On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:05:12 Carl Turney wrote:

> These studies pointed to many things, including the fact that private

> schools are no more effective at teaching students than public ones,

> ceteris paribus (all other things being equal).

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/01/08/nevada-offers-teachers-personal-loans-to-buy-school-supplies/

There is the issue of budget for most things that are needed for education. The above URL is about teachers being offered PERSONAL loans to buy classroom supplies for the case where the school has no budget and their salary isn't enough to buy the supplies when needed. That sort of thing doesn't happen in a private school.

How many government schools have a school orchestra? It takes a fair amount of money to buy a full set of orchestral instruments. A full orchestra requires close to 100 musicians and to run a school orchestra you need to have younger kids learning to play before they join the orchestra, so maybe you need 200 or 300 instruments. Then there's the issue of music lessons. If you have 300 students each getting an hour a week of personal music instruction you need 8 or 9 full time staff to teach them.

A school swimming pool is also a good thing, it means that the students don't need to take much time off school for swimming lessons. It probably saves money in the long term when bus rental and public pool fees are considered but you need to have the land and the money in advance to build it.

Do any government schools have a school owned vehicle for driving instruction at school?

There are real benefits to private schools. School sucks generally, but if you are going to send kids to a school and can afford it then a good private school should be better than most government schools.

--

My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/

My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/