This week: Mr. Chips, myth or reality?

We've all heard the Catholic school horror stories: cruel nuns, endless Stations of the Cross, and the installation of lifelong guilt. In To Sir, with Bunk, editorial director Josh Glenn discusses a study which suggests that the community of shared values and faith gives a Catholic school a quality learning environment that a secular public school just can't match. Does this jibe with your experience? Or would we all have been better off at a private academy like Exeter? How about foreign schools? Emma tells us that English boarding schools are not exactly a cup of tea. Clue us in to the advantages (or disadvantages) of your education: public, private, or parochial.

Read what others have said so far, and then tell us what you think.

See what Tripod members had to say about what and how you would teach in the last survey. For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

lunap: As a public school graduate, there were some obvious disadvantages: lack of 'cutting edge' technology, and a lack of the immense resources that the nearest private school (which happened to be Philips Exeter) was and could obviously provide. However, the classes I was in were small, I had wonderful teachers -- teachers who were there to teach (they weren't there for the money) -- and enough resources that I felt extremely well-prepared for college when I went. Our school was around 1,000 people, which strikes me as about the right size for a high school. As for shared community, well, we were all from the same area, which is about all the Catholic school kids had in common to start with too. Activities promoted that very well, and with more students, there were more activities around.

pstengel: Not having grown up in an urban environment, I can't legitimately comment on what is best. I can say that the quality of education in whatever venue is directly related to the expectations of the parents and the students who attend.

When parents arrange to live in what they perceive as a quality school district or to send their child to a parochial or private school, they tacitly transfer a positive attitude to their child. When they have no choice (geographically or economically) available, a parent's interest and involvement is a powerful force in insuring that a child wants to learn. When parents neglect to even investigate the school which their children attend, they transfer their apathy as well.

Why is this so important?
1. Teachers teach because they want to (obviously not for the money, prestige, or free time). If students come to school wanting to learn, their job is easier and much more fulfilling.
2. Students learn because they want to. It's not the building or the chairs or the quality of food in the cafeteria that makes them want to learn, it's attitude.

We hear so much about tax credits or vouchers for choice in education. This is just so much political bull. What is needed is a positive change in attitude about education and learning in general.

mabrennan: I did not go to a Catholic school but am sending my son. He is now a junior and I have been overly pleased at what he is learning, both from an educational standpoint as well as moral. He is so far ahead of the public school in our area. After sending him to a small-town school from K-8 we decided that enough was enough and it was time for him to start learning if he was to get into a decent college. In grade school he was on the honor roll but in this high school it's a lot tougher and he's only made it twice, but he is learning. When I look in the paper to see who the kids are on the honor roll in our public high school, I'm amazed that the kids who couldn't come close in grade school are now on the honor roll. The team spirit at our school is just great. The teachers are more dedicated to teaching (they make a lot less money than at the public school) and are doing a great job. A sizeable number of students at the school are not Catholic but parents are sending them because of the education.

gardion: I am a student from Canada in grade 12. I have points for and against public, private and catholic schools.

I have to say I have been lucky with the public school I am going to. There are rarely any fights (which might I add has nothing to do with the area the school is in, rich or poor) and I have had some exceptional teachers. I have also had some bad teachers but in grade 12, I have managed to get teachers who I think both work hard and are good at what they do. I also like the higher diversity you get in our school which is also probably unique to public shools.

As for private schools, I have met some very decent people who come from those. I think there may be a higher level of learning but it is also an artificial environment. Only the rich (or upper middle class) can afford to go. Also, parents can have too much influence in these schools since they are paying for it. This can be good, if students can make good suggestions to their parents who then cause the school to change. On the other hand, at some private schools, this can cause more lenience on the students (a bad thing).

As for Catholic schools, as much as it may be a protective environment, I agree that teachers who are there want to teach maybe moreso than in private or public schools.

TMcGuire: I attended Sacred Heart Elementary from 4th through 7th grade. After that I attended public schools and no longer needed to study since they were so simplistic and undemanding. Catholic school was strenuous, but it gave me abilities and opportunities that I would have never even known about in a public school setting. I am not Catholic myself, and neither is my family. We just decided that it would most likely be a better school for me. I'm sure other private schools could be similar, though I'm sure there are some bad apples in the bunch.

Ancient_Mariner: Public schooling being in my distant past (think 30-year reunion) I must say I have no overwhelming feelings one way or t'other.

