Supreme Court Poised to Overturn 38 State Constitutional Amendments on Church-State Separation

  
Via:  tessylo  •  one month ago  •  196 comments

By:   Jay Michaelson The Daily Beast

Supreme Court Poised to Overturn 38 State Constitutional Amendments on Church-State Separation

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


U.S.

Supreme Court Poised to Overturn 38 State Constitutional Amendments on Church-State Separation





Jay Michaelson


The Daily Beast January 22, 2020, 2:03 PM EST









f1d04e07ffa1534ac81508b7ffc910c2

Robert Alexander/Getty

Religious conservatives asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to overturn 38 state constitutional amendments and require taxpayers to fund religious schools.

You read that right. The case,   Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue   isn’t about whether a state   may   fund religious schools through a school choice, voucher, or similar program. It’s about whether it   must .

And the conservatives might just win.

At issue in the case, probably the most significant church-state case on the 2019-20 docket, is Montana’s “no-aid” amendment to its state constitution, which was revised and passed in 1972. Like similar amendments in 37 other states, it prohibits “direct or indirect funding” for any “sectarian purpose.”

In 2015, the state legislature passed a law that gave a tax credit of up to $150 for donations to a school scholarship program. But in 2018, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program, saying it violated the 1972 constitutional provision.[JM1] 

That’s when a group of religious organizations upped the ante. They went to the Supreme Court, seeking not just to reinstate the program but to toss out the “no-aid” amendment entirely – and, as a consequence, invalidate 37 similar amendments across the country.

That would open the floodgates to the funding of religious schools, especially since the plaintiffs argue that   not   funding them—previously the constitutional norm—is actually a form of discrimination.

As in many of these cases, how   Espinoza   looks depends on how you frame it.

For conservatives, this is discrimination. If I want to send my child to a secular private school, I can receive funding (or a voucher, or a scholarship, or whatever). But if I want to send her to a religious one, I can’t.

Moreover, the religious groups   accurately note , “no-aid” amendments were originally passed in a wave of anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant animus in the 1870s and 1880s. They’re sometimes called “Blaine Amendments,” after Rep. James Blaine, a leading   Republican [JM2]  of his day who proposed a federal constitutional amendment banning such funding. That effort failed, but numerous “Baby Blaine” amendments passed on the state level.

Today, they may seem like liberal walls between church and state. But 150 years ago, they were motivated by anti-Italian, anti-Irish, and overall anti-Catholic prejudice. (Even the word “sectarian” as opposed to “religious” was code for Catholic.)

For liberals, however, public funding of religious schools is blatantly unconstitutional.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said on a press call prior to the case that “it’s a total and utter perversion of the Constitution… to mandate support for a particular religion.”

The justices seemed divided at oral argument.

Justice Stephen Breyer seemed concerned that if the plaintiffs win here, states would have to radically restructure how they fund education. After all, isn’t it discrimination to fund public, secular schools more than private religious ones?

(Incidentally, RBG fans can take heart: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was as lively and combative as ever, and focused on whether the Court should even be hearing the state constitutional challenge in the first place.)

But Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch suggested that ruling for the plaintiffs wouldn’t represent such a radical change.   Even if the no-aid amendments are wiped out, states would still be free not to fund private education in general. It’s only when states choose to fund some private education that they must make funding available to both religious and secular institutions.

Oddly, the practical result of that position isn’t very different from that of the Montana supreme court, which tossed out the program   in toto . Except that the conservative justices’ position might well overturn 37 state constitutional amendments in the process.

Chief Justice John Roberts, working on very few hours’ sleep after presiding at the impeachment trial of the president, said a bit less than usual, though he did crack two jokes. But if the case splits on ideological lines, Roberts will again find himself as the deciding vote.

Which way will he go? Recent cases, including the 2017 case of   Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer , suggest he may favor the religious plaintiffs.

In   Trinity Lutheran , Roberts was able to win over Justices Elana Kagan and Breyer, and the Court voted 7-2 to uphold a program that made state money available to private schools – religious and secular – for playground renovations. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion narrowly, but his language still made clear that he views these cases as about discrimination against religious people, rather than public funding of religious organizations.

The First Amendment, he wrote, allows a state “to extend that public benefit to all its citizens regardless of their religious belief.” And denying funds to the religiously-affiliated school “expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.”

That would suggest a ruling for Espinoza and the other religious plaintiffs here. If this case is about discrimination, the plaintiffs win.

The trouble with this supposedly “moderate” result is that Montana’s program is actually more modest than many of the “school choice” programs promoted by, among others, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her family’s multi-million-dollar foundations.

Montana, after all, only offered a $150 tax credit for donors to an overall pool of money. (Indeed, it seems designed to gradually push the boundaries of constitutional law.) What about states that would grant a dollar-for-dollar tax credit up to the total amount of a private school tuition?

For example, full-price tuition at one of the Montana religious schools in the case runs between $6,900 and $8,700. That’s far more than most people pay in state taxes.

So if Montana’s more modest program is reinstated and the no-aid amendments are struck down, other, less modest programs could easily be put into place. The result could be a massive shift in revenue from state coffers to the bank accounts of religious schools.

That would, of course, please DeVos and other religious conservatives, but it would also starve public education.

Moreover, while the Blaine Amendment was indeed motivated by discriminatory animus, Montana’s own “no-aid” amendment   was passed in 1972   when the constitution as a whole was rewritten. In its   filings   with the Supreme Court, the state quoted several participants from those debates; they denied that any anti-religious animus was at play, and, on the contrary, noted that many religious leaders wanted the amendment in order to keep government out of religious schools’ business.

That revised constitution passed 80-17.

