Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Free of charge, aside from the taxes?They are merely providing a service to the community and getting paid for that. To wit, they are being paid to provide a secular education to community children.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free of charge, aside from the taxes?They are merely providing a service to the community and getting paid for that. To wit, they are being paid to provide a secular education to community children.
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.Free of charge, aside from the taxes?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.That is where requiring meeting educational standards is useful.
The problems you cite are rife in public schools.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.
Thank you. To return to the main question about charter schools I am in favor of charters for large student bodies only.The problems you cite are rife in public schools.
I see it as a separate issue from private school subsidies.
I'm a fan of bigger schools too.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 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.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!
This is the first time I've heard this take on the issue.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.
That's because charter support is mostly sought by small schools that don't deserve it.This is the first time I've heard this take on the issue.
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.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.
Why not?That's because charter support is mostly sought by small schools that don't deserve it.
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.Why not?
I observe that some people do better in smaller schools.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.
Some public schools are pretty bad.Why would a community pay private schools when it already has a functioning public school system?