# An idea for a Private School?



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

I'm not sure where to post this, but I've been thinking about my career and some things that I've learned about education and about what I would do if I chose to stay in this field.  

For some background information, John Taylor Gatto sums it up in this book.

So, here is one idea I've had among many.



> Makala Kula
> (Liberty School)
> 
> Ethos
> ...



Thoughts?


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

It would seem from what I've seen you write on subjects such as this, such as your discussion of currency and having mentioned Gatto, that you are probably at least reasonably well versed with some of the various approaches to this subject. So I assume you are familiar with freeschooling? In some ways, what you propose here is similar to the concepts outlined by many freeschoolers.

The problem with the approach is that it gives the student broad latitude in deciding their own curriculum, which _can _lead to a lack of skill growth if the student makes irresponsible choices. Of course, proponents of freeschooling would say that you get the same end result when you force a student to attend math classes against his will.

Ultimately, I like the general road you are on as a basic educational structure. The administrator of such a program would have to decide what basic skills he or she wanted *all *students to attain, and then set goals for students to attain specific benchmarks.

For instance, a student could choose to major in nintendo, but doing so wouldn't give him an education in economics. In order to accomplish that, he'd have to take x number of courses from this category, and x number from another. Much like our current university model.

In fact, I think that all education beyond the most basic skills of reading, writing, and simple arithmetic should be offered in a selective and elective manner. Once a student achieves a baseline of functionality, he should be guided, but not forced, into an educational model that represents his talents and goals.

That doesn't mean you let him run wild, but you don't force him either. Instead you encourage, challenge, and guide him towards ever increasing, and ever more specific goals.

So you'd have to decide which studies you think are baseline necessities, and which you see as elective. I would say reading, writing, and arithmetic are the only truly necessary baselines, but you seem to have far more. Do you consider them _all_ baseline important, or do you see them all more as _possible_ fields of study?


-Rob


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

I tried to put in all of the categories I thought were important and then slide the pieces that would grow skill in those areas.

My idea for this school is skill based, not test based.  I would want my students to be able to do something with what they learned, not just test well.  In fact, I probably would ban tests and grades altogether and demand that students produce something useful.  

That said, I would start at an early age teaching children about money, about seeing needs and filling them, and about business.  I would like my students to be able to use my school as a launching platform for their ideas and I'd like to teach them how to measure their own success based on their results.  

There's a lot more that needs to be worked out.  A lot more.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Would all those areas be required? Or just encouraged?


-Rob


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> It would seem from what I've seen you write on subjects such as this, such as your discussion of currency and having mentioned Gatto, that you are probably at least reasonably well versed with some of the various approaches to this subject. So I assume you are familiar with freeschooling? In some ways, what you propose here is similar to the concepts outlined by many freeschoolers.



I like the idea of freeschool, but I think there is also room for guidance.  If you think about it, that's what parents do.  They guide children to grow in the way they feel best.  The thing about schools that I'm learning is that the ability to choose makes a huge difference.  If parents and children choose the "product" I'm offering, then a lot of the problems with compulsory education are avoided.  I'm working at a private school now and the difference between that and the public schools I used to work in are Night and Day.

In the end, my goal is to be my own boss though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Would all those areas be required? Or just encouraged?
> 
> 
> -Rob



That's a good question and the devil is in the details.  My initial thought would be to make the school pathos mandatory, but I think that it could be approached in a variety of ways so that it becomes useful for the child.  

The key is useful.  I see all of these things as being useful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> In fact, I think that all education beyond the most basic skills of reading, writing, and simple arithmetic should be offered in a selective and elective manner. Once a student achieves a baseline of functionality, he should be guided, but not forced, into an educational model that represents his talents and goals.



There's more to life then just learning the three Rs and I think that a program can be designed that gets to the heart of those things without wasting time in a classroom.  I agree that a student should be forced.  In fact, I'd like to have teachers working for me whose employment is based on how well they are drawing students with the quality skills they have to teach.  As a student approaches adulthood, they really should be designing their own ways to meet certain benchmarks.  They should be learning how to self assess and progress.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

One thing I find interesting is that each of your specific areas seem to also correlate to possible future career paths.