Finally, religious conservatives’ argument in   Espinoza   flies in the face of conservatives’ usual promotion of federalism and states’ rights. When states seek to restrict voting access, allow discrimination against LGBT people, or ban abortion, “states’ rights” is a right-wing rallying cry. But now, when 37 states prohibit taxpayer dollars from flowing to religious institutions, suddenly it’s not that important.

In a way, the   Espinoza   case is an apt reflection of how religious conservatives (including many   extremists ) have benefited   from their support of Trump . Most eyes are focused on Chief Justice Roberts’s other job of the moment, with its high drama and political machinations. But while Trump’s antics deservedly get the spotlight, just out of view are a group of well-funded religious conservatives who are totally remaking church and state in America.

They most likely scored another victory today.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

This is bullshit.  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

This is great school choice is as American as apple pie.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1    one month ago

Do you want your tax dollars paying for private schools?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    one month ago

If it gets kids away from TDS afflicted, loony rabid liberal instructors, then hell, yes...

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    one month ago

Yes as someone that sent his kids to private school to the tune of over 30 grand a year when three of them went it is only fair. Public school sucks even the AP classes the kids took came easy it wasn't till the entered the IB program that the curriculum caught up with private school. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    one month ago

No, it's not fair.  I don't want to pay for your kids to go to school.  My taxpayer dollars should not pay for anyone's child to go to a private/religious school.

Couldn't you afford to send your kids to private school what with all your tax breaks and doing so well?

Again, I don't to want to pay for your kids to go to school.  THAT'S NOT FAIR.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    one month ago
Yes as someone that sent his kids to private school

And you made that choice, as is your right...doing so knowing that that was what you considered in the best interests of your children. You also made that decision knowing it would come out of your pocket. No one is denying anyone that right.

What is at stake, and the reason for the SCOTUS hearing this case, is whether public funding should be accessible to that private decision. Remember, not everyone has the financial freedom you enjoy (and kudos to you for having the opportunity). If determined by the court to be legal, it further dilutes the limited resource pool, only making the public option (and not an option for the majority of parents) even less effective in educating our children. That seems rather selfish on its face, and in reality, ultimately deleterious to the entire structure. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    one month ago

Not all/most parents are as fortunate as you.  Again, you were able to make that choice.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.7  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.5    one month ago

Shouldn't the money go to the best possible education for the kids? Isn't that the goal no matter what the school? Or have we reached the point where we will sacrifice a child's education to punish religion?

Almost 20% of high school students are functionally illiterate when they graduate. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @1.1.7    one month ago

How is it 'punishing religion' to pay for private school?

That makes no sense.  

I'm sure you have the stats to back up your claim.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago

Fair?   Let's talk fair.

"Fair" is everyone who funds schools, has a choice of where to send their own kids to school.   Fair is "THEIR" taxes should pay for the school of "THEIR" choice not someone elses choice.   If everyone took the stance that "it isn't fair" if another parent decides to send their kid to a school they don't agree with, no one would be happy.   No one. 

That knife cuts both ways.   No one is forcing anyone else to send their kids to schools they don't want to but some are forcing people who can't afford private school, to send their kids to public school because their taxes are paying for public schools and not the private school of their choice.

Your taxes should pay for the school your kid is going to.   Not someone elses kid.

Now that is the epitome of "fair."

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    one month ago

I certainly do not want to fund private schools, much less religious schools. If people want to sendo their kids to private schools, they should foot the bill!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.11  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.10    one month ago

So you are willing to continue to support failure and punish kids.  Sad : (

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @1.1.11    one month ago

Spare me the obvious attempt at an appeal to emotion. Kids can go to public schools. Parents can pay for private. It's as simple as that.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @1.1.7    one month ago
where we will sacrifice a child's education to punish religion

That is an interesting question. Just whos' 'religion' will determine funding? In avoiding that unanswerable question, the Founder's saw fit to exclude any mention of it in our Constitution.

Is the system in need of repair? Absolutely. But while we argue over funding, we continue to ignore the systemic issues...the inadequate pay for teachers, the exorbitant cost of higher education and the associated debilitating debt, the woeful lack of vocational training, and the need to teach to the test rather than teaching our children how to process the unlimited and uncensored amount of information available in an appropriate, skeptical manner.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.14  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    one month ago

According to a recent  study  conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 32 million of American adults are illiterate, 21 percent read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates are functionally illiterate,

https://fee.org/articles/did-public-schools-really-improve-american-literacy/

 On the most recent  National Assessment of Educational Progress 12th Grade Reading Level Assessment   (2015), 46 percent of white students scored at or above proficient. Just 17 percent of black students and 25 percent of Latino students scored proficient. 

https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/education-news-roundup/illiteracy-in-america/

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.9    one month ago

So you want your tax dollars to pay for children to go to private school.  

Got it.  

I don't have any kids.  I don't want my tax dollars to pay for any child's private school.

It's their choice to send their child to private/religious school, they  need to pay it, not me.  

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.16  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.13    one month ago
That is an interesting question. Just whos' 'religion' will determine funding? In avoiding that unanswerable question, the Founder's saw fit to exclude any mention of it in our Constitution.

This isn't unanswerable, Any!!! that was simple

Is the system in need of repair? Absolutely. But while we argue over funding, we continue to ignore the systemic issues...the inadequate pay for teachers,

Agree, the easiest way to fund this is cut the admin, Since 1950 the number of students has doubled, but administration has gone up by 700%, fire the chair sitters and hire and pay teachers.

the exorbitant cost of higher education and the associated debilitating debt,

This has nothing to do with K-12, A simple solution is charge the graduate a 3 percent education tax, that way he pays for his education based on his income. 

 the woeful lack of vocational training,

Give Businesses a payroll tax break for apprentices, limited time and said apprentice must pass a certification at the end. if he fails the company must re-reimburse the tax credit in full plus interest. this way the trainee can earn while he learns. 

and the need to teach to the test rather than teaching our children how to process the unlimited and uncensored amount of information available in an appropriate, skeptical manner.

