quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in. They get to interview parents and children check backgrounds and then pick and choose who is and is not allowed to attend. And once they meet the number of students that fit their needs they can stop taking in students. Private schools are a very small demographic and usually families that use those schools are usually from the same, church, country club or other close knit socio-economic group. So they usually do not have to deal with culture clash amongst their small body of students.

Public schools have to take in anyone who lives in that school district and many of them have kids that come from very troubled (sometimes abusive) home lives that the school may not even know about. Their student bodies are much more diverse and usually very polarized. The good, the bad; the drug addicted, the mentally ill....etc. are all lumped in together. Scarce resources, under-funding and overcrowding are very real problems in public schools. There are many states that require public school systems to service minors in juvenile detention/ correctional custody. Disciplinary actions available in private schools are often not an option in public schools. Its not easy to expel a student from public schools. Buddy buddy systems in place at the top make it so that many school boards and officials care more about the money going in their own pockets than they do about student performance.

All of these factors combined make for a more volatile environment for public schools and they contribute to the mental state of those students who would commit shootings. It also factors in that with the overcrowding in public school, people are less likely to notice when a student is going off the deep end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

This came up before, including the fact that some private schools keep guns on campus. If it was addressed, I must have missed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Let's home educate. If there are no schools any more, nobody will get shot at a school any more either.

A more realistic question is why are private schools virtually untouched by violence while we have school shootings.
BTW violence in schools, like all other violence is going down.
When it happens it is more spectacular and more heavily covered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So you deliberately make one more in a long string of posts refusing to answer the question, refusing to enter into a rational discussion, and then project the falsehood that I'm the one doing that, when I've got a dozen posts in this thread alone, very specifically talking rationally about the issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

All I'm hearing is dodging the question with childish insults.

You are on record as saying exactly what you said. I haven't misquoted a single word.

You've slammed all other ideas, and tried to derail this thread every time a few people get to the point of bringing up rational solutions, and when asked what exactly would be the parameters of your gun control solution, you threw a tantrum and flounced away.

That is not discourse.

Yes, I am indeed on record.

I suggest that you try to comprehend that record of what I've said, Ed, rather than turn it around on every occasion so that it fits the attitude of - god knows - Sheer Khan in Disney's 'Jungle Book'? Some classic evil British villain, anyway.

That's childish, and it doesn't lead to discourse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

So you deliberately make one more in a long string of posts refusing to answer the question, refusing to enter into a rational discussion, and then project the falsehood that I'm the one doing that, when I've got a dozen posts in this thread alone, very specifically talking rationally about the issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

All I'm hearing is dodging the question with childish insults.

You are on record as saying exactly what you said. I haven't misquoted a single word.

You've slammed all other ideas, and tried to derail this thread every time a few people get to the point of bringing up rational solutions, and when asked what exactly would be the parameters of your gun control solution, you threw a tantrum and flounced away.

That is not discourse.

Yes, I am indeed on record.

I suggest that you try to comprehend that record of what I've said, Ed, rather than turn it around on every occasion so that it fits the attitude of - god knows - Sheer Khan in Disney's 'Jungle Book'? Some classic evil British villain, anyway.

That's childish, and it doesn't lead to discourse.

Your idea of rational discussion is one that agrees with you.
Hardly a fair standard.

And I would say the sarcasm of making teachers be trained to the level of SWAT members was pretty absurd.

Personally, I think ending the idiocy of declaring schools gun free zones would go a long way. Haven't all of the recent mass shootings occured in gun free zones?

I don't advocate arming school guards. But I'm not sure that the gun free school zone is even constitutional - and I wonder what would happen if a Sandy Hook parent challenged it.

I mean really - we don't declare our banks to be gun-free zones.

More or less the logic chain goes like this to me.

1. Gun ownership is protected in the constitution. You may disagree but in the current atmosphere int he supreme court it seems pretty much a given.
2. We have reasonable back ground checks in place. I'm all ears to any new regulations that are constitutional and would actually solve the problem - but I can't think of any.