1. Freedom of Inner Self  *Artists, Poets, Musicians*
2. Freedom of Intellect  *Educators, Philosophers, *
3. Freedom of Finances  *Financiers, Accountants, *
4. Freedom of Health  *Doctors, Physical Therapists, Naturopaths*
5. Freedom of Religion  *Religious Leaders, Spiritual Leaders*
6. Freedom of Outer Self  *Nature Guides, Physical Trainers, *
7. Freedom of Inquiry  *Scientists, Inventors*
8. Freedom of Society  *Community Organizers, Non For Profit Organizers*
9. Freedom of Hope  *Aid Workers, Volunteer Organizers*
10. Freedom of Individuality  *Life Coaches, Mentors*

I found this interesting, because in this kind of school setting, a student could choose to explore the areas of his interest, or focus specifically on the subjects which led him to his future career.

You *will *find resistance to any kind of religious or spiritual education you offer from many circles, including those who feel that spiritual education is the purvue of the church, and those who feel that any religious education is wrong.

I like your idea of teaching children about currencies and economics at a young age, but I would feel that these lessons should be taught gradually over time, and in an age specific fashion.

I would also begin by teaching children non-violent problem solving. To my mind, it is the basis of all just societies, in politics, economics, and every other area.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> There's more to life then just learning the three Rs and I think that a program can be designed that gets to the heart of those things without wasting time in a classroom. I agree that a student should be forced. In fact, I'd like to have teachers working for me whose employment is based on how well they are drawing students with the quality skills they have to teach. As a student approaches adulthood, they really should be designing their own ways to meet certain benchmarks. They should be learning how to self assess and progress.


 
I think you mean they "should *not *be forced." Right?

I also agree that there is more than the three Rs, but I think that they must be taught as the basis of all other learning. You can't be a poet, or an economist, or a spiritual leader, or a doctor, or an inventor, if you don't first learn the three Rs.

Once they are taught however, I think students can begin, slowly at first, to form their own learning path. This process should begin with a few choices, and expand over time, until the student is completely responsible for the direction of his education towards the end.

Once we leave school, we are _all_ completely responsible for the direction of our education. Some of us full stop, others trudge on, and still others go in directions they could never have predicted. But there comes a time when the choice is ours. Schools should prepare us for that time, instead of force feeding us information which we may or may not care about anyway, which may or may not apply to our lives, which we may or may not actually learn.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

I would begin a program with reading, writing, and arithmetic. After the student has learned the rudiments of these skills, I would offer him the opportunity to select two internal, and two external courses of study. While he was learning those skills, the skills he had learned earlier would be consistently reinforced.

The next step would be for the student to decide whether he would like to focus on internal studies, such as math, science, or economics, or external studies, such as art, physical expression, or community service. Once he, with the help of his instructors and advisors, had decided where his tastes and talents lie he could focus more specifically on those areas.

Over time, his instruction would become increasingly more specific, guiding him towards specialization. But that would not be necessary. If he chose instead to gain general proficiency in a variety of areas, that would be his call. 

There is also no need for there to be a specific end point for his education. In my model, it would of course be privately funded, so as long as he chooses to continue, he can. If at some point he specialized beyond the schools ability to educate him further, he could either move on to another, more specialized school, or continue his education in another area.

The end result would resemble the branches of a tree, with each successive evolution in the educational process resulting in more specialization, and fewer fellow students. It is far more student focused, and would require more effort on the part of the educators, but in the end, I believe it would result in a far greater product.


-Rob


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> One thing I find interesting is that each of your specific areas seem to also correlate to possible future career paths.
> 
> 1. Freedom of Inner Self  *Artists, Poets, Musicians*
> 2. Freedom of Intellect  *Educators, Philosophers, *
> ...



That was my thought in the matter and I'd like to include some technical training in this as well.  I think that apprenticeships and mentorships with business leaders in the later years should also be required.  Students should have the skills to pursue this with guidance.



Thesemindz said:


> You *will *find resistance to any kind of religious or spiritual education you offer from many circles, including those who feel that spiritual education is the purvue of the church, and those who feel that any religious education is wrong.



My way around this is to invite clerics, clergy and/or various wizards to teach.  I'd required the teacher to make connections in the community and offer to pay them if the person understands that they are educators and not prostetilyzers.



Thesemindz said:


> I like your idea of teaching children about currencies and economics at a young age, but I would feel that these lessons should be taught gradually over time, and in an age specific fashion.



Yes.  Kids should learn how to use money at a young age.  It could be used as an aid to learn basic math.  I'd like to see seven and eight year old kids trying their hands at simple businesses.  I'd like the older kids to start developing skills that they think would help them fill needs they see in their communities.  