Agree, Bush's no child left behind just left everyone back if not behind. There should be a bonus structure for teachers who perform, and the ax for those who don't.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.17  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.12    one month ago

Why should my taxes pay for mouth breathers while i pay twice for private, You have to be anti-science to continue to fund failure. the science and facts demonstrate that public schools suck!

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @1.1.17    one month ago

You're free to send your kids to public schools, just like everyone else. Taxes fund that. But they shouldn't be used to fund private, especially religious private schools. If you have an issue with cost, bring it up with the private school. You're choosing to send your kids to a private institution. I should not have to pay for that.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.19  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @1.1.16    one month ago

Workable solutions, all, Loki ...certainly worthy of reasonable discussion.

We may have to agree to disagree on the first point, and the focal point of the seed...that funding for religiously based schools outside the public venue is found to be Constitutional. We will have to wait and see...huge ramifications going forward regardless the verdict.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.20  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.18    one month ago
I should not have to pay for that.

And i shouldn't have to pay for a public school i don't support, Especially since they a failing our kids. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.21  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.19    one month ago

The constitution, says the government can't have a religion, by not discriminating against any. that shouldn't be a problem. the parents get the "voucher" so technically they are funding it.

Continuing to fund failure makes no sense. when you have a virtual monopoly, there is no reason to improve. force them to compete for customers.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.22  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.10    one month ago

I did pay for my kids private school but I also pay income tax and property tax so if the money allocated for each student could move with the student it would be fair.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.23  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago

Why should I pay for school my kids didn’t go to.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.24  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.23    one month ago

Why should I pay for private schools with my tax dollars?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.25  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.22    one month ago

I also pay income tax and property tax and I don't have any kids in school yet I pay for it.

'could move with the student it would be fair.'

I don't think that's how it works MUVA

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.26  katrix  replied to  loki12 @1.1.21    one month ago
The constitution, says the government can't have a religion, by not discriminating against any. that shouldn't be a problem. the parents get the "voucher" so technically they are funding it.

It cracks me up. The same people who complain that baking a cake is "participating in" a wedding now seem to claim that using government funds to teach kids creation myths as science is NOT government expressly supporting a religion, in violation of the Constitution..

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.27  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @1.1.21    one month ago
Children aren't customers.
 
 
 
loki12
1.1.28  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.1.26    one month ago

[Deleted]

                         [creation myths as science]

[Deleted] did you miss the part about the voucher can go to any private or religious school? including secular private or Muslim based? any is inclusive of all!, or [Deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.29  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.27    one month ago
Children aren't customers.

Yes they are, and the public education system is a monopoly that is failing them. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.30  katrix  replied to  loki12 @1.1.28    one month ago
removed for context

Wow, are you truly unaware that many, many religions besides Christianity have creation myths?

Just think how much worse Christian schools would make that ignorance.

Your government and private sector argument is the exact opposite of what you guys say about funding for Planned Parenthood. Imagine that.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.9    one month ago

Let's talk a little bit about fair because while this boils down to separation of church and state, it is about school choice. In the town that I live in, we have 2 very expensive private schools that will be able to get state funding now, and the rich will be able to subsidize their school choice and forgo a perfectly fine public school. The money then will be stripped out of the public school taking money away from those who can't send their kids to the 30K a year per kid private school. 

Does any of that seem fair?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.32  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.9    one month ago
Now that is the epitome of "fair."

And only if those charter schools are held to the same accountability standards as public schools, i.e. opportunities for teachers to join a union should they desire, consistent faculty licensing requirements, comparable staff and administrative salaries, and above all, financial auditing to determine if the funds are properly allocated to students.

Should this come to pass, a level playing field is not only 'fair', it is essential.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.33  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago
Again, I don't to want to pay for your kids to go to school.  THAT'S NOT FAIR.

I'm essentially retired.  I don't want to pay for YOUR kids to go to school.  Mine have been there done that and now I'm on the hook for yours?  to quote YOU.

THAT'S NOT FAIR.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.34  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago
forgo a perfectly fine public school.

If it was so fine, why do the parents desire to send their kids to private schools?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.35  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.32    one month ago
opportunities to form teacher unions,

Unions are NOT//NOT "accountability standards".   For the most part they're simply legalized extortion in the public arena.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.36  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.35    one month ago
in the public arena.

You want public funds, you play by the same set of rules. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.37  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.1.30    one month ago

So many deflections from your original post.

          Just think how much worse Christian schools would make that ignorance.

[Deleted]   Private schools have higher literacy and math scores than public schools, but bigotry from many on the left will continue to sacrifice our kids futures.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.34    one month ago
If it was so fine, why do the parents desire to send their kids to private schools?

Because they want their kids to go to school with a kid of a certain kind of breeding. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.39  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.32    one month ago
And only if those charter schools are held to the same accountability standards as public schools

So very true. The local experiments with charter schools have been a disaster. They want public funds, they have to be held to the same standards.

And some of these religious schools will teach religion as science - ensuring ignorant students.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.40  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago
Does any of that seem fair?

The worlds not fair, some kids lost the genetic lottery, is that fair?  maybe the "fine" public school will try harder when it has to compete with the private schools.   

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.41  katrix  replied to  loki12 @1.1.37    one month ago
Removed for context - s

Knowing that creation myths are just that - myths - does not make a person a bigot.

I can't help it if science frightens you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.42  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @1.1.29    one month ago

No, they're not.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.43  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.36    one month ago
You want public funds, you play by the same set of rules. 