Mind you, I did do K-6 in a tightly knit German-American neighborhood near Pittsburgh and 7-12 in a very small (Catholics were still fighting Protestants) village in the wilds of northeast Ohio. The village was an enclave of white Anglo Republican business owners and money was no object for my high school even though it was in a building that used to be a seminary in the early 1800s.

After meeting several thousand folks since then, many educated in the Catholic school system, I note little difference between us except that they seem less able to do simple math in their heads -- especially if it's subtracting dart scores at the local pub.

In conclusion I would like to state that I think it is in grades K-12 that you will find -- if you have supreme luck and timing -- one or possibly more teachers who will mold your flacid little brainbox into something approximating humanity. These people are national treasures and deserve fat pay raises so they can take some well-deserved time off and go sailing.

No, I don't teach school -- my bullshit limit is way too low for the hierarchy of most school systems.

caldrmr: I must assume there are hard-working, dedicated, and competent public school teachers out there. My gripe is with the N.E.A. The teachers unions are ruining the public's perception of education. Every year there are teachers out on strike for fewer hours and more money. We are facing this again where I live and my sons attend school. My sons haven't had homework in 4 years. My daughter graduated high school as an honor student, and required remedial classes when she started college. It is difficult for parents to instill the need for hard work and study in their children when the schools don't require it. Parent-teacher conferences, meet-the-teacher days, every form of meeting is held during school hours because the teachers won't stay after school. There are no school dances because the teachers refuse to chaperone (for free). I could go on and on, but it boils down to one thing: teachers unions. Do unto the N.E.A. as Ronald Reagan did unto the air traffic controllers.

murrayh: Trying to compare a school like Exeter to the schooling available in public schools or parochial schools is comparing apples to oranges. With the kind of endowment, selectivity of student body, influence on college admissions, and quality of instructors available at Exeter, there just is no comparison. However, there also is no question that bright kids from whatever school environment will equal or better the preppies in college, and in future achievement. As to the statement that only rich kids go to the top prep schools, that person is unaware of the number of students that receive financial assistance in meeting the cost of their education. After all, the schools need to provide some balance in their social strata, even if it is minimal, including subsidizing certain sports.

goldfingers: When I attended public schools I had some of the most vicious fights I've ever known. When I attended Catholic school, Not one fight! My mind was free to pursue what I was supposed to do while at school. In public school every 45 minutes I'd "change classes" by moving from one to another class room. I was allowed about 5 minutes transit time. In the Catholic school to change classes was to open a desk or a book bag and fetch the subject matter for the next class. I stayed in a single room all day, and studied under the guidance of one teacher. I had several breaks and lunch out of the classroom. I was not then, nor am I now Catholic. I studied catechism, said the rosary, and during lent I went through the stations of the cross. Every morning before class, I attended Mass, and prayed in church and in my classroom, many times per day. I wore a suit to school, (uniform) and all of these things combined seemed to promote academics, and discouraged combat.

rebs: I attended an inner-city Catholic school for 13 years of my life (grades K-12). I must say that as the time went on I realized that other schools got much more than we did. We had no business classes my senior year. We even spent time without a counselor. The computers we used were from the 1980's. We were only taught word processing on them. My brother attends the same high school now. There is still not business program and now there is no music program either. The problem does not lie only in the realm of the teachers. Those teachers that are there care very much. It is hard to compete with the salaries the teachers make at a public school Therefore we didn't always get the "best" teachers. Catholic education is expensive. It is hard to offer what other public schools do because we don't get the funding they do.

neelvk: I am sick and tired of listening to people eulogizing the Catholic schools. If you want good schools, pay decent money and hire decent teachers. But no! That would be oh so logical. We want the world's best teachers to come and work for a fistful of dirt per day and then also volunteer to chaperone kids to school dances and teach sports and all that good stuff.

Then we also have people complaining about the NEA. Why is the NEA a demon all of a sudden? NEA has been around for quite a few years and seems to be doing a decent job of encouraging teachers to improve their skills on an ongoing basis. Why isn't the same ire directed at the AMA or the ADA, if you wanna go after three-letterED unions?

If you really want to see some good education, get the parents to cancel their cable subscriptions, get the kids to do their homeworks and talk about not just the rote but actual understanding of their subject matter. Make it a habit to read with the kids. Teachers are not miracle workers. They can only help kids and the inclination to study and understand the world around them is really taught at home.