Why Are There So Many Private Schools?

I just read an article that there will be three more private schools opening in the Ottawa area.  This has occasioned the usual comments about two tiered learning and schools catering to highly specialized groups.  My response?  So what.  I have news that may come as a shock to some people - rich people have more opportunities than poor.  Is this fair?  No, but it is a fact.

Shouldn't all children have a right to a good education?  Yes, and according to the Education Act, that is precisely what the public school system offers.  However, neither the Act nor most of the public can define a good education.  That is because we all have our own idea of what a good education entails.  Some want what they had.  Others don't want their children to go through what they went through.  Some want strong academics.  Others want applicable, useful skills training.  And the public system is supposed to do its best to accommodate all these different goals and ideas.

But, let's be realistic, can one system meet everyone's needs?  Can one grocery store offer all kinds of food?  Can one hospital specialize in all areas?  No.  So the society compensates by offering options.  And those options are private, because our public system is a huge monopoly that acts more like a big business than a public service.  We need to separate the concepts of  "a strong public system" and the current public system.  I am in support of the former but not the latter. 

I wonder at the people who get upset with the existence of private schools.  Do they really think that these schools will weaken or diminish the public system?  That really doesn't make much sense.  If they are only for the wealthy, then only a few will ever attend. The loss of wealthy parents from the local school will have impact only if the parents were happy with the local school.  In which case, they have no reason to leave.  Unhappy parents do not support that school which is not meeting their needs.  And, just in case you have forgotten, parents of children in private school still pay public school taxes.  Some claim that the private schools are taking the best and brightest.  If this is true, then why aren't the public schools doing something about this?  Why aren't they meeting the needs of the best and brightest? 

Why are there so many private schools?  Because parents are willing to pay for the education they think their children need.  If there weren't unsatisfied parents, there wouldn't be private schools.   As with all sectors of our economy, there is only a supply when there is a demand. 


The increase in number of private schools and homeschooling families should be a wake up call to the public system.  Is the alarm loud enough?  I hope so.  I would love to see my grandchildren get a good education at their local public school. 

Don't believe in private schools?  Then don't send your children to one.  But if you  want something different from what the local school is offering, there are options. 

Honour the Parents

All parents know that moment when they realize just how fragile and vulnerable their little new baby is. At that moment they want to do everything to protect the child. We spend an enormous amount of time and energy keeping our babies and children safe. But it is more than this. We also want them to be happy and to avoid the growing pains that we went through ourselves.

But we also have to acknowledge the reality - that, if we want them to thrive in this less than perfect world, we cannot completely shelter them. No matter how much we wish to. Our job as parents, and as teachers, and as role models, is to teach them how to deal with the real world. It is no good to prepare them for an utopia that not only doesn't, but also in all likelihood can't, exist.

No matter when a child is first introduced to the larger society - daycare, playgroup, kindergarten, camp - the parent brings one critically important factor to the experience: the knowledge of the child. No one knows a child better than his parent. To anyone working with that child, that knowledge is priceless. The first insight into the makeup of the child comes from the parent. I have always felt that the first parent-teacher interview of the year should involve the teacher asking questions and the parents revealing their intimate knowledge of the students. Any teacher would benefit from this viewpoint.

Parents are always partners with the other people who help their children learn and grow. Parents should be respected for this and their role acknowledged. Just like we no longer just take the pill that the doctor gives us and stay ignorant about our own health, neither should we completely turn control of our child's education over to teachers and administrators. Yes, they know what is best for the average child, but your child is never average. In fact, the average child does not exist. It is a manifestation created from large amounts of data to provide a program that will suit most children most of the time. I would argue that that is not good enough, nor is it the way to run an education system.

Given the training and experience that good teachers have, they should be able to individually work with the parents for each child. Whenever I carefully express this opinion in the presence of teachers they always reply that there are too many children to do this. And yet, each teacher at the elementary level is only responsible for 30 children. This does not mean that the teacher needs to teach each child individually but that they first learn each child from the parent and from their own testing methods. Then they group the children for each skill at the appropriate level. They supply the tasks and the tools and let the children work it out in their own best way at their own time. With properly expressed expectations and responsibilities, this is not chaos but engaged learning - the only kind of learning that is meaningful.

Ask yourself this question: what lessons do you remember from high school? Why do you remember them? How much do you now consider useless? The curriculum has been put together by professionals who realize all the skills and knowledge that children should have to succeed in the real world. The fact that some of that you found useless is not the fault of the curriculum itself but the manner of the delivery. An unengaged student may learn enough to pass the test but will not learn what they will need to go forward in life. Many of us had to relearn what we were taught because we did not learn it the first time.

I can hear some of you now saying, "But I never needed to know the date of Confederation! I never used trigonometry!" But that is not what you were supposed to learn. Canadian history is not about the date of Confederation but an appreciation of where our country came from and how that affects decisions that are made today. Without this awareness we have no hope of understanding the factors behind the issues of today's politics - Aboriginal claims, French rights, social services, health care. And trigonometry is not about triangles and angles but about precision and multi-step procedures that require intense focus and accuracy. These are valuable skills and are the underlying reason for the curriculum.

So I repeat in conclusion that students must be engaged to learn. Teachers must know their students in order to engage them. And parents are the best source for this information. If teachers wonder why so many parents are not involved in their children's education, the system does not respect the knowledge and value of the parents. Embrace any teacher who does. They are the ones who will best teach your precious child the skills needed to thrive in this world of opportunity.