Let me be very clear about unions.  As a former District Steward with CWA I have direct knowledge of the pros and cons of unions.  I do support them in the "private" sector but not in the public sector.

In the private sector, they have the ability to go on strike and I have the ability to utilize alternative sources for the product/service they provide until they return to work if I so choose.

In the public sector, they go on strike and I have no alternative sources to avail myself of to replace the services I'm paying for with my tax money.  Public unions essentially have all the power to engage in extortion to force taxpayers to pay yet more with no alternatives possible.  It's a travesty that they have that power and the people paying the bills are effectively held hostage and must capitulate and surrender to their demands.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.44  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.38    one month ago
Because they want their kids to go to school with a kid of a certain kind of breeding.

Wow...   I can't even think of what to call that comment.  If I called it what I believe it's intent was, I'd be ticketed with a CoC.

However, have you considered that they might actually want a better education for their kids?  

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.45  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.1.41    one month ago

Science doesn't frighten me, religious beliefs aren't ignorance, except to [removed.]  the bottom line is actual science and education is what matters, reading? Public schools fail their students, math, they fail here too. If the kids can't read or add how much science do you think these failures are teaching? only an anit-science [removed]  would continue to support a demonstrated failure. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.46  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.33    one month ago
'I'm essentially retired.  I don't want to pay for YOUR kids to go to school.  Mine have been there done that and now I'm on the hook for yours?'

How nice for you.

YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR MY CHILDREN TO GO TO SCHOOL.  I DON'T HAVE ANY CHILDREN and yet  I pay property taxes and income tax and I don't want my tax dollars to pay for children to go to private/religious school. 

Go figure.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.47  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    one month ago

Very enlightened of you .....

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.48  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.43    one month ago
I do support them in the "private" sector but not in the public sector.

So where would that fall in the context of this seed? Are they allowed in the charter school paradigm? If not, then no public funding should be granted.

...and not arguing the merits of unionization at all, only pointing out the need for a level playing field, using this one point as an example of the many that would require consistent application.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.38    one month ago

Perrie, I went to Catholic schools for both grammar school and high school, and believe me, it had nothing to do with breeding. 

Here is a little info about the high school I went to a long time ago. 

De La Salle Institute was founded by Brother Adjutor, a former director of   St. Patrick High School , in 1889, after being chartered by the State of Illinois the previous year. [4]   The laying of the cornerstone on May 19, 1889 was a major event which began with an hour-long parade through the streets of Chicago. The ceremony was presided over by   Archbishop Patrick Feehan , the first archbishop of the   Archdiocese of Chicago . [5]   Classes and graduation ceremonies were held elsewhere until the building was complete, opening for students on 7 September 1891. [6]

The school started as a two-year commercial school. [6]   The area which the school catered to was a poor area of the city, and many of the students were children of recent immigrants. As Br. Adjutor was quoted to have said:   I made up my mind to leave nothing undone in the direction of fitting the boys of the masses for the battle of life, morally as well as educationally.   As times changed, the school grew to emphasize a   college preparatory curriculum .

The school has a history of diversity, dating back to its first class of nine students which included two Jewish students. Today roughly 28% of the school is African–American, 32% is Latino, and nearly 25% are non–Catholic. [20]

  • Richard J. Daley   (class of 1919) was mayor from 1955 to 1976, winning seven mayoral elections in total. [34] [35]
  • Michael A. Bilandic   (class of 1940) was mayor from 1976 to 1979. He was selected as interim mayor in the wake of Richard J. Daley's death, and subsequently won a special election to the office. In 1990, he was elected to a seat on the   Illinois Supreme Court   (serving 1990–2000, and as Chief Justice 1994–96) [36]
  • Richard M. Daley   (class of 1960) was the mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011. He was the longest-serving mayor of Chicago, surpassing his father on December 26, 2010, and was succeeded by   Rahm Emanuel   the following year. [37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_La_Salle_Institute
 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.50  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.34    one month ago
'If it was so fine, why do the parents desire to send their kids to private schools?'

Because they can afford to send them to private school?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.51  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @1.1.39    one month ago
'And only if those charter schools are held to the same accountability standards as public schools'
'So very true. The local experiments with charter schools have been a disaster. They want public funds, they have to be held to the same standards. And some of these religious schools will teach religion as science - ensuring ignorant students.'

Some of those charter schools embezzled all the money and kids show up the next day with no school.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.52  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.48    one month ago
Are they allowed in the charter school paradigm?

That would be entirely predicated on the specific school.

How about this as a compromise?   Enforce unionization in all charter schools in return for elimination of tenure?  In other words permit deadwood teachers to be fired.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.53  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.50    one month ago
Because they can afford to send them to private school?

And you know that how specifically?   Have they taken loans?  Are they receiving scholarships?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.54  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.43    one month ago

'Let me be very clear about unions.  As a former District Steward with CWA I have direct knowledge of the pros and cons of unions.  I do support them in the "private" sector but not in the public sector.

In the private sector, they have the ability to go on strike and I have the ability to utilize alternative sources for the product/service they provide until they return to work if I so choose.

In the public sector, they go on strike and I have no alternative sources to avail myself of to replace the services I'm paying for with my tax money.  Public unions essentially have all the power to engage in extortion to force taxpayers to pay yet more with no alternatives possible.  It's a travesty that they have that power and the people paying the bills are effectively held hostage and must capitulate and surrender to their demands.'

Well Bully for you!

'Nuff said, I guess.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.55  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.47    one month ago

'Very enlightened of you .....'

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.56  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.54    one month ago
Well Bully for you! 'Nuff said, I guess.

Is there a point you're attempting to elucidate?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.57  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago
No, it's not fair.  I don't want to pay for your kids to go to school.

You already do. That's how public school works.