Thesemindz said:


> I would also begin by teaching children non-violent problem solving. To my mind, it is the basis of all just societies, in politics, economics, and every other area.



Absolutely.  This is why rhetoric, logic, philosophical, ethics, and various flavors of morality are important subjects to be covered.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

I'm right there with you.

I also appreciate your inclusion of trade instruction and apprenticeship. While everyone will benefit from an education in philosophy, not everyone will become a philosopher when they grow up. Some people will be welders, or cosmetologists, or chefs, and those trades need to be taught somewhere.

I think a combination of the modern liberal arts model and the traditional technical education model would result in a balanced approach. Again, it would be the choices of the student which would decide the path they take.


-Rob


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I also agree that there is more than the three Rs, but I think that they must be taught as the basis of all other learning. You can't be a poet, or an economist, or a spiritual leader, or a doctor, or an inventor, if you don't first learn the three Rs.



Yes, it has to be taught and students should develop strong skills here, but it doesn't have to be done right away and probably shouldn't be done right away.  I'd rather see students develop their imaginations and inner voices before really pursuing a path of basic academics.  This period of development could then be used to motivate students to learn basic skills as a way to take their musings further.  

Learning to read, write and do mathematics should be something that naturally flows from their own interests.

This approach is successful and is already done here.



Thesemindz said:


> Once they are taught however, I think students can begin, slowly at first, to form their own learning path. This process should begin with a few choices, and expand over time, until the student is completely responsible for the direction of his education towards the end.



Absolutely!



Thesemindz said:


> Once we leave school, we are _all_ completely responsible for the direction of our education. Some of us full stop, others trudge on, and still others go in directions they could never have predicted. But there comes a time when the choice is ours. Schools should prepare us for that time, instead of force feeding us information which we may or may not care about anyway, which may or may not apply to our lives, which we may or may not actually learn.



The track record of the latter approach is abysmal.  In my Masters program, I studied retention rates and was completely disgusted when only 10% on average was retained by students six months after the class was over.  I realized then that school, as it was in the form it was, was a complete waste of time.  Then I found Gatto's work and discovered the junk that we all suspected anyway.  Kids don't go to school to learn, they go for other reasons.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I would begin a program with reading, writing, and arithmetic. After the student has learned the rudiments of these skills, I would offer him the opportunity to select two internal, and two external courses of study. While he was learning those skills, the skills he had learned earlier would be consistently reinforced.
> 
> The next step would be for the student to decide whether he would like to focus on internal studies, such as math, science, or economics, or external studies, such as art, physical expression, or community service. Once he, with the help of his instructors and advisors, had decided where his tastes and talents lie he could focus more specifically on those areas.
> 
> Over time, his instruction would become increasingly more specific, guiding him towards specialization. But that would not be necessary. If he chose instead to gain general proficiency in a variety of areas, that would be his call.



More or less, this is also how I see it.  I have a few more details and I might change some verbiage, but the basic idea is there.



Thesemindz said:


> There is also no need for there to be a specific end point for his education. In my model, it would of course be privately funded, so as long as he chooses to continue, he can. If at some point he specialized beyond the schools ability to educate him further, he could either move on to another, more specialized school, or continue his education in another area.
> 
> The end result would resemble the branches of a tree, with each successive evolution in the educational process resulting in more specialization, and fewer fellow students. It is far more student focused, and would require more effort on the part of the educators, but in the end, I believe it would result in a far greater product.



That's also how I see and I'd like to see this model spread throughout society.  I think we are coming to a point where people are going to shed the old factory schools if they are given the freedom to do so.  There is room for innovation.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2009)

I think though that only the wealthy can afford for their children to be educated in such a way? Working class children need to go out and earn a living so apart from the fact their parents won't be able to afford private education, the children will need to get standard school/college qualifications to enable them to get jobs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think though that only the wealthy can afford for their children to be educated in such a way? Working class children need to go out and earn a living so apart from the fact their parents won't be able to afford private education, the children will need to get standard school/college qualifications to enable them to get jobs.



Why would you think that you wouldn't be able earn a living after being educated in this manner?  What the research shows is that through service learning and experiential education, students perform BETTER then kids who park their butts in classrooms 24/7.  

Entrance to collage isn't just based on testing data anymore.  Even if it was, I wouldn't be worried because the not only can you prepare yourself to take those tests with specific courses, students will perform better on them when they learn skills in the above fashion.  

