╌>

DeVos moves to allow religious groups to provide federally-funded services to private schools

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  5 years ago  •  112 comments

DeVos moves to allow religious groups to provide federally-funded services to private schools
“The Trinity Lutheran decision reaffirmed the long-understood intent of the First Amendment to not restrict the free exercise of religion,” DeVos said in a statement.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Education Secretary   Betsy DeVos   announced Monday her agency will no longer enforce a federal provision that prohibits religious organizations from giving private schools federally funded services.

The decision is in response to a 2017 Supreme Court verdict that found that Missouri unconstitutionally denied a church-run preschool publicly-funded tire scraps for its playground

“The Trinity Lutheran decision reaffirmed the long-understood intent of the First Amendment to not restrict the free exercise of religion,” DeVos   said in a statement . “Those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers should not be discriminated against simply based on the religious character of their organization.”

She added that a federal law overseeing all elementary, middle and high schools that mandates students receive “equitable services” unconstitutionally bars contractors from having affiliations with religious organization. The Education Department will still enforce the other provisions of the law. 

DeVos   sent a letter   to House Speaker   Nancy Pelosi   (D-Calif.) outlining her conclusion.

“House Democrats are carefully reviewing the legality of the administration’s new policy,” Joshua Weisz, a spokesman for the House Education Committee, told   The New York Times .

President Trump   has actively sought to extend religious liberty protections to church groups whose public activities have been regulated in the past. Former Attorney General   Jeff Sessions   issued guidance  in 2017 to other cabinet secretaries saying that laws “must not discriminate against religious organizations in their contracting or grant-making activities.” 

“Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law,” Sessions wrote. “Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting and programming.”


BY  TAL AXELROD  -  03/12/19 08:00 PM EDT


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

The Trinity Lutheran decision is the law of the land

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

No, not so.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    5 years ago

Don't you believe in the authority of the Supreme Court?

Or are you saying we only need to follow the laws we like?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

Trump's education pick says reform can 'advance God's Kingdom'

By   BENJAMIN WERMUND

 

12/02/2016 06:42 PM EST

The billionaire philanthropist whom Donald Trump has tapped to lead the Education Department once   compared her work in education reform to a biblical battleground where she wants to "advance God's Kingdom."

Trump’s pick, Betsy DeVos, a national leader of the school choice movement, has pursued that work in large part by spending millions to promote the use of taxpayer dollars on private and religious schools.

Her comments came during a 2001 meeting of “The Gathering,” an annual conference of some of the country’s wealthiest Christians. DeVos and her husband, Dick, were interviewed a year after voters rejected a Michigan ballot initiative to change the state’s constitution to allow public money to be spent on private and religious schools, which the DeVoses had backed.

In the interview, an audio recording, which was obtained by POLITICO, the couple is candid about how their Christian faith drives their efforts to reform American education.

School choice, they say, leads to “greater Kingdom gain.” The two also lament that public schools have “displaced” the Church as the center of communities, and they cite school choice as a way to reverse that troubling trend.

The audio from the private gathering, though 15 years old, offers a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse of DeVos’ personal views — views that may guide her decision-making as the nation’s top education official. DeVos has repeatedly said she wants policies that give families choices about their children’s education — the choice of public schools included — but her critics fear that her goal is to shift public funding from already beleaguered traditional public schools to private and religious schools.

DeVos remains a harsh critic of the traditional education system, which she calls a “monopoly” and a “dead end.” But she said in the audio that she doesn’t want to destroy public education — only inject competition.

Betsy DeVos says she is not out to destroy public schools

Betsy and Dick DeVos talk about their efforts to reform education at a gathering of wealthy Christians in 2001.

12/02/16 05:26 PM EST

“Dick and Betsy are not radical fundamentalist, 'in the hills' kind of people,” said Rev. Robert A. Sirico, head of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, who described himself as a close friend. “They’re not the kind of people who want to force their beliefs down anybody’s throat.”