Your complaint seems to be with what might be taught in the school. I think you might be surprised to find that there would be things taught in public school you might not like either.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.58  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.53    one month ago

Whatever.

Get back on topic now.  Enough about unions, they are not the topic of this seed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.59  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.56    one month ago

See edited comment.

Enough about unions, get back on topic now.  This seed is not about unions.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.60  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.44    one month ago
However, have you considered that they might actually want a better education for their kids?  

that depends on which state you live in...

I can attest to the racist aspect in several places I have lived, but it is not universal, at least not blatantly so in all places.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.61  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.56    one month ago
'Let me be very clear about unions.  As a former District Steward with CWA I have direct knowledge of the pros and cons of unions.  I do support them in the "private" sector but not in the public sector.

In the private sector, they have the ability to go on strike and I have the ability to utilize alternative sources for the product/service they provide until they return to work if I so choose.

In the public sector, they go on strike and I have no alternative sources to avail myself of to replace the services I'm paying for with my tax money.  Public unions essentially have all the power to engage in extortion to force taxpayers to pay yet more with no alternatives possible.  It's a travesty that they have that power and the people paying the bills are effectively held hostage and must capitulate and surrender to their demands.'

Well Bully for you!

'Nuff said, I guess.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.62  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.57    one month ago
'You already do. That's how public school works.'
No shit Sherlock.  I know that.  I pay taxes which pay for public schools.
I don't want my tax dollars to pay for private/religious schools.
'Your complaint seems to be with what might be taught in the school. I think you might be surprised to find that there would be things taught in public school you might not like either.'

I think you might be surprised that you're incorrect about what 'my complaint seems to be'

I refuse to repeat myself over and over and over and over again.  If you read my prior comments, you would know what my complaint 'seems to be'.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.63  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago

Not per se but one can turn that around Perrie.   Parents of less means might want to send their kids to a private school and can afford to do so but can't afford paying for public AND private school.   So they are forced to send their kids to public school.   Does that seem fair to you?

And i don't believe its always about a separation of church and state.   Not all private schools are faith based.   Why should they all get lumped into the same category as private religious schools?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.64  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.32    one month ago
Should this come to pass, a level playing field is not only 'fair', it is essential.

I agree ..... absolutely.   It is after all about the kids education.   Bias and partisanship should never enter into the equation but it does.   On both sides.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.65  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.38    one month ago
Because they want their kids to go to school with a kid of a certain kind of breeding.

C'mon Perrie, you know that isn't always true either.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.66  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.63    one month ago
'Not all private schools are faith based.'
No one said they were.  I don't want to pay for private/religious schools.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.67  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.63    one month ago

Sparty, 

I know here, that our public schools are A1, so the issue becomes where does the money go and keeping in mind, there is a limited pie. And some of our "religious" schools, like Friends Academy (Quaker), are really just expensive private schools that have kids of like breeding if you get my drift. They will benefit from this, and they don't need the money since they are millionaires. Who suffers? The middle class that lives among them. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.68  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.50    one month ago

That is true probably for some, but for many people who send their kids to Catholic school, it can be a financial challenge for the family. 

I have a nephew that recently had 5 kids in Catholic high school at the same time.  (They have twins.)

Tuition these days for a Catholic high school in Chicago is something like  15,000 per year, per student. 

They had 5 kids, you are looking at 75,000 per year , although now one has graduated so they still have 4 in school this year, so appx 60,000 in tuition.  This year.  All 5 of them were good enough in sports to get something knocked off the tuition as a quasi scholarship, but it is no more than two thousand or so for each kid.  So my nephew and his wife are paying something in the area of 50,000 dollars, this year, to send their kids to Catholic high school. 

He is a Chicago fireman and his wife is a Chicago Public Schools teacher.  Between them, maybe they make 120,000 or so a year. 

Catholic school is not cheap, but those who cant afford it at all can sometimes get a break in the tuition or the kid can do work around the school to pay part of the tuition. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.69  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.62    one month ago
I refuse to repeat myself over and over and over and over again.

If only . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.70  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.68    one month ago

That's unfortunate John.

What can I say?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.71  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.67    one month ago

I don't disagree that their might be exceptions to the rule but not all private schools are rich "Quaker" schools.   In fact i submit to you that most of them in my area are not.   I suspect the same in true in your area for many as well.

There is room for compromise here depending on implementation but unfortunately too many people are WAAAY too set in their ways to discuss it rationally.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.70    one month ago

You dont have to say anything, but all kids in private schools are not wealthy or well off. That is a misconception. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.73  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.71    one month ago
There is room for compromise here depending on implementation but unfortunately too many people are WAAAY too set in their ways to discuss it rationally.

I think it's about the separation of church and state that is the issue, and not so much the schools. People see each one of these little bites at that separation as eating away at it. It is what makes this country unique. And so we see these battles happen over the holidays etc. But our founding fathers were very clear about this. If the money are public, they should remain public. The choice to send to private school religious or non-religious is not a right, but it is a freedom. Now I know some will argue that they pay taxes, but those taxes are public money. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, doesn't seem right in this case, because of the separation. 

That is why around here, the Catholic schools remain reasonable to attend, and the church subsidizes.

I also think that public schools give a chance for all walks of life to get to know each other. I think that is healthy for a plural society. 

Bottom line is that no one will be absolutely happy with any outcome, but I think we have to go back to what was the founding father's intent of this separation. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.74  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.68    one month ago

Kudos to your family for getting them the best education that they can.  Just think how much easier it would be on them if their tax dollars didn't get pissed away on a public school their kids don't attend.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.75  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.72    one month ago

I never said that they were all wealthy or well off.  Maybe they should have sent the kids to public school if they're struggling so much to pay for their schooling.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.76  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.73    one month ago

You haven't addressed when it isn't about separation of church and state or the unfairness to people who can't afford to pay for both.

