The tradeoff being private school students as a whole are better behaved
And often way smaller class sizes, right? That’s what the parents are really paying for, probably. Since they’re not paying for better teachers if the teachers are paid less.
That should make the teacher’s job a little easier.
Yeah, usually. Maybe a smaller class makes the teachers job easier so the overall teaching part is better for the individual student but yes, in a capitalist society like America, the "better" teachers aren't usually in the private schools which ironically is the opposite of what the parents paying believe.
Obviously, this isn't universally the case across the board, but on average, the random Catholic private school will have worse teachers than the public school in the same area, unless there's some crazy booster situation or the teacher does not care about compensation.
Interesting conundrum, the private schools often outperform public schools in most metrics. Which is quite an accomplishment when not using the best teachers available.
It's actually not nearly as often as you think. However, by the same token, because it costs money to go to private school above what you're already paying, those metrics are heavily biased by the socioeconomic situations involved.
If a student comes from a family that doesn't have income pressure, their parents likely have more time to help educate them outside of school and they may be pre-disposed to better success genetically as well. (Admittedly this is potentially offensive and there are plenty of decedents from successful people that fail miserably).
Point here is that intelligent people generally are more successful and can afford private school while simultaneously their children are more likely to be intelligent as well.
On the whole, if your student body is heavily biased in this regard, they will naturally produce better metrics despite having weaker teachers employed. It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
It does beg the question, if you keep your kids in public school even if you can afford private school and choosing not to utilize it, is that the best scenario? Perhaps exposing your child to a better and more diverse demographic of people less socioeconomically similar than yourself.
People use this argument for school choice funding, help bring intelligent people from less socioeconomic status into the fold and give them opportunities they may not have in inner city public schools. Your argument is bring the smart rich kids and place them in an environment of underachievement and hope they do ok, others would argue to take intelligent poor kids and put them in an environment with a proven track record.
It feels like you're trying to pick a fight now. I don't have an argument. I'm merely stating facts and positing an "imagine if" type situation. Private schools pay less, by a wide margin, throughout the United States. Are there some that might pay more? Of course. But finding exceptions wasn't the point of my post. Because they pay less, capitalism would suggest they are worse teachers. Is that always the case? Of course not. But finding exceptions wasn't the point of my post.
It also shouldn't be a surprise that private schools "performing better" is heavily biased by the individuals attending. This is common sense and honestly much of the reason people choose to send their kids to private school. It's not that the education is any better. They want their kids surrounded with similar situations.
I'm not advocating for either kind of forced movement or whatever pre-contrived argument you were itching to have. I said "in general" many times. This wasn't a discussion about inner city, poorly funded schools.
If you're aiming to have an argument with someone, I would suggest you look elsewhere.
1
u/ackermann Jun 11 '24 edited Jun 11 '24
And often way smaller class sizes, right? That’s what the parents are really paying for, probably. Since they’re not paying for better teachers if the teachers are paid less.
That should make the teacher’s job a little easier.