Will Smith opens his own School

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

By hellomagazine.com hellomagazine.com - Thursday, May 22 02:02 pm

 

Unable to find an appropriate school to educate his two young children Will Smith decided to take matters into his own hands.

(Advertisement)

 

After coming across the Indian Hills High School in the Californian town of Calabasas, the 39-year-old actor has paid almost half a million pounds to take over the the school's lease for three years.

 

Nine-year-old Jaden, who starred alongside his dad in The Pursuit Of Happyness, and seven-year-old I Am Legend child star Willow - both of whom were previously home schooled - will now attend the renamed New Village Academy, close to the family home in LA.

 

According to its website the school, which costs around £6,000 a year, will teach children to be leaders and have a sense of ethics – "to reflect on the choices they make and actions they take for themselves". A longer day - lessons wind down at 4pm - aims to create less homework and more family time in the evening, while an organic, low-fat breakfast and lunch, plus healthy, sugar-free snacks, are included to maintain students at their optimum learning potential.

 

Teaching at the institution is based on the Study Tech approach to learning, a method developed by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hello/20080522/te...ow-8db94e1.html

 

Seriously, what the fuck? I had to check to make sure wasn't 1st April, this sounds off the wall! I'm calling it now, in 20 years Will Smith will be President of the United States of America.

 

Is this even healthy for his Children? I just can't wrap my head around this at all.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

They got to him too!

 

 

Now watch Will's career go the same way as Tom's...

[Guest]

He said that he isn't a scientologist.

[BUTT 0]

Yeah, well B.O. Hussein said he wasn't a Muslim. We know the truth!

[Twisted Intestine 0]

Half a million to own a school for 3 years? That's chump change for him.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

He said that he isn't a scientologist.

 

He said he'd dabbled in it, previously but wasn't actually one. Which seems unusual since by all accounts scientology isn't something you can just 'have a passing interest in'. They seem to have an 'all or nothing' approach to members. And now he's opening up this school...seems odd.

[Ripper 0]

Using Study Tech isn't the same as teaching Scientology. Two completely different things developed by the same person.

[SuperJerk 0]

Does everything have to degrade into a "us vs. them" argument.

 

Will Smith decided to be proactive and is helping kids (not just his own) get a good education. Good for him!

[Jingus 0]

Yeah, helping all the needy kids who can afford the $10,000 per year for tuition.

[dubq 0]

You know it's a fucked up world when the Fresh Prince can afford to do this kind of shit..

[Ripper 0]

Yeah, fuck Will Smith. If he was keeping it real, he would send his kids to the worse school possible in the poorest area possible. Make them EARN it.

[dubq 0]

Well I wouldn't go that far. But I do have a problem with celebrities "leasing" schools and therefore influencing the curriculum, all the while charging tuition for entry. I mean seriously, if they want to do good, how about donating this cash to schools that actually need the funding?

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh, he's STILL gonna charge tuition?

 

And wait a second...I just realized I don't know the exchange rates. This article was from a foriegn newspaper! SPEEK AMURICEN, DAMMIT!!!

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

How could someone hate on Will Smith for this? Sounds like a good program, it's - at worst- a latteral move from home schooling and 10K isn't a whole lot per year for tuition ESPECIALLY for L.A.

[Jingus 0]

10K isn't a whole lot per year for tuition ESPECIALLY for L.A.

Are you kidding? 90% of American households couldn't afford that, especially if they had more than one kid. I would define that as "a whole lot".

 

I'm not saying it's a bad thing and we should fart in his general direction for it. But... buying your own school and running it the way you want because you don't trust any currently existing schools with your kids? It just seems kinda pretentious and elitist to me, but hey, it's his money and he can do what he wants with it.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Oh, he's STILL gonna charge tuition?

 

And wait a second...I just realized I don't know the exchange rates. This article was from a foriegn newspaper! SPEEK AMURICEN, DAMMIT!!!

 

Its like I'm on XboxLive without even being on XboxLive

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

10K isn't a whole lot per year for tuition ESPECIALLY for L.A.

Are you kidding? 90% of American households couldn't afford that, especially if they had more than one kid. I would define that as "a whole lot".

 

I'm not saying it's a bad thing and we should fart in his general direction for it. But... buying your own school and running it the way you want because you don't trust any currently existing schools with your kids? It just seems kinda pretentious and elitist to me, but hey, it's his money and he can do what he wants with it.