That said this would be much less of a debate if so many public school systems were not failing our children.   The ONLY private schools in our area when i was growing up were religion based.   Now they are in the minority.   All those newer non religious private schools didn't pop up for the fun of it.   They started because parents saw a need.

Most private schools in our area started via grassroots movements.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.77  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.69    one month ago
'I refuse to repeat myself over and over and over and over again.'

'If only . . . '

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

If all you have to offer is your assumptions and your opinions and your snark, why don't you just go elsewhere?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.78  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.64    one month ago
'On both sides.'

Nope, not both sides, that's bullshit.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.79  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.68    one month ago
He is a Chicago fireman and his wife is a Chicago Public Schools teacher.

That should tell you a lot. $120K a year and $50K for school? If she is a Public School Teacher, why do they stretch the budget so far to send their kids to private/Catholic school? She knows something that several here today are overlooking. Ya THINK??

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.80  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.34    one month ago

Same reason as the Rick Singer scandal with college admissions.

Pipe dreams about Ivy League scholarships...

Some of it is racial...

and a portion of it is

that their kids will get to play sports and join competitive extracurricular activities at a smaller private school

than they would likely qualify for at a larger more competitive public institution.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.81  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.79    one month ago
She knows something that several here today are overlooking. Ya THINK?

Nope, if you are ( or were ) Catholic, you either understand why

or you are "woke".

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.82  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.77    one month ago
If all you have to offer is your assumptions and your opinions and your snark, why don't you just go elsewhere?

She said, with complete lack of self-awareness. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.83  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.82    one month ago

You may stop with your trolling now.  

Thanks in advance.  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.84  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.25    one month ago

That is the point of having the court look at it.I paid for my kids to go the private school while paying taxes it is over now I would like to see people chose the school their child attends.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.85  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago

Yes 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.86  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.38    one month ago

I wanted my kids to get a good education my kids would have gone to one of the best elementary and JR high in our state  if they went to public school.My kids chose to go to public school in high school and were well ahead of public school students and my three oldest Attended the I B Program and for them it was easy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.87  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.84    one month ago

No.  That is not the point.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.88  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.87    one month ago

That's my point.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.89  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.76    one month ago
You haven't addressed when it isn't about separation of church and state or the unfairness to people who can't afford to pay for both.

Well, let's not look at us. Let's look at England. In England, you can go to one of two types of state supported schools. One is secular and the other is run by the Church of England. Because the church oversees the schools, they have a level of excellence that is expected. I went to a C of E school as did my mum. The only problem is, that I am not personally a member of the Church, and therefore, was very excluded from certain school events. To say that I felt alienated would be an understatement. That was the very thing our founding fathers didn't want. They wanted it to be a plural society. I appreciate that. That is Washington promised to Touro Synagogue when he first became president.

Now let's talk a bit about public schools. Most states have their schools set statewide. There is a problem with that. A state is a big place and it is very hard for it to make decisions for an entire state. That is the problem and why schools often fail in a location. In NYS, we solved it by having local towns run their public schools. You buy into the town that you like their public school, and when I say buy, I mean your taxes go directly to that school district. The ultimate grassroots without breaking the separation of church and state. The moment public tax dollars go to a religious school, you have broken that promise. 

As a teacher and a parent, I appreciate the balance between wanting the best education for your children while holding true to our founding fathers and hence part of the establishment clause. The moment we start to mess with the big 10, we may as well chuck it all in.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.90  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.89    one month ago

Well, the "separation of church and state" debate is a whole other topic here IMO.   Especially since it is never specifically mentioned in the Constitution like other rights that are specifically mentioned and that many would choose to forgo for this reason or that.

I don't deny that our founding fathers DID NOT want the state to be involved in individuals religious choices.   I agree they did not, in that they did not want to be like England.   They wanted people to be free to make their own religious decisions without state sponsored interference.   In other words, they didn't want a "Church of America"  like England had a Church of England. 

Not sure the separation of church and state argument applies very well to school funding today in that regard.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.91  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.90    one month ago

Of course, it does, since we are talking about public money. Taxes are public money given to the government, whether it be local or federal. The moment you open the door to religious schools, you depart from that concept.

Here is something else to consider. It is a slippery slope. The moment you give money to religious schools, any religious school is entitled to get it. I'm not up for some extremist religious groups to receive public money.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.92  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.91    one month ago
Of course, it does, since we are talking about public money. Taxes are public money given to the government, whether it be local or federal. The moment you open the door to religious schools, you depart from that concept.

We are not going to agree on that but you keep skirting the non religious private schools issue.

How do you justify not funding them?   Separation of state and private?

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.93  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.92    one month ago

If a private school is funded with taxpayer dollars, it becomes a public school.

And it then becomes subject to the same controls that other taxpayer funded schools are subject to. It's no longer a private school. That's the whole concept of public and private.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.94  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.1.93    one month ago

Yes that is what the NEA and some other teacher unions would have you to believe.

Private schools threaten their monopoly.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.95  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.94    one month ago

It's the definition of public versus private, it has nothing to do with teachers' unions.

And I saw your comment earlier about public unions. I'm torn about that. While I think public unions make it too hard to get rid of bad workers, our teachers went on strike a year or two ago - their contract really did suck, and pretty much everyone seemed to support them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.96  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.92    one month ago
We are not going to agree on that but you keep skirting the non religious private schools issue. How do you justify not funding them?   Separation of state and private?

We have those already. They are called Charter Schools. I'm sorry if I am missing your point, but it is not intentional. But private schools also bring up for profit schools, and that I am not for. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.97  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.1.95    one month ago
It's the definition of public versus private, it has nothing to do with teachers' unions.