DeVos’ spokesman referred questions to the Trump transition team, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The DeVos family are billionaires, but in the interview, Betsy DeVos said that rather than just give money to boost Christian schools, she’s fighting to change the whole system because there “aren’t enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education.”

Betsy DeVos also described her efforts, using the biblical term “Shephelah,” an area where battles — including between David and Goliath — were fought in the Old Testament.

“Our desire is to be in that Shephelah, and to confront the culture in which we all live today in ways that will continue to help advance God’s Kingdom, but not to stay in our own faith territory,” she said.

Those who know DeVos say her goals are not sinister — though they acknowledge the policies she’s likely to advance would benefit Christian schools. In fact, Trump’s $20 billion school choice program that would allow low-income students to select private or   charter schools   was devised with the help of the advocacy group DeVos headed until recently.

“What she wants to do is just make sure education is much more locally controlled,” said Sirico, who talked to DeVos about her “dreams generally” while celebrating Thanksgiving with her family. “That it’s sensitive to the localities, to the states, to the cities, to the families. That’s just going to naturally involve — at least in the great swath of flyover America — that’s going to involve religious education.”

The DeVoses lament that public schools have “displaced” churches as the center of communities

Betsy and Dick DeVos talk about their efforts to reform education at a gathering of wealthy Christians in 2001.

12/02/16 05:26 PM EST

Betsy DeVos has served on the board of directors of Sirico’s Acton Institute, which seeks to educate religious leaders of all denominations, business executives, entrepreneurs, university professors and academic researchers "in the connection that can exist between virtue and economic thinking," according to the group's website.

But the views expressed in the audio disturb advocates for the separation of church and state.

“It's very alarming,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Boston’s group has referred to DeVos as a “four-star general in a deceptive behind-the-scenes war on public schools and church-state separation.”

“People support school vouchers for different reasons. Some make a free-market argument because they are opposed to public schooling. Others want to prop up sectarian teachings with taxpayer money,” Boston said. “DeVos has a foot in both camps, which does not bode well for our public schools.”

The audio of the 2001 interview was given to POLITICO by Bruce Wilson, who works for the LGBT rights nonprofit Truth Wins Out and has researched the "Gathering" conferences. The Devos family has a long history of supporting anti-gay causes — including donating hundreds of thousands to "Focus on the Family", a conservative Christian organization that supports so-called conversion therapy aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation.

During the DeVos interview, the couple talks about a trip to Israel where they learned about a geographical region, called the Shephelah, where battles were fought between the Israelites and Philistines. Betsy DeVos then links this topic to education.

"It goes back to what I mentioned, the concept of really being active in the Shephelah of our culture — to impact our culture in ways that are not the traditional funding-the-Christian-organization route, but that really may have greater Kingdom gain in the long run by changing the way we approach things — in this case, the system of education in the country," she says.

Using an anecdote about pig remains found on archaeological digs in the Shephelah, the couple compares their work in education reform to the long-ago battles waged in that region. Pigs are not kosher, Dick DeVos says, so you could tell where the Jewish people influenced what the couple call "pagan" communities, because “the pig bones were gone.”

 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    5 years ago

Thanks for the Politico op-ed piece

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago

It's not an op-ed piece.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    5 years ago

You have an opinion piece by Benjamin Wermund with two video's attached. Correct?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    5 years ago

What exactly does this have to do with the current article? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    5 years ago

If a private school is going to receive federal services, then I say they should fall under federal standards and mandates.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2    5 years ago
If a private school is going to receive federal services, then I say they should fall under federal standards and mandates.

Seems fair.  Is that not what's happening here?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1    5 years ago

I honestly don't know. I thought private schools could set their own curriculum and guidelines.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1    5 years ago

Doubtful.  

Don't trust the phony rich biatch Devos one bit.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @2.1.1    5 years ago
I honestly don't know. I thought private schools could set their own curriculum and guidelines.

I honestly don't know either. 

