you can only afford to live in a certain area, or if you can't afford private school, you do the best for your child that you can, like my parents did. It's possible to overcome adversity and long odds but if you can control certain external factors, why not?

Quality education starts at home. You can't buy it (I'm not saying that to you, Dratj, just making a general statement).

With that said, if you can afford a particular private school, and they are a good school, then go for it.

I taught at a private school for 14 years. It wasn't perfect, but it was a great place. And I agree with BG. Private school kid's can have their problems also.


Here's a video I just came across on Facebook (and caused me to think about this thread). It's about the principal of the middle school where I taught. You'd be lucky to find someone who cares about kids as much as this guy.

Jim Van Es

Yeah, that's why I thought the "naming" part of the book was a giant waste of space.



I looked it up the other day...I think it's page 155. He cites a study that shows exactly that and it was clear to me that he agreed with the findings.

What's better? your job as a poker room manager or your job as a private school teacher? what kinds of problems do you see with private school kids?

One problem I can see is that my kids may think they are poor if they go to private school whereas they would be one of the better off kids in public school.

You are right, a quality education starts at home with the parents. Parents are a huge influence on the children when they are younger.




yep, you are right. I read it too long ago, forgot about it. Good thing i agreed with it.

Having never taught in a public school, it's hard to compare the two. Also, different public schools can vary greatly in their general environment. One of my former coworkers recently switched to teaching in a public school, and is very happy. Obviously, she's at a good school.

Generally, the private school kids that I taught were great. They can still have problems, such as family life (divorce, etc...), but obviously didn't have to worry about coming to school hungry. I taught elementary school, but also worked with middle and high school kids. The high school was also a boarding school, and I did see some "problem kids" with rich parents who shipped their kids off to boarding school. The majority, though, were good kids.

Which job is better? Wow, that's a tough question.

Teaching Pro's:

You are making a difference in the lives of others, building a better future.
You gain the respect of your community (even after 10 years away, if I go back to that town and walk down the street, the chances are good that someone will recognize me and want to chat).
You get a lot of vacation time.
I loved coaching sports, and miss that the most.

Teaching Cons:
You live in a bubble, especially as a private school teacher.
Even with the vacation time, you work long hours. During the winter months, I would often work 30 days in a row and around 70 hours a week.
You take your work home with you.

Poker Pros:
If you are generally competent and do what your bosses tell you to do, it's easy to excel.
You get to work all night and sleep all day.
You don't take your work home with you. When you clock out, you can leave the BS behind (I can't tell you how great this is).

Poker Cons:
Little or no vacation time, and you WILL be working every holiday.
You are generally perceived to be an idiot. Well, that's not entirely true, but you do deal with that attitude a lot (I decided the other day that when someone talked to me like I'm an idiot, I should be able to challenge them to an IQ test for paychecks)


The pay is pretty similar. You neither get rich nor go hungry with either job.



Some of the best kids that I taught came from families with limited resources. It was obvious that education was important to the parents and this was reflected in the kids. There's a great story about one of these families. They were great people who obviously struggled to pay for their kids' education. A few years after I left the school, I heard they hit the lottery for 2 million.

very interesting sandwedge

i always thought that teachers had cushy jobs. Get off at 3:30, maybe mark a few papers and once you've taught a course a few times, the course prep is virtually nonexistent. Apparently i'm mistaken.

tell me what you were doing when you were working long hours and many days straight?

Glad your enjoying the poker job. How's the market nowadays? people still playing a lot in the b and m's? I haven't played in what seems like ages.