No its not.   Educational standards have nothing to do with if the teacher is union or not.   One of the big difference between many private schools and public schools is that the teachers ARE NOT union.   That makes them VERY different.

Union teachers are not an educational standard.

While I think public unions make it too hard to get rid of bad workers, our teachers went on strike a year or two ago - their contract really did suck, and pretty much everyone seemed to support them.

In my book a good teacher can not be paid enough and a bad teacher can not be paid too little.   I deal in the union world and what unions tend to do is protect the under performing and not reward the overachieving.    I deal with issues like that every day and while the unions i deal with are not educational unions many of the issues are the same.

That said I had good friend get in my face a couple years ago when i told him our teachers were doing just fine in compensation.   See he had consumed the koolaide being dispensed by the usual propaganda sources and believed them.   When i told him what their average compensation package was he thought i was lying.   Until i showed him the FOIA i had requested the previous year.   The average package for teachers here at that time was over two times the average compensation for our area.   And while it could be argued they still weren't making enough, the average teacher was doing very well compensation-wise in our area.

You gotta dig if you want the truth.   You won't usually get it without digging in cases like this.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.98  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.96    one month ago

My main point really boils down to choice.   I'm all for choice in schools.   People should not be FORCED into public schools systems if they don't want to be.   And if they make another choice, they should not be financially penalized for it. 

I'm not saying this is absolutely clean and you've made some good points here but in the end that's what it is for me.

Freedom of choice whenever possible.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.99  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.98    one month ago

No, it doesn't all boil down to choice, not at all.

No one is being forced to go to private/religious schools. 

No one is being financially penalized 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.100  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.97    one month ago
I deal in the union world and what unions tend to do is protect the under performing and not reward the overachieving.   

I can't argue with that - I've seen it in the Federal government more times than I can count. Do some industries need unions, though? Absolutely.

One of the big difference between many private schools and public schools is that the teachers ARE NOT union. 

I have no problem with our teachers having the option to join a union. Perhaps your focus on this is because in your area (unlike mine) teachers have to pay dues whether or not they join? I have several friends who are teachers; I will have to ask them which ones have chosen to join. Although most of them don't work in our state because they can get paid so much more by just crossing a state line. Like $10k more per year.

We were 48th out of 50 in teacher compensation when our teachers went on strike, which is why even the parents supported it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.101  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.99    one month ago

No, it doesn't all boil down to choice, not at all.

Thats my point.   It should.    As that is the American way.

No one is being forced to go to private/religious schools.

Never said they were.

No one is being financially penalized

Yes they are

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.102  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.98    one month ago
People should not be FORCED into public schools systems if they don't want to be

Nobody is forced. The option is there for those who choose to take advantage of it. If not - you're free to home school, send your kid to a private school, or whatever.

And if they make another choice, they should not be financially penalized for it.  

They're not being financially penalized, any more than I am being financially penalized by not having children and still having to pay school taxes. 

If you hire armed guards, you still have to pay for police services - paying for your own guards is not financially penalizing you. You don't get to choose whether that money goes to the local police, a good alarm system, a good dog, awesome weapons, or whatever. You pay for a portion of the police service and are free to spend money on other types of protection.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.103  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.1.102    one month ago
Nobody is forced. The option is there for those who choose to take advantage of it. If not - you're free to home school, send your kid to a private school, or whatever.

The discussion was between public and private.   If one can not afford to pay more for private, because they are already paying for Public, then they are forced to pick Public as opposed to using that money to send their kid to private school.   They don't have a choice.   True they could home school but so could the Public school parents.   That wasn't the comparison we were talking about.

They're not being financially penalized, any more than I am being financially penalized by not having children and still having to pay school taxes.

Yes they are as noted above.   As are you with no kids.   The more kids one sends to Public schools, the more benefit they get.   The more someone else is penalized financially.

No doubt about it.   Thats how the system works

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.104  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @1.1.100    one month ago
We were 48th out of 50 in teacher compensation when our teachers went on strike, which is why even the parents supported it.

Not to mention the PEIA mess.

For those not familiar with WV, PEIA is the insurance program for state employees.  And it was a ridiculous mess.  The idea being floated to "fix" it included charging larger premiums for families whose income was higher.  So if your spouse worked a well-paid job, your overall compensation package was decreased to pay for your insurance.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.105  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.103    one month ago

Then we're all being penalized financially, because none of us are taking advantage of everything our tax dollars are spent on.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.106  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.104    one month ago
For those not familiar with WV, PEIA is the insurance program for state employees.  And it was a ridiculous mess.

Pensions, state-run insurance ... ugh. They never seem to be properly managed. Too many promises made and not enough money for them all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.107  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.101    one month ago

No, no, no.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.108  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.1.105    one month ago

Wrong.  

People with kids that are paying less in, than they are taking out, are not getting ripped off.    That’s how the system is set up.    To make sure those with less can get the same education as those with more.    That’s the promise.

Problem is, many public schools are failing in that promise.    Enter private/charter schools in an attempt to fill the void left by failing public schools.     A situation that never would have happened if public schools were fulfilling their promise.

I’m all for fully funded public schools but not at the expense of a good education for our kids.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

we're tripping over knuckle dragging thumper morons here now. no tax dollars should be spent creating more.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

In   Trinity Lutheran , Roberts was able to win over Justices Elana Kagan and Breyer, and the Court voted 7-2 to uphold a program that made state money available to private schools – religious and secular – for playground renovations. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion narrowly, but his language still made clear that he views these cases as about discrimination against religious people, rather than public funding of religious organizations.

The First Amendment, he wrote, allows a state “to extend that public benefit to all its citizens regardless of their religious belief.” And denying funds to the religiously-affiliated school “expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.”