But public schools can set their own curriculum, too.  There isn't as much latitude on things like religion courses, but they can decide which sciences to offer, which electives to offer, which foreign languages, etc.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Federal law overseeing all elementary, middle and high schools that mandates students receive “equitable services” unconstitutionally bars contractors from having affiliations with religious organization.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    5 years ago

This is one of many things I don't like my tax money spent on

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 years ago

Ditto.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.2  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 years ago
This is one of many things I don't like my tax money spent on

I'm not sure I understand the objection.  What money is being spent where and why is it a problem?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2    5 years ago

Private religious schools shouldn't receive our tax dollars.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.2  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    5 years ago

On of the things I agree with you on

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.3  charger 383  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2    5 years ago

why should tax money support a religious school?  They think they are better than regular people so let them pay for it 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    5 years ago
Private religious schools shouldn't receive our tax dollars.

Meh.  I think it depends on the situation.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.4    5 years ago

No, it doesn't.  

Private religious schools shouldn't receive our tax dollars.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.5    5 years ago

One of the very rare occasions I am in complete agreement with you here. Betsy Devos is totally unqualified for her position and should never have been appointed to it. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @4.2.3    5 years ago
They think they are better than regular people so let them pay for it 

That is a huge sweeping generalization and simply isn't true for most people.   They simply believe something different.   That doesn't mean they automatically think they are better than folks who don't think the same as them.

That said, if its true that our tax dollars shouldn't subsidize religious schools, then people sending their kids to religious schools should get a public school tax exemption.

Can't have it both ways.   Not if you want to be fair to all concerned.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @4.2.3    5 years ago
why should tax money support a religious school?

If we buy into a bit of liberal philosophy for a minute...because in this case I don't think they're wrong...we'll presume that government grants for education, health or other social services exist to promote the education, health and/or general welfare of the American people.  Usually those grants are tied to some specific need as identified by government officials in charge of overseeing that particular area.

If that need can be met and the general welfare improved by a given group, why should it matter what their religious beliefs are?

So let's ask your question a different way.  Why should tax money support a religious hospital?  Why should Baylor Medical Center in Dallas or Catholic Health in Denver or Ascension Health in St. Louis be able to treat Medicare patients?

Does your belief extend to the college level?  Should students at Notre Dame or Emory or St. John's or Oklahoma Wesleyan be able to get a TEACH grant?  

  They think they are better than regular people so let them pay for it 

If that's your takeaway about religious people, then the people you've been watching are doing it wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 years ago

Tell that to the parents who pay to send their children to private schools, while still paying property taxes for the failing public school system.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.1  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    5 years ago

I worked at a private school for many years.

If regular school is not to your liking you have to pay extra 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    5 years ago
'Tell that to the parents who pay to send their children to private schools, while still paying property taxes for the failing public school system'

Has nothing to do with this.  What do property taxes have to do with the public school system?

I don't have any children in school, never did, never will, and I still pay taxes for them, gladly.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.1    5 years ago
If regular school is not to your liking you have to pay extra 

Why?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.2    5 years ago
What do property taxes have to do with the public school system?

Don't you know?  Public schools are funded via property taxes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.4    5 years ago

My mistake then.  

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    5 years ago

People who have no children at all pay property taxes and they still benefit from an educated population.  They have the option of not owning any property and they can avoid property taxes.  I think that money spent educating our children is a good investment however, allowing tax payer money to go to private schools is just welfare for the rich.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.6    5 years ago
People who have no children at all pay property taxes and they still benefit from an educated population.

So, you are satisfied with the job the public school system is doing?  We are getting our moneys worth?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.8  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.7    5 years ago

are we getting our moneys worth from all the money we send to other countries?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.9  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.3    5 years ago

because if what is good enough for regular people is not good enough for you and you want something else you need to pay for it

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.8    5 years ago

The education of our children dosen't relate to "whataboutism".  It is a vital function of local government. Afraid to grade it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.9    5 years ago
because if what is good enough for regular people

You mean the people who have no choice?   The Kennedy's didn't send their children to public schools. Inner city families are without many options. Shall we ask them?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.12  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.10    5 years ago

taxes pay for one regular school system, it is not perfect and neither are the kids in it.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.12    5 years ago

So your'e satisfied. Ok, thanks for the honest response

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.6    5 years ago
People who have no children at all pay property taxes and they still benefit from an educated population. 