None of this is really new.  All I want to do is pull together best practice from everywhere and put it in one spot.  When I tried to do this in the public schools, you wouldn't believe the resistance that was inherit in the bureaucracy.  You could change the curtains in the room, but the same underlying structure would always be there.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 27, 2009)

I think what *Tez* was saying, *Mauna* is that despite the clear positives inherent in the educational style you propose, employers nearly always use as a first 'hurdle' the requirement for certain standardised qualifications i.e. she was asking how your students would be able to overcome that hurdle to get to the point where they could show their superior quality and breadth of skills.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2009)

Sorry Mauna I think you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying children educated this way couldn't get jobs, I'm positive they could and they'd be well educated at that. _My point is that poor parents aren't going_ _to be able to afford private education_. A private school here charges about £2000 a term and we have four terms a year, the great pulbic schools like Eton, Harrow, Marlborough etc you are looking at £10,000 a term plus. 
Children of poor parents are under pressure to get the standard school/college certification to get jobs. To go on to further education here as well as many jobs you need to have good grade GCEs. 
My point was merely that you would be teaching a very good system only to an elite, those that can afford it, the poor, the people who would really need a good education are going to be left with the inferior educaton. It's not your students I was talking about having to get standard qualifications.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 27, 2009)

Ah, I missed that too in that case .


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Sorry Mauna I think you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying children educated this way couldn't get jobs, I'm positive they could and they'd be well educated at that. _My point is that poor parents aren't going_ _to be able to afford private education_. A private school here charges about £2000 a term and we have four terms a year, the great pulbic schools like Eton, Harrow, Marlborough etc you are looking at £10,000 a term plus.
> 
> Children of poor parents are under pressure to get the standard school/college certification to get jobs. To go on to further education here as well as many jobs you need to have good grade GCEs.
> 
> My point was merely that you would be teaching a very good system only to an elite, those that can afford it, the poor, the people who would really need a good education are going to be left with the inferior educaton. It's not your students I was talking about having to get standard qualifications.



I read you, now and I have no idea how to solve that problem.  I wish I could change the system, but I can't.  I could beat my head against the wall for years trying to upend an establishment that filled with people who have been brainwashed for too many years or I could try and do _something_ positive?

There's so many things in this society that I don't agree with and wish I could change, I could spend the rest of my life fighting.  I don't want to fight and tear down, I'd rather build something up.

Hopefully, if I decide to get this going, I could offer some scholarships.  Politically, I support vouchers.  There are so many good programs out there, so many good options for kids that if you really care about providing opportunity for all, vouchers are a big way to make that happen.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think what *Tez* was saying, *Mauna* is that despite the clear positives inherent in the educational style you propose, employers nearly always use as a first 'hurdle' the requirement for certain standardised qualifications i.e. she was asking how your students would be able to overcome that hurdle to get to the point where they could show their superior quality and breadth of skills.



There are a lot of other ways to get the pieces of paper that society values.  It's something that most people don't realize.


----------



## zDom (Apr 27, 2009)

As soon as you are ready to begin hiring teachers, let me know.

My degree was almost in secondary education, English, with a coaching minor.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Kids don't go to school to learn, they go for other reasons.


 
By and large, they go because they are forced to, and their parents see it as free daycare and most don't understand the origin of the system.

But I believe that kids would gladly go if they were presented with a product that interested them. I love to read, and would have gladly attended classes aimed at my interests. Instead, I went to classes I didn't care for, _and read the whole time anyway._


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think though that only the wealthy can afford for their children to be educated in such a way? Working class children need to go out and earn a living so apart from the fact their parents won't be able to afford private education, the children will need to get standard school/college qualifications to enable them to get jobs.


 
But they _could _still get those qualifications during their education. What says Suzy and Jonny need to both learn the same skills at the same rate? Does it matter if Suzy learns reading at six and multiplication at eight, when Jonny learns multiplication at five and reading at seven? As long as they both end up with the basic skills, why is it important that they learn at the same rate in the same order? Our high schools and colleges already take an elective approach to education, why couldn't our elementary schools do the same with some guidance from advisors and instructors?

Besides, their would still be technical schools for students who wanted technical degrees. Like I said, I think they have an important place in the education field. My wife doesn't _want_ to be a physicist. She _wants _to be a cosmetologist, so she is attending a trade school. That option should always be available to those who desire it, just as physics programs should be available to those who want to be physicists.