 

90% of America, huh? With all due respect, I don't think that number is accurate at all.

 

It's actually more around $12,000 per year for the school, too, which is average for non-sectarian private schools... so... it isn't any more elitist and pretentious than private school as a whole.

 

Aside from the facts, I don't really understand your opinion about this being elitist and pretentious. Will Smith obviously has money, what should he spend it on, in your opinion? More beach houses? Cars? Should he donate it to one of the already well-established private schools that already exist for privilaged children in LA? If you think THIS is elitist, then in your opinion, it seems anything short of anonymous charity would be elitist . You, sir, are guilty of hatin'.

[Guest]

I'd also say Jingus' number isn't accurate. More like 95%.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I'd also say Jingus' number isn't accurate. More like 95%.

 

We're talking can afford, or can afford and still get some jet skis? Median household income was $46,000 or so in 2005... and that's the whole US. In California, where this school is, it's more around $65,000. For families of four? It's $74,000! In '06, the income went up... Census Median Income By State.

 

The top 20% in the United States? $92,000 average income! 15.8% of U.S. households made six figures or more... these are people who can afford $12,000 in tuition.

 

Not to mention, my original statement was to be taken relative to tuition in general... so.. this whole thing turned into another argument altogether. Another argument you were wrong about, but another argument all the same.

[Jingus 0]

Aside from the facts, I don't really understand your opinion about this being elitist and pretentious. Will Smith obviously has money, what should he spend it on, in your opinion? More beach houses? Cars? Should he donate it to one of the already well-established private schools that already exist for privilaged children in LA? If you think THIS is elitist, then in your opinion, it seems anything short of anonymous charity would be elitist . You, sir, are guilty of hatin'.

I already said "it's his money and he can do what he wants with it". What bugs me a little is the unspoken implication that there is no school currently in existence which is good enough to teach his oh-so-gifted kids. I mean, opening his own new school, is that really necessary?

 

And I've always found the general idea of rich folks sending their kids off to also be elitist. It's understandable if you live in an area where the public schools are complete shite and there's a massive difference between the two. But it makes me think back to my high school years, when I lived in a rich town full of rich kids. The public school I went to there actually scored higher on test scores and related subjects than the two local private schools (our sports teams regularly kicked their asses, too). Yet some parents would still spend untold thousands of dollars for their kids to go get an inferior education, just because Private Is Better somehow.

 

The top 20% in the United States? $92,000 average income! 15.8% of U.S. households made six figures or more... these are people who can afford $12,000 in tuition.

Firstly, you're still assuming that all these families just have one kid. Secondly, just because you're making 92K on paper doesn't mean you can throw away 12K per year (or 24K, or 36K...) on something like this. With the standard of living cost so high in Cali, and whatever taxes or debt they might have which drags that number down further, it's not hard for a person who makes that much to not have much disposable income.

[In Credible 0]

If Uncle Phil hadn't taken Will in and given him a good education, then who knows where he'd be today?

[The Niggardly King 0]

good for will public schools suck out here with all them wetbacks watering down the system... SPEAK ENGLISH! and the latifahas and laqueshas and sharnices having 5 or 6 little niglets running around disrupting the class and crowding it

 

he's gonna be the man to save the american school system

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Niglet is my favorite word ever.

[SuperJerk 0]

If Uncle Phil hadn't taken Will in and given him a good education, then who knows where he'd be today?

That's an excellent point.

[Guest Desensitized]

This thread somehow made my head roll off and now I have to have it surgically reattached.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Aside from the facts, I don't really understand your opinion about this being elitist and pretentious. Will Smith obviously has money, what should he spend it on, in your opinion? More beach houses? Cars? Should he donate it to one of the already well-established private schools that already exist for privilaged children in LA? If you think THIS is elitist, then in your opinion, it seems anything short of anonymous charity would be elitist . You, sir, are guilty of hatin'.

I already said "it's his money and he can do what he wants with it". What bugs me a little is the unspoken implication that there is no school currently in existence which is good enough to teach his oh-so-gifted kids. I mean, opening his own new school, is that really necessary?