Difference is, people who have no children, pay NOTHING for any school.   Public or otherwise.   No skin in the game as it were.

Putting a double burden on folks who chose a private school is simply not fair.   No matter how you try to rationalize that it is.

That said, do your believe we all benefit from private school educations as well?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.14    5 years ago

How is it putting a double burden on those who choose to put their children in private school?  It's not.  If they don't like the public schools, their problem.  Life isn't fair.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.16  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.7    5 years ago
So, you are satisfied with the job the public school system is doing?  We are getting our moneys worth?

So, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.17  SteevieGee  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.14    5 years ago
Difference is, people who have no children, pay NOTHING for any school.   Public or otherwise.   No skin in the game as it were.

So you're saying that people with no children don't pay taxes?  I think they do.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.14    5 years ago
Putting a double burden on folks who chose a private school is simply not fair.   No matter how you try to rationalize that it is.

Of course it's fair.  

You have a free thing available but you choose to spend extra money.  Why should I have to subsidize that?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.19  Jack_TX  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.6    5 years ago
allowing tax payer money to go to private schools is just welfare for the rich.

Depends on the school.

For example.... Giving vouchers to parents that they can use at The Episcopal School of Dallas (where all the billionaire kids go) is welfare for the rich.

Giving a grant to St. Lukes Community United Methodist to open a pre-school to help get the very, very poor kids in that neighborhood ready for kindergarten involves absolutely zero rich people.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.16    5 years ago
So, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?

What are you referring to exactly?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    5 years ago
Tell that to the parents who pay to send their children to private schools, while still paying property taxes for the failing public school system.

That we're not going to pay their private school tuition when there are free public schools available? 

Happily.

Point me in their direction.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.11    5 years ago
Inner city families are without many options. Shall we ask them?

Those are not the people who will benefit from vouchers, and everybody knows it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.21    5 years ago
That we're not going to pay their private school tuition when there are free public schools available? 

Public schools are not free. Taxpayers foot the bill for all of it including pay raises for the teachers

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.22    5 years ago

They should be

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.3.25  lady in black  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.14    5 years ago

Are you going to pay my school tax bill.  I get one every year, and I have no kids in school.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.26  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.23    5 years ago
Public schools are not free. Taxpayers foot the bill for all of it including pay raises for the teachers

No shit Sherlock?  

Happily I might add though there's not nearly enough available for public schools and their pay raises

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.27  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.20    5 years ago
What are you referring to exactly?

I think I was pretty clear.  If we give taxpayer money to private schools that money has to come from somewhere.  Unless you want to pay more taxes, it will most likely come from the public school budgets.  The cost of running public schools is still the same.  There will be no cost savings for public schools but their budgets will have to be cut.  I ask you again, Vic, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.3.25    5 years ago
Are you going to pay my school tax bill. I get one every year, and I have no kids in school.

No sense in complaining about paying your fair share.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.27    5 years ago
If we give taxpayer money to private schools that money has to come from somewhere. 

Taxpayer money does NOT fund private schools

  I ask you again, Vic, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?

We don't do that. Show me where that is being done?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.3.30  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.28    5 years ago

Why do you assume things about me when you don't know me, not complaining, just stating that people who have no kids in school still pay school tax bills

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.31  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.29    5 years ago

FTA:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced Monday her agency will no longer enforce a federal provision that prohibits religious organizations from giving private schools federally funded services.

If you don't read the article I'm not going to talk to you anymore.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.32  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @4.3.30    5 years ago

'Why do you assume things about me when you don't know me, not complaining, just stating that people who have no kids in school still pay school tax bills'

She does that to everyone.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.33  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.29    5 years ago
'We don't do that. Show me where that is being done?'

Betsy Devos is doing that by funneling monies from MY TAX DOLLARS into private schools and 'charter schools' and trying to do it with religious schools.