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2009)

I went to a private school and had a great time, the opportunities we were given were fantastic. We weren't just plonked into a classroom and forced to learn, we were taught to think, reason and work things out for ourselves. Our horizons were widened immensely.
At the time I was at school in Scotland though the state schools there were a very close second to private schools.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Sorry Mauna I think you have missed my point entirely. I'm not saying children educated this way couldn't get jobs, I'm positive they could and they'd be well educated at that. _My point is that poor parents aren't going_ _to be able to afford private education_. A private school here charges about £2000 a term and we have four terms a year, the great pulbic schools like Eton, Harrow, Marlborough etc you are looking at £10,000 a term plus.
> Children of poor parents are under pressure to get the standard school/college certification to get jobs. To go on to further education here as well as many jobs you need to have good grade GCEs.
> My point was merely that you would be teaching a very good system only to an elite, those that can afford it, the poor, the people who would really need a good education are going to be left with the inferior educaton. It's not your students I was talking about having to get standard qualifications.


 
In a private system this isn't actually an issue. Private schools would arise naturally to fill every niche of prospective customer. We have McDonalds for people who want cheap food fast, and Chez Whitey's for people who want expensive food in a posh setting. Services and quality would vary from school to school, just as it does from restaurant to restaurant, but supply would meet demand.

Look at it this way, not everyone eats at Red Lobster. Not everyone eats at The Four Seasons. Not everyone eats at McDonald's. But everyone eats. Entrepreneurs have filled every market niche in food service, because there is a need. And they have established a menu of prices and services to fit every economic level.

The cost to the average consumer, to attend a good private school now, is less than $5000 per year. In the absence of the state, with valuable currency and no taxation, in a system where schools truly had to compete and parents weren't paying twice for their children's education, $5000 would be easily affordable. 

And there would be schools which charged far less than that. All those students who are currently attending the &#8220;free&#8221; public school system would still need an education. Schools would rise up overnight rushing to fill the need of the consumers. This always happens. Remember when everyone got excited about low carb diets, and suddenly every restaurant was offering burgers wrapped in lettuce and every grocery store had lean chicken and low carb frozen entrees? When the market perceives a need, it fills it. In a variety of ways, at a variety of costs, it finds a way to get every consumer it can to buy every product they can. That's how the market works. It works in food service. It works in transportation. It works in communication. It works in education.

I posted a more complete analysis of this concept, including some of my above quotes, in a new thread in the study called, "Educating the Children."


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> But they _could _still get those qualifications during their education. What says Suzy and Jonny need to both learn the same skills at the same rate? Does it matter if Suzy learns reading at six and multiplication at eight, when Jonny learns multiplication at five and reading at seven? As long as they both end up with the basic skills, why is it important that they learn at the same rate in the same order? Our high schools and colleges already take an elective approach to education, why couldn't our elementary schools do the same with some guidance from advisors and instructors?
> 
> Besides, their would still be technical schools for students who wanted technical degrees. Like I said, I think they have an important place in the education field. My wife doesn't _want_ to be a physicist. She _wants _to be a cosmetologist, so she is attending a trade school. That option should always be available to those who desire it, just as physics programs should be available to those who want to be physicists.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry you've lost me!
 I wasn't saying people won't get qualifications at the school I was saying that only the rich can afford to have interesting education for their children.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry you've lost me!
> I wasn't saying people won't get qualifications at the school I was saying that only the rich can afford to have interesting education for their children.


 
I understand, in your original post I thought you were saying that students in a less strictly structured system wouldn't get the necessary education, but then I saw your other post and realized you were speaking about the cost of such a system to the consumer, that's why I started the other thread.

No troubles bubbles.


-Rob


----------



## Carol (Apr 27, 2009)

Here's one idea of a small private school in Canada that started with an idea, and then kept growing:

http://www.headwayschool.net/Who_Are_We_New.htm


----------



## Nomad (Apr 27, 2009)

zDom said:


> As soon as you are ready to begin hiring teachers, let me know.
> 
> My degree was almost in secondary education, English, with a coaching minor.


 
Count me in too.  This sounds like a great idea; possibly difficult to pull off without compromising to too great a degree, but I like and support the idea.  I'm a scientist who's been considering a rout into education for awhile, but thinks the regular school system would be far too confining.