 

And I've always found the general idea of rich folks sending their kids off to also be elitist. It's understandable if you live in an area where the public schools are complete shite and there's a massive difference between the two. But it makes me think back to my high school years, when I lived in a rich town full of rich kids. The public school I went to there actually scored higher on test scores and related subjects than the two local private schools (our sports teams regularly kicked their asses, too). Yet some parents would still spend untold thousands of dollars for their kids to go get an inferior education, just because Private Is Better somehow.

 

The top 20% in the United States? $92,000 average income! 15.8% of U.S. households made six figures or more... these are people who can afford $12,000 in tuition.

Firstly, you're still assuming that all these families just have one kid. Secondly, just because you're making 92K on paper doesn't mean you can throw away 12K per year (or 24K, or 36K...) on something like this. With the standard of living cost so high in Cali, and whatever taxes or debt they might have which drags that number down further, it's not hard for a person who makes that much to not have much disposable income.

 

I'm not assuming anything. You're assuming they're going to send all of their kids to the same private school. Let's just head this off at the pass before we keep arguing past each other. I'm saying they CAN afford it, you're saying they SHOULDN'T spend the money on tuition. That's something I would agree with you on in certain cases. Where I grew up, the public schools were great. I'm like you, the public school I went to had better test scores than the Jesuit High School that was the private school of note in the area.

 

The problem in this specific case is the schools in California are garbage balls, and what makes this seem even LESS elitist to me is that the school seems like a good idea.

 

[Twisted Intestine 0]

What bugs me a little is the unspoken implication that there is no school currently in existence which is good enough to teach his oh-so-gifted kids. I mean, opening his own new school, is that really necessary?

 

Well, you're making it sound like he has the option to send his kids to any school in the country. He probably wants them to go to a school close to home, and it's believable that he finds no schools around where he lives acceptable for his children.

[Jingus 0]

I know, but still, the Smiths probably live in a really, really nice neighborhood, right? And aren't really, really nice neighborhoods usually loaded up with good schools? It's possible that he somehow plunked his mansion down right in the middle of an educational dead zone, but not likely.

 

Part of my antipathy on this issue just comes from the fact that I've never liked the idea of private schools. You don't like the schools we have now, but instead of improving them, you'll just spend a shitload of money to send your kids off to a Separate But Unequal private school instead? "Fuck the rest of the world, I just want MY special snowflake to get special privileges." (And I'm saying this as a guy who spent three years in private school myself, it's not a case of sour grapes.) If all the money which is spent yearly on private schools were spent on public schools instead, we wouldn't have the same lousy public schools we do now.

[Guest Desensitized]

I've never liked the idea of private schools. You don't like the schools we have now, but instead of improving them, you'll just spend a shitload of money to send your kids off to a Separate But Unequal private school instead? "Fuck the rest of the world, I just want MY special snowflake to get special privileges."

I don't think providing one's children with an alternative to government-provided education is any sort of social injustice. Furthermore, I hate the pejorative use of the term "special snowflake," which always emanates from people who are actually even more pathetic than I am. There are ways to impress upon children that they're unique in many ways and just like everyone else in other ways. Most kids can't even conceptualize being able to write/sing/draw/shoot a basketball as well as you can; everyone falls off their bicycle and scrapes up their knees because they're no damn good at riding a bike yet. This was more or less how I was raised, and I feel I've turned out as well as I possibly could. But if you don't think your child is special and worthy of the best learning environment possible, you'd be really missing the mark as a parent. Damn right your kid is more important than the rest of the world.

[SuperJerk 0]

Since many of you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, I guess I'd better be serious and weigh in.

 

These needs to be said:

• Some schools are terrible.
• Some school districts are terrible.
• Some school districts are good.
• Some schools are good.

 

I've seen both, and I've worked at both. The type of generalization that goes on when discussing public education is harmful because it over-simplifies complex issues both in terms of causes and possible solutions. It also usually gives private schools, which have almost unlimited latitude with how they deal with problems, a free pass it doesn't deserve. Private schools can reject or accept whoever they want, aren't required to provide special education services, deal with poverty or at-risk children, and can basically create the illusion that they are wonderful educators not because they are better at instruction, but because they are better at hand-picking their students and have more options in enforcing discipline. At the same time, there are many public schools that have their hands tied the same way many other schools do, and still graduate successful students. There are also schools that have had huge sums of money funneled into them, experimented with various strategies, and still manage to fall on their face because of incompetence or mismanagement.