Guns are legal. More or less that means a certain amount of gun casualties - good and bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I agree with that assessment completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in. They get to interview parents and children check backgrounds and then pick and choose who is and is not allowed to attend. And once they meet the number of students that fit their needs they can stop taking in students. Private schools are a very small demographic and usually families that use those schools are usually from the same, church, country club or other close knit socio-economic group. So they usually do not have to deal with culture clash amongst their small body of students.

Public schools have to take in anyone who lives in that school district and many of them have kids that come from very troubled (sometimes abusive) home lives that the school may not even know about. Their student bodies are much more diverse and usually very polarized. The good, the bad; the drug addicted, the mentally ill....etc. are all lumped in together. Scarce resources, under-funding and overcrowding are very real problems in public schools. There are many states that require public school systems to service minors in juvenile detention/ correctional custody. Disciplinary actions available in private schools are often not an option in public schools. Its not easy to expel a student from public schools. Buddy buddy systems in place at the top make it so that many school boards and officials care more about the money going in their own pockets than they do about student performance.

All of these factors combined make for a more volatile environment for public schools and they contribute to the mental state of those students who would commit shootings. It also factors in that with the overcrowding in public school, people are less likely to notice when a student is going off the deep end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

This came up before, including the fact that some private schools keep guns on campus. If it was addressed, I must have missed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Let's home educate. If there are no schools any more, nobody will get shot at a school any more either.

A more realistic question is why are private schools virtually untouched by violence while we have school shootings.
BTW violence in schools, like all other violence is going down.
When it happens it is more spectacular and more heavily covered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

I just saw that the girl died.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I agree with that assessment completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in. They get to interview parents and children check backgrounds and then pick and choose who is and is not allowed to attend. And once they meet the number of students that fit their needs they can stop taking in students. Private schools are a very small demographic and usually families that use those schools are usually from the same, church, country club or other close knit socio-economic group. So they usually do not have to deal with culture clash amongst their small body of students.

Public schools have to take in anyone who lives in that school district and many of them have kids that come from very troubled (sometimes abusive) home lives that the school may not even know about. Their student bodies are much more diverse and usually very polarized. The good, the bad; the drug addicted, the mentally ill....etc. are all lumped in together. Scarce resources, under-funding and overcrowding are very real problems in public schools. There are many states that require public school systems to service minors in juvenile detention/ correctional custody. Disciplinary actions available in private schools are often not an option in public schools. Its not easy to expel a student from public schools. Buddy buddy systems in place at the top make it so that many school boards and officials care more about the money going in their own pockets than they do about student performance.

All of these factors combined make for a more volatile environment for public schools and they contribute to the mental state of those students who would commit shootings. It also factors in that with the overcrowding in public school, people are less likely to notice when a student is going off the deep end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

This came up before, including the fact that some private schools keep guns on campus. If it was addressed, I must have missed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Let's home educate. If there are no schools any more, nobody will get shot at a school any more either.

A more realistic question is why are private schools virtually untouched by violence while we have school shootings.
BTW violence in schools, like all other violence is going down.
When it happens it is more spectacular and more heavily covered.

So why can't public schools insist on the same standards as private schools.
The assessment that private schools have a homogenous (and implied wealthy) population.
My experience with private schools is that thy have students from a broad range of backgrounds having but one thing in common.
They want their kids to get a good education.
There is a greater possibility of the families having firearms, one local private school even auctioned off a browning shotgun at a fund raiser.
The two biggest changes since I was in high school are
A the was no social promotion. They didn't need exit exams because if you couldn't do 11th grade work you were not in the 12th.
B when a kid got in trouble in school it wasn't the teacher that was worried about what would happen when the parents found out.

Another major problem is the number of single parent families. This deprives the kids of one of the positive adult role models (usually the father) putting the teenage boys in a "Lord of the Flies" subculture. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Private schools do offer a different set of SES factors.

I don't think that suicide or other mental issues are minimized by those factors, and I don't think that school bullying is minimized in those schools.

If those cultures aren't markedly different what is?

There is a notion floating about that guns are 'equalizers'.... perhaps children of (more) privilege don't see the same benefit in such leverage?