I spent a very large part of my high school education bored out of my skull, even in a private school setting (curriculum was not much different from public school), and was rarely challenged until I arrived at University (which then turned out to be a big wake-up call).


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

Nomad said:


> I spent a very large part of my high school education bored out of my skull, even in a private school setting (curriculum was not much different from public school), and was rarely challenged until I arrived at University (which then turned out to be a big wake-up call).



Your experience is very common.  For me, its more evidence that points to the fact that one kind of school just cannot fit all.


----------



## K-man (Apr 27, 2009)

The concept as proposed is really good to produce well prepared, caring individuals for society. In many ways it is similar to the Steiner philosophy.



> _We shouldn't ask: 'What does a person need to know or be able to do in order to fit into the existing social order?'_
> _Instead we should ask: 'What lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her?'
> Only then will it be possible to direct the new qualities of each emerging generation into society. Society will then become, what young people, as whole human beings, make out of the existing social conditions. The new generation should not just be made to be what present society wants it to become".
> Rudolf Steiner​_​




http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/overview.html

This type of school doesn't suit everyone but for one of my daughters it was just perfect. The other thing this type of school produces is lasting friendships, based on the caring philosophy. :asian:


----------



## Carol (Apr 27, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Your experience is very common.  For me, its more evidence that points to the fact that one kind of school just cannot fit all.



If you need a music teacher, let me know.  

Carol Kaur, B.Mus, Berklee College of Music - Boston, MA


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Well, I don't have a college degree, but I'm a martial arts instructor, writer, philosopher, and political essayist.

Can I have a job too?


-Rob


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 27, 2009)

The thing with private schools is that if someone has a useful skill to teach,  they can be taught how to teach according to the schools expectations, and they are willing to work hard, I would have no problem hiring someone without the necessary paper.  We get to hung up on this...to our detriment as a society!  I want my students to understand that it doesn't matter what the paper says you can do.  It matters what you *do*.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

Well I'd _love_ to teach in Hawaii.


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2009)

It seems that private schooling in America like the degree system ( which I admit I don't understand lol) is very different to ours, our private schools as I said will cost over $30,000 a year at least for your child to attend. the top is Eton which charges $100,000 a year for it's top fee paying students the Oppidians, Scholars are a bit less but still a hefty sum. We've had private schooling here for hundreds of years and the cost has never gone down. No one has set up schools here at a reasonable cost.
We have some Steiner schools here but they charge nearly $8000 a year for kindergarten classes four days a term. for children 6-16 it's $32,000 a year for three terms.
(American dollars at current exchange rate)


----------



## K-man (Apr 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It seems that private schooling in America like the degree system ( which I admit I don't understand lol) is very different to ours, our private schools as I said will cost over $30,000 a year at least for your child to attend. the top is Eton which charges $100,000 a year for it's top fee paying students the Oppidians, Scholars are a bit less but still a hefty sum. We've had private schooling here for hundreds of years and the cost has never gone down. No one has set up schools here at a reasonable cost.
> We have some Steiner schools here but they charge nearly $8000 a year for kindergarten classes four days a term. for children 6-16 it's $32,000 a year for three terms.
> (American dollars at current exchange rate)


 Sorry guys, you would do better in sunny Aus. Most expensive one here about $7,000 US pa down to about $2,500. Discounts for 2nd or 3rd child. One school even has 4th or more childen free.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 28, 2009)

K-man said:


> Sorry guys, you would do better in sunny Aus. Most expensive one here about $7,000 US pa down to about $2,500. Discounts for 2nd or 3rd child. One school even has 4th or more childen free.



Do the Aussies partially subsidize tuition for private school?  I know the Kiwis do.


----------



## K-man (Apr 28, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Do the Aussies partially subsidize tuition for private school? I know the Kiwis do.


Yes, the Australian Govt does provide funding to private schools, mainly for amenities. I don't believe this funding changes things a great deal in the comparative sense. Geelong Grammar, one of Australia's top schools is charging up to $29,000 ($20,500 US) for tuition alone, and it is primarily a boarding school. That is nearly 10 times the price of some Steiner schools which are more along the lines you are proposing. Obviously they provide a more varied environment but they don't have the monopoly on caring and individual nurturing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 29, 2009)

It's interesting to note that the most expensive private school in Hawaii, the school I currently teach at, has a tuition of $20,500.  On the mainland, there are private schools that cost FAR more.  The government subsidies probably make a huge difference in Oz.


----------