She is a fundamentalist whack job.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.34  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.3.30    5 years ago
stating that people who have no kids in school still pay school tax bills

And THAT is their fair share.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.35  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.31    5 years ago
If you don't read the article I'm not going to talk to you anymore.

Education Secretary  Betsy DeVos  announced Monday her agency will no longer enforce a federal provision that prohibits religious organizations from giving private schools federally funded services.

Do you understand what that means?  A federal funded service DOES NOT mean the federal government is funding private schools, which pay their own expenses from tuition payments. It means that the federal government cannot give one school a special service (like safety additions to a playground) and withhold the same special service from a religious school.

Understood?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.36  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.33    5 years ago
Betsy Devos is doing that by funneling monies from MY TAX DOLLARS into private schools and 'charter schools'

Your tax dollars?  Do you pay property taxes?

How is she putting money into private schools?

'charter schools' aren't even part of this discussion

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.3.37  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.34    5 years ago

Did I say otherwise, no I did not.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.38  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @4.3.37    5 years ago
Did I say otherwise, no I did not.

Then please elaborate on what the point of this comment is:

Are you going to pay my school tax bill. I get one every year, and I have no kids in school.

Why would you ask if someone is going to pay your bill?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.3.39  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.35    5 years ago
Do you understand what that means?  A federal funded service DOES NOT mean the federal government is funding private schools, which pay their own expenses from tuition payments. It means that the federal government cannot give one school a special service (like safety additions to a playground) and withhold the same special service from a religious school.

It's still welfare for the rich.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.39    5 years ago

The Supreme Court says it's fairness!

Safe playgrounds for all schools, right?

You know, like "separate but equal is not equal."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.41  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @4.3.37    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.42  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.41    5 years ago

You should report whoever "SHE" is!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.43  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.24    5 years ago
They should be

But they won't.  And let's be honest, nobody calling for vouchers gives a shit about inner-city kids in terrible schools anyway.

It's also not about rich people.  Rich people just write the check and don't have to make other sacrifices, so they don't care.

This is about almost-rich people.  Almost rich people pay private school tuition at the expense of something else they'd rather spend the money on.  They try to rationalize themselves into believing they're being "forced" to "pay twice", which enables them to conclude that the rest of us should subsidize their hyper-mommy neurosis.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.44  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.43    5 years ago
And let's be honest, nobody calling for vouchers gives a shit about inner-city kids in terrible schools anyway.

I disagree. I think the voucher program (not really what the seed is about) is a genuine option for those poor kids in the inner city. I believe it is a sincere effort to help them get a decent education. 

They try to rationalize themselves into believing they're being "forced" to "pay twice", which enables them to conclude that the rest of us should subsidize their hyper-mommy neurosis.

That's not true. I recall going to a religious elementary school. I took a bus from one end of the city to the other. My parents paid (I think) $35 per month, in those days, to send me there. I can still remember one of the nuns saying to us "your parents pay twice to send you here. Maybe President Kennedy will change that".  Those nuns were so innocent, yet so much of what they said was profound, now as it was then.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.3.45  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.38    5 years ago
Difference is, people who have no children, pay NOTHING for any school.   Public or otherwise.   No skin in the game as it were.

I was responded to this, as in saying you can pay my non-existent school tax bill.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.46  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.44    5 years ago
'I disagree. I think the voucher program (not really what the seed is about) is a genuine option for those poor kids in the inner city. I believe it is a sincere effort to help them get a decent education.' 

Nope, a lot of those schools, the folks in charge, funneled the money into their own pockets, and the schools closed, and the next day, kids showed up for schools which were no longer open.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.47  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.46    5 years ago

Please provide us with all the details

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.48  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.36    5 years ago
'Your tax dollars?'
YES, MY TAX DOLLARS
'Do you pay property taxes?'
Of course I do.  I have a condominium.    
Are you trying to imply something here Vic?
'How is she putting money into private schools?'charter schools' aren't even part of this discussion'
The private religious schools.  
Charter schools are part of the discussion if Betsy Devos is involved.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.49  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.48    5 years ago

