• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court rules subsidization of private schools must also include religious ones

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There is no subsidization of any religion in this whatsoever. Montana, for its own reasons, offered the opportunity to private education providers to receive scholarship money in return for providing a product. The product being a state regulated, secular based curriculum to its youth. Whether such a provider happens to have his own beliefs is irrelevant to that exchange. The Court recognizes that to deny private entities the same opportunity to provide this service is itself a violation of any separation of church and state.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Free of charge, aside from the taxes?
The citizens of Montana recognize that educating their youth is an entirely appropriate use of public funds, including public funds that come from taxes. Too bad if you don’t.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I tend to broaden it to 'rich family's brat', but there are some substantial differences in educational system structures between the US and Australia, so I'm being somewhat evasive in terms of committing too strongly.

I'm very passionate about education, just a few things in that article which didn't make sense to me as an outsider (despite my education background).

My example wasn't meant to represent all private school situations, albeit not an uncommon one, since a lot of private schools are also religious and bill themselves as being elite and prestigious; i.e. where the rich enroll their kids so they don't have to interact with the lowly rabble.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
The citizens of Montana recognize that educating their youth is an entirely appropriate use of public funds, including public funds that come from taxes. Too bad if you don’t.

Their youth as in all of them, or the just those who can afford it? I would rather my tax money go towards something available to every child rather than towards something that's elective and exclusive.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
That's inaccurate.
Some kids' families are rich, but I've known ordinary working folk who
sent their kids to private schools. One co-worker in Baltimore, an atheist,
sent his kids to a Catholic school cuz the public schools were so bad.

I agree, it's not (accurate).
I also want to apologize to anyone who might have felt slighted by that.

In my defence, it was a throwaway line meant to indicate it wasn't the religious/non-religious nature of a school that I saw as important in terms of funding models, taxation, etc.
I have 6 nieces/nephews, and 4 of them go to Catholic schools. None of those families could be fairly described as 'rich', and neither of the two Catholic schools are overly expensive. I get your point here.

In short, I think there is a very long and (to most) boring discussion to be had around private schools versus public schools, the role of each, the existence of each (I kinda sit on the more radical end of this argument, I guess) and the funding of each.
And even then, the US and Australian systems are so different from each other in terms of funding that it gets hard not to talk past each other.

So...anyone up for me starting such a thread??
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
My example wasn't meant to represent all private school situations, albeit not an uncommon one, since a lot of private schools are also religious and bill themselves as being elite and prestigious; i.e. where the rich enroll their kids so they don't have to interact with the lowly rabble.

It's similar here, but refer my post above.
I get what you mean, and probably agree with you in general terms.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Private and Religious School Backers See Broad Victory in Supreme Court Decision

Fair or unfair?

Violation of separation of church and state?

My own opinion on this is if it goes for education in terms of general subjects I'm okay with it.

Yet taxpayer subsidy for the promotion of a religion seems to be a bit more spurious when it comes to religious institutions masquerading as schools.

It's a bittersweet decision, but I would say the Supreme Court had attacked the Constitution by violating the separation of church and state clause in terms that the curriculum of religious institutions also include the promotion of an established religion of which now receives state backing and support.
Its not currently a good idea, because some important related issues are not brought up in the case. Get rid of grades based education would make this potentially good. Switch to achievement based or mastery based. THEN maybe funding charters would start to make sense.

Also charters end up encouraging tiny church schools -- schools that are literally located inside of a church building or directly attached or in the same parking lot! What's wrong with that? Its unfair to students. "Am I in school or am I in church?" They are the same. Its unhealthy. I feel I must apologize to those who like this arrangement, but its unhealthy. Yes, you could conceivably do it without brainwashing and without limiting children's choices of employment, but you probably won't or can't. Any student who is not the pastor's kid is 2nd class in that school. The schools are too small, too attached to their associated churches. There aren't enough students to give children a social environment where they can find their element. Under grading schemes and in tiny church schools students will have very limited choices of electives and will continue to have the social problems associated with tiny church schools, and such schools will continue to cause problems for their students. Its the size. Its the location being the church building or attached. Its the favoritism of children being reared with the pastor's children. Its the lack of electives and little choice in sports or anything else like music or tech or almost anything other than what the pastor's kid wants to do. You want to fund that with charter funds? I don't suggest it.