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I agree with that assessment completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in. They get to interview parents and children check backgrounds and then pick and choose who is and is not allowed to attend. And once they meet the number of students that fit their needs they can stop taking in students. Private schools are a very small demographic and usually families that use those schools are usually from the same, church, country club or other close knit socio-economic group. So they usually do not have to deal with culture clash amongst their small body of students.

Public schools have to take in anyone who lives in that school district and many of them have kids that come from very troubled (sometimes abusive) home lives that the school may not even know about. Their student bodies are much more diverse and usually very polarized. The good, the bad; the drug addicted, the mentally ill....etc. are all lumped in together. Scarce resources, under-funding and overcrowding are very real problems in public schools. There are many states that require public school systems to service minors in juvenile detention/ correctional custody. Disciplinary actions available in private schools are often not an option in public schools. Its not easy to expel a student from public schools. Buddy buddy systems in place at the top make it so that many school boards and officials care more about the money going in their own pockets than they do about student performance.

All of these factors combined make for a more volatile environment for public schools and they contribute to the mental state of those students who would commit shootings. It also factors in that with the overcrowding in public school, people are less likely to notice when a student is going off the deep end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

This came up before, including the fact that some private schools keep guns on campus. If it was addressed, I must have missed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Let's home educate. If there are no schools any more, nobody will get shot at a school any more either.

A more realistic question is why are private schools virtually untouched by violence while we have school shootings.
BTW violence in schools, like all other violence is going down.
When it happens it is more spectacular and more heavily covered.

So why can't public schools insist on the same standards as private schools.
The assessment that private schools have a homogenous (and implied wealthy) population.
My experience with private schools is that thy have students from a broad range of backgrounds having but one thing in common.
They want their kids to get a good education.
There is a greater possibility of the families having firearms, one local private school even auctioned off a browning shotgun at a fund raiser.
The two biggest changes since I was in high school are
A the was no social promotion. They didn't need exit exams because if you couldn't do 11th grade work you were not in the 12th.
B when a kid got in trouble in school it wasn't the teacher that was worried about what would happen when the parents found out.

Another major problem is the number of single parent families. This deprives the kids of one of the positive adult role models (usually the father) putting the teenage boys in a "Lord of the Flies" subculture. .

quote:

And of course, I never advocated arming teachers or said that they should be trained to the level of SWAT teams, I argued against it.

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


it would probably do no harm to allow teachers to carry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

That may be true where you live. Where I live I specifically went to the Annunciation Catholic School in my area to try to find out rates hoping to get my daughter in. For starters they have a priority list for letting in students. If you were non catholic you were last on that list. Their tuition was $4900 a year, plus 200 registration, plus almost 600 dollars in fees (books, lab, etc.) plus 4 dollars a day for lunch which on a 180 day school year equals to an additional 720 dollars a year. I inquired about discounts and was told they had "payment plans" and a discount for Catholics. The application they gave me said in writing that the Principal had to conduct a family interview to decide whether or not the child would be accepted. So the vast majority of the students that go to the Catholic School (at least in my area) are Catholic, white and at least well off enough to afford a minimum of an extra 535 dollars a month/ 6400 dollars a year. So yeah....that is pretty selective.
Incidentally I just could not afford to send my daughter there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

That may be true where you live. Where I live I specifically went to the Annunciation Catholic School in my area to try to find out rates hoping to get my daughter in. For starters they have a priority list for letting in students. If you were non catholic you were last on that list. Their tuition was $4900 a year, plus 200 registration, plus almost 600 dollars in fees (books, lab, etc.) plus 4 dollars a day for lunch which on a 180 day school year equals to an additional 720 dollars a year. I inquired about discounts and was told they had "payment plans" and a discount for Catholics. The application they gave me said in writing that the Principal had to conduct a family interview to decide whether or not the child would be accepted. So the vast majority of the students that go to the Catholic School (at least in my area) are Catholic, white and at least well off enough to afford a minimum of an extra 535 dollars a month/ 6400 dollars a year. So yeah....that is pretty selective.
Incidentally I just could not afford to send my daughter there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

And of course, I never advocated arming teachers or said that they should be trained to the level of SWAT teams, I argued against it.