Sorry, that's not a rebuttal.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.50  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.46    5 years ago

Happened with my daughter when she was in middle school. My late wife thought it would be a good idea to send her to a private Christian school in our small home town.  Everything seemed to be going great for a couple of months until one morning when kids and staff showed up for school and found all the doors locked and chained. Seems the husband and wife that ran the school had been siphoning off funds into their own pockets and when they figured they had enough from their scam they up and left town. They were caught about a week later trying to drive into Mexico. The husband did some time foe embezzlement and his wife got off with probation by testifying against her husband. My wife later said it was one of the biggest mistakes she ever made and that public schools were not so bad after all. Ironically, that couple's last name was Bacon..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.51  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.49    5 years ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.52  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.3.50    5 years ago

I'm sorry to hear that. Those are things that shouldn't happen in America.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.53  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.51    5 years ago

Ya, pictures are easier.

Here:

jrSmiley_38_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.54  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.47    5 years ago

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.56  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.15    5 years ago

Its no different than saying your tax dollars shouldn't go to religious schools.   People paying for religious schools are also subsidizing public schools they don't believe in.

Its no different at all and they are getting double dipped.

No question about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.57  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.56    5 years ago

Yes it is different.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.23    5 years ago
Public schools are not free. Taxpayers foot the bill for all of it including pay raises for the teachers

Of course.  But we've already paid for the public schools.  We can't abolish public schools.  So we're going to keep paying for public schools.  So we have a thing we're already paying for.... and these parents want us to either pay more or divert some of what we're already paying because they don't like public schools.  

The ONLY way I would find that acceptable is if the program stipulated you must live in a neighborhood where the schools fail to meet federal minimum performance standards as measured by rigorously difficult standardized testing. 

Which means we would need to set such federal standards.  Which means we would have to tell the touchy-feely "not all kids test well" mafia to stop making excuses, the "tests are racist" mafia that it's not the test, it's the shit education their kids get, and the professional educator mafia that their current practices are 50 years behind and they're going to have to change (God help them).

As none of that is ever going to happen, I don't see subsidizing private school tuition.

I don't think I have a problem with the DeVos announcement, because that's a separate thing entirely.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.59  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.54    5 years ago

Thanks Tess, I'm going to go through it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.60  Sparty On  replied to  SteevieGee @4.3.17    5 years ago

No, they have no skin in the game because they have no kids that require such a decision.   Sure, everyone paying property taxes or rent pays for public schools but the people who choose religious schools get hit twice.

Saying that's fair simply because that's what they choose to do doesn't pass the sniff test IMO.   Why should they be penalized for choosing a non subsidized school?

Its hypocritical as hell.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.61  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.18    5 years ago

That knife cuts both ways.   Why should they have to subsidize public schools?

And Public schools are hardly free .....

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.62  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.57    5 years ago

I disagree

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.63  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.58    5 years ago
Which means we would need to set such federal standards.  Which means we would have to tell the touchy-feely "not all kids test well" mafia to stop making excuses, the "tests are racist" mafia that it's not the test, it's the shit education their kids get, and the professional educator mafia that their current practices are 50 years behind and they're going to have to change (God help them).

Agreed and it is more difficult than that. We need the federal government to make them meet standards without the federal government politicizing the school system.

As none of that is ever going to happen, I don't see subsidizing private school tuition.

Neither do I

I don't think I have a problem with the DeVos announcement, because that's a separate thing entirely.

You've got it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.64  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.62    5 years ago

Me too

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.65  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.60    5 years ago
Why should they be penalized for choosing a non subsidized school?

They're not being penalized, any more than they're "being penalized" when they get charged more for leather seats instead of cloth, or get charged more for a Canali than a JC Penney suit, or when they get charged to take a tollway rather than the side street.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.66  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @4.3.25    5 years ago

Are you going to pay more if you have more kids in school than your neighbor with the same property value?

Look, there is no 100% fair way to do this unless public schools charged per pupil like a college does.

My main point here is that is hypocritical for one to say they don't want their tax dollars to go to religious schools but still expect those people to pay for their public schools.