That is where requiring meeting educational standards is useful.
Grades are part of the problem which both kinds of schools. You can graduate from either public or private institutions without knowing much and have a certificate. I've been in both, and both have serious educational deficiencies in their approaches. (as of my experiences in the early 1990s). You don't have to remember the state capitals for your lifetime or how to do anything if you can just pass the grades with a C or D. Pass and forget. Sometimes even an F is overlooked for the sake of keeping student moving with the rest of their classmates. Not good.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Grades are part of the problem which both kinds of schools. You can graduate from either public or private institutions without knowing much and have a certificate. I've been in both, and both have serious educational deficiencies in their approaches. (as of my experiences in the early 1990s). You don't have to remember the state capitals for your lifetime or how to do anything if you can just pass the grades with a C or D. Pass and forget. Sometimes even an F is overlooked for the sake of keeping student moving with the rest of their classmates. Not good.
The problems you cite are rife in public schools.
I see it as a separate issue from private school subsidies.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The problems you cite are rife in public schools.
I see it as a separate issue from private school subsidies.
Thank you. To return to the main question about charter schools I am in favor of charters for large student bodies only.

I think small student bodies often provide poor social development and should not be funded through charters. Small schools, private or public, should not get charter funds. They should have to find funding through other means. Perhaps they should glom together so that students share classes and meal, possibly make friends, possibly find people they do and do not like. Since we're derailing students for twelve years of their lives we should make sure they have an opportunity to develop socially. That and we should have common educational standards (which we already do). If these two requirements are met then I am in favor of charters.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Thank you. To return to the main question about charter schools I am in favor of charters for large student bodies only.

I think small student bodies often provide poor social development and should not be funded through charters. Small schools, private or public, should not get charter funds. They should have to find funding through other means. Perhaps they should glom together so that students share classes and meal, possibly make friends, possibly find people they do and do not like. Since we're derailing students for twelve years of their lives we should make sure they have an opportunity to develop socially. That and we should have common educational standards (which we already do). If these two requirements are met then I am in favor of charters.
I'm a fan of bigger schools too.
But I know many who prefer smaller ones.
So you're just flat out utterly blitheringly wrong!
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a fan of bigger schools too.
But I know many who prefer smaller ones.
So you're just flat out utterly blitheringly wrong!
I think a very solid case could be made that larger ones deserve the charter, not the small ones. Yes people might prefer small ones, but they don't deserve for the public to pay for it. They'd have to make that case.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think a very solid case could be made that larger ones deserve the charter, not the small ones. Yes people might prefer small ones, but they don't deserve for the public to pay for it. They'd have to make that case.
This is the first time I've heard this take on the issue.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Private and Religious School Backers See Broad Victory in Supreme Court Decision

Fair or unfair?

Violation of separation of church and state?

My own opinion on this is if it goes for education in terms of general subjects I'm okay with it.

Yet taxpayer subsidy for the promotion of a religion seems to be a bit more spurious when it comes to religious institutions masquerading as schools.

It's a bittersweet decision, but I would say the Supreme Court had attacked the Constitution by violating the separation of church and state clause in terms that the curriculum of religious institutions also include the promotion of an established religion of which now receives state backing and support.
Its bull**** as it is the state respecting the establishment of religion, and will be used make my tax dollars pay for an education in the same toxic cult that promoted religion to the point facts, science, and psychological health of children be damned. Thats waht this decision is paying. Low education standards with outstanding rote memory and standardized testing results with tons of emphasis on religious dogma that is fundamentally against the rights amd values of America.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Because small schools make it harder for students to socialize. To begin with its unnatural to disrupt their growth with so much education. At least mitigate that damage when possible.
I observe that some people do better in smaller schools.
"So much education"
They're getting too much?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Why would a community pay private schools when it already has a functioning public school system?
Some public schools are pretty bad.
But even in our town, with very good public schools, many
parents still want private schools. One caters to Muslim
immigrants. (They invited my son to go there, even though
he's a heathen. Family friends, ya know.) Some are counter
culture types.
 
Top