Precisely. You ridiculed the idea of allowing armed teachers.

Bringing forth the idea of 20 or 30 armed teachers in a school - when it would be exceedingly rare to have even 1 armed teacher in a school.

Bringing forth the idea of liability issues - if people have the constitutional right to bear arms; and schools are no longer gun free zones and the schools do not have the right to prevent permitted teachers carrying - then in the absence of negligence on the school administration there is *no* liability issue.

And when I made the obvious point that most of the time police first responders were dozens of minutes away from the scene - and that people on site had the significant advantage in being there - you poo poo'd it with sarcasm saying

"What police no where had ever stopped a suspect at a crime scene"

You cannot on the one hand claim to be for rational discourse and on the other mock your opponents ideas.

Again, I personally, am not in favor of police at schools, or arming teachers.
I think its an irrational over reaction.

But I understand the desire that some people have to do something. And it would probably do no harm to allow teachers to carry, if they so desired.

About the only thing I can see doing is removing the gun-free designation around schools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

That may be true where you live. Where I live I specifically went to the Annunciation Catholic School in my area to try to find out rates hoping to get my daughter in. For starters they have a priority list for letting in students. If you were non catholic you were last on that list. Their tuition was $4900 a year, plus 200 registration, plus almost 600 dollars in fees (books, lab, etc.) plus 4 dollars a day for lunch which on a 180 day school year equals to an additional 720 dollars a year. I inquired about discounts and was told they had "payment plans" and a discount for Catholics. The application they gave me said in writing that the Principal had to conduct a family interview to decide whether or not the child would be accepted. So the vast majority of the students that go to the Catholic School (at least in my area) are Catholic, white and at least well off enough to afford a minimum of an extra 535 dollars a month/ 6400 dollars a year. So yeah....that is pretty selective.
Incidentally I just could not afford to send my daughter there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

That may be true where you live. Where I live I specifically went to the Annunciation Catholic School in my area to try to find out rates hoping to get my daughter in. For starters they have a priority list for letting in students. If you were non catholic you were last on that list. Their tuition was $4900 a year, plus 200 registration, plus almost 600 dollars in fees (books, lab, etc.) plus 4 dollars a day for lunch which on a 180 day school year equals to an additional 720 dollars a year. I inquired about discounts and was told they had "payment plans" and a discount for Catholics. The application they gave me said in writing that the Principal had to conduct a family interview to decide whether or not the child would be accepted. So the vast majority of the students that go to the Catholic School (at least in my area) are Catholic, white and at least well off enough to afford a minimum of an extra 535 dollars a month/ 6400 dollars a year. So yeah....that is pretty selective.
Incidentally I just could not afford to send my daughter there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


Maybe it is because private schools can be very selective over who they let in.

I've often seen this myth bandied about as the reason.

As a person that went through private school through highschool; as a person who helped set up a private school; as a person who worked on a scholarship board; and who worked for a private school for juvenile delinquents that had committed felonies as severe as multiple murders


I can tell you that I have never met a Catholic school that turned away anyone for inability to pay, or for not being catholic.

I can tell you of classes where half my classmates were jewish - because they wanted a good education for their children.

One thing that was required was committment by the parents. They had to work a certain numbers of hours at the school. Had to uphold an honor code - and sign a contract of what they were expected to do - and hold their children to do.

And that private school that took felonious juvenile delinquents had the lowest recividism rate in the state.

But rather than attempt to duplicate a morals based education - we'd rather hue to the liberal bias and just claim it was selection bias.

My sons private school was around 2000, a teacher talked to him, not the family, they did not have the priority system you describe and they like manywere not Catholic..
Affluent may be an apt description where you live but it is not by any means universal.
An absence of violence, on the other hand is virtually universal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You live in the South, I am sure there were good, less expensive private schools available.
I know the myth about non catholic private schools in the south but it too is untrue, about 15% of my sons school was black.