I think that pushes the net fairness of the system much lower when done.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.67  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.63    5 years ago
Agreed and it is more difficult than that. We need the federal government to make them meet standards without the federal government politicizing the school system.

Exactly.  So you and I both know that we'll see interstellar travel first.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.68  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.67    5 years ago

I hope not

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.69  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.65    5 years ago
when they get charged more for leather seats instead of cloth, or get charged more for a Canali than a JC Penney suit

Sorry Jack, not good examples.   I suppose i could try to use them though.  

Lets say I'm force to  pay for a JC Penny suit and then i pay for the Canali i really want.   I only get the Canali but i paid for both   Would you like that?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.70  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.44    5 years ago
That's not true. I recall going to a religious elementary school. I took a bus from one end of the city to the other. My parents paid (I think) $35 per month, in those days, to send me there. I can still remember one of the nuns saying to us "your parents pay twice to send you here. Maybe President Kennedy will change that".  Those nuns were so innocent, yet so much of what they said was profound, now as it was then.

I will say that my experience with Catholic school parents is very different than with protestant school parents.  I ran one of the local basketball and baseball leagues for about 12 years while my kid was playing, and I got to know hundreds of different families.

The Catholic families I know would say they sent their kids to Catholic school because...."well....that's just what we do".  The Baptist or Pentecostal families send their kids to Christian schools to keep them away from some evil influence or another.

I think the voucher program (not really what the seed is about) is a genuine option for those poor kids

I agree we're wandering a bit here, but I think a voucher program limited to low income families in terrible school districts might get less resistance.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.71  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.69    5 years ago
Lets say I pay for a JC Penny suit and then i pay for a Canali.   I only get the Canali but i paid for both   Would you like that?

No...you got both...you just never wear the JC Penney suit.  That's your choice.  That doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidize your Canali.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.72  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.70    5 years ago
I agree we're wandering a bit here, but I think a voucher program limited to low income families in terrible school districts might get less resistance.

You bet!

We all benefit from that

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.73  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @4.3.71    5 years ago

Nope, as i was forced to pay for the JCP suit even though i didn't want it.   That and i never got the JCP suit if we want equivalence here so how could i wear it if i didn't get it?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3.74  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.73    5 years ago
No .... and i was forced to pay for the JCP suit even though i didn't want it. 

Yes.  Just like you're forced to pay for all sorts of other shit you don't want and don't use.  This is America.  We're amazing at that. 

Public schools are at least something you COULD use if you wanted to.  Tons of the shit we pay for isn't even available to guys like us at all.  Try to get govt help paying for your kid's college tuition.  Get ready to be laughed at.  But you're paying for a lot of other kids tuition, be damned sure about that.

  That and i never got the JCP suit if we want equivalence here so how could i wear it if i didn't get it?

When I need to go to the hospital, I can choose to go to the county hospital (Parkland), or a private hospital (Presbyterian).  Presby costs more.  It's better.  I go there.  I had a chance to use Parkland, but I opted for the better thing instead.

So even though I'm paying for Parkland every year through my property taxes, I'm not entitled to having my Presby choice subsidized.

Public money covers basic level stuff.  If we want Canali level stuff, that's our choice but also our expense.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.3.75  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.13    5 years ago

I can tell you from many years working at a private school and seeing and dealing with many other private schools  they are not perfect or anywhere close, nor are the kids that attend them

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.76  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @4.3.75    5 years ago

Not perfect.....Just better. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5  Dismayed Patriot    5 years ago

“Those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers should not be discriminated against simply based on the religious character of their organization.”

What about those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers but happen to be gay? Should we allow them to be discriminated against by religious schools? And if they're allowed to discriminate against law abiding tax paying American citizens, rejecting applicants based on their lack of faith or sexual orientation, why exactly should we be sending them our collective tax dollars?

I often hear the argument that we shouldn't pay Planned Parenthood for health services because, even though no money is spent on abortions, the money is supposedly "fungible". Thus any money you give even if it's a reimbursement for a cancer screening, in some peoples minds, is just like paying tax dollars for abortion. I'll bet those same people don't feel that money paid to a religious school for some secular activity would be considered "fungible" and thus be essentially paying for the school to indoctrinate children in a specific religious denomination where teachers tell students that invisible wizards in the sky definitely do exist and that they know the best way to communicate with them and to please them. Just more monumental hypocrisy on display coming from Devos and religious conservatives.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    5 years ago
What about those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers but happen to be gay?

What would make such students require anything more than straight students?

Should we allow them to be discriminated against by religious schools? 

What if a Muslim academy refused gay students based on the Koran..what would you say?

And if they're allowed to discriminate against law abiding tax paying American citizens, rejecting applicants based on their lack of faith or sexual orientation, why exactly should we be sending them our collective tax dollars?

So, if private schools don't discriminate (non-discrimination IS, after all, part of religious training) against anyone, you would be ok with the new legal policy?

I often hear the argument that we shouldn't pay Planned Parenthood for health services because

Well, Well, Welcome to the club!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago

'What would make such students require anything more than straight students?'

They don't require anything more than straight students - THEY DESERVE EQUALITY

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    5 years ago
'What would make such students require anything more than straight students?'

You should ask Dismayed that question

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago
What would make such students require anything more than straight students?

Huh? What "students" are requiring "straight students". My comment had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of students, but the sexual orientation of those who are "seeking to provide high-quality educational services" aka teachers and other workers that a school district normally hires. Why should my tax dollars go to fund a school who would reject a highly qualified teacher simply because they were gay?

"What if a Muslim academy refused gay students based on the Koran..what would you say?"

Exactly the same thing. The bullshit fantasy about liberals somehow appeasing Muslims is just that, total bullshit. I despise the religious indoctrination of children no matter what religion is holding them down and prepping the metaphorical religious heroine needle and jabbing into the arms of our youth.

"So, if private schools don't discriminate (non-discrimination IS, after all, part of religious training) against anyone, you would be ok with the new legal policy?"

I would be if they followed the secular rule of law and the taxes were going specifically for secular education curriculum. I'm not a nut job getting all worked up about how "fungible" money is, I know that the reimbursements to PP are not going to fund abortion, so as long as the money going to the schools is earmarked for specific secular activities then I don't have a problem.

"Well, Well, Welcome to the club!"

Not sure what club pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives would be, but if that's the club you're starting I'd definitely consider joining. My comment did not in any way agree with those angry with PP over fungible donations, as I said "I often hear", not "I often agree".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.3    5 years ago
Huh?

Welcome back to the conversation.

Why should my tax dollars go to fund a school who would reject a highly qualified teacher simply because they were gay?

Your tax dollars don't fund private schools, however the government can't discriminate against private schools. If government provides safety measures for one type of school they must provide it for all schools.

Exactly the same thing.

I am so glad to hear that.

Not sure what club

The "club" is those of us who have items that our tax dollars pay for which we don't agree with. The Constitution provides for all that. It's called elections. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    5 years ago
If government provides safety measures for one type of school they must provide it for all schools.

Meh.  I'm not sure about this one.

What's to keep somebody who wants their backyard re-done from starting a "school" just to get grant money?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.5    5 years ago
What's to keep somebody who wants their backyard re-done from starting a "school" just to get grant money?  

Licensing!

Try it..See how easy it would be

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    5 years ago
Licensing!Try it..See how easy it would be

Well that actually opens the door on what I think is the direction we should be taking for education reform throughout the country. 

If we increased accreditation requirements, and then held public schools accountable for things like actual academic performance of their students instead of concentrating almost solely on minimum skills and drop out rate, you would see American education turn around relatively quickly.

We're not going to do that, because the educational establishment would never allow it.

So what we're going to move toward instead is online education.  It's cheaper, more efficient, more flexible, and gets schools out of the crowd control business.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.7    5 years ago

Correct on all counts

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Thank you all for a civil conversation. 

 
 

Who is online


Ronin2


93 visitors