That would suggest a ruling for Espinoza and the other religious plaintiffs here. If this case is about discrimination, the plaintiffs win.

The trouble with this supposedly “moderate” result is that Montana’s program is actually more modest than many of the “school choice” programs promoted by, among others, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her family’s multi-million-dollar foundations.

Montana, after all, only offered a $150 tax credit for donors to an overall pool of money. (Indeed, it seems designed to gradually push the boundaries of constitutional law.) What about states that would grant a dollar-for-dollar tax credit up to the total amount of a private school tuition?

For example, full-price tuition at one of the Montana religious schools in the case runs between $6,900 and $8,700. That’s far more than most people pay in state taxes.

So if Montana’s more modest program is reinstated and the no-aid amendments are struck down, other, less modest programs could easily be put into place. The result could be a massive shift in revenue from state coffers to the bank accounts of religious schools.

That would, of course, please DeVos and other religious conservatives, but it would also starve public education.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

DeVos is determined to fuck over public schools.  Our tax dollars SHOULD NOT GO TOWARDS PRIVATE/RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago

There's no one less qualified for Sec. Of Edu than DeVos.

 
 
 
Enoch
4  Enoch    one month ago

Once upon a time, in a land far far away there was a young girl.

She never succeeded in mastering reading, writing and arithmatic.

Unable to obtain no less hold down a non skilled job, her wealthy parents donated a lot of money.

In exchange she was given a position where it made no difference. 

She was hired as the Secretary of Education by her national government.

And every lived happily ever after.

The end.

Theo Seuss, P.hD.

 
 
 
squiggy
4.1  squiggy  replied to  Enoch @4    one month ago

Where did you get the absurd idea that wealthy parents can get their stupid kids into the best of schools.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @4.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  squiggy @4.1    one month ago

How about Rick Singer's school of scandal where the rich of all political and religious stripes bribed their way into the colleges of their choice for their kids.

Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin et.al., ?

That idea didn't exist in a vacuum, it grew from parents being generous to the private schools of their choice for their kids

and blossomed into a college admissions scandal.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  squiggy @4.1    one month ago
Where did you get the absurd idea that wealthy parents can get their stupid kids into the best of schools

Shirly (or Laverne), you jest.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

At the very least.

 
 
 
squiggy
4.1.5  squiggy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.4    one month ago

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him think.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  squiggy @4.1    one month ago

Lori Laughlin did.  She got busted but she did get her "stupid kids" into a top school thanks to hers and her husband's wealth.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.6    one month ago

What's wrong with paying for your kids to go to school,those kids seem to really need the education and a good party./s

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @4.1.7    one month ago

One daughter even went on line and stated that she was there for the party experience and could have cared less about getting an education.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.8    one month ago

I saw that she just wanted the party not like the school stuff.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Enoch @4    one month ago

She paid for that position.  Determined to gut public schools as we know it.  

The Guardian

Betsy DeVos: the billionaire Republican destroying public education

Cuts, attacks, rollbacks – the education secretary’s campaign to dismantle America’s public system has continued unabated

David Smith  in Washington

Fri 27 Dec 2019   02.20 EST Last modified on Fri 27 Dec 2019   02.49 EST

1863.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=forma
  Betsy DeVos has proposed a requirement that colleges allow cross-examination of sexual assault and harassment accusers. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Betsy DeVos   has become accustomed to hostile audiences. The House of Representatives’ education committee earlier this month was no exception.

“When you approach a public school, you are protested,” the Democratic congresswoman Frederica Wilson   told the education secretary.   “When you enter, you are booed. You are the most unpopular person in our government. Millions will register to vote in   2020 . Many will vote to remove you more than to remove the president.”

It was a rare moment of clarity in the constant swirl of drama in Washington – border wall Russia , partisan warfare, media bashing, tweets,  impeachment  – that seems to provide cover for  Donald Trump ’s cabinet secretaries to escape scrutiny. Chief among them is DeVos who, critics say, is quietly and insidiously  destroying public education in America.

DeVos’s record is proof,   they argue,   that when the smoke of the Trump presidency finally clears, the substance of his legacy on policy, deregulation and   stacking the courts   will remain – and take far longer to repair.

“We’ve had plenty of Republican as well as Democratic secretaries of education but none of them, even those who believed in alternatives to public education, actually tried to eviscerate public education,” said   Randi Weingarten,   the president of the American Federation of Teachers. “Here is someone who in her first budget tried to eliminate every single summer school programme, every single after-school programme, and who has done everything in her power to try to make it harder for us to strengthen public [sector] schools.”

A billionaire philanthropist, DeVos, 61, attended a private Christian school  in Michigan and sent most of her children to private Christian schools; she has had little exposure to public education. She became a champion of privately run, publicly funded charter schools and vouchers that enable families to take tax dollars from the public education system to the private sector.

Since taking office, she has proposed billions of dollars in cuts to her own department, hitting class size reductions, after-school programmes, full-service community schools and student loan forgiveness.   Even Trump overruled her   on plans to gut the Special Olympics, and she has recently run into opposition from the Democratic-controlled House,   which passed significant budget increases.

Weingarten commented: “Here you have someone whose job it is to help students, 90% of whom go to public schools in America, and to help students in higher education navigate through their student debt or try to mitigate it. She’s failed on both accounts. Instead, she’s tried to defund and dismantle public education and make it harder for us to help kids in public education.”

DeVos is currently attacking a programme, known as “borrower defense to repayment”, intended to forgive federal loans for students whose colleges misrepresent the quality of their education or otherwise commit fraud. The programme was expanded under  Barack Obama  but DeVos has been accused of stalling it for more than a year while she altered the rules and made it harder for students to get loan relief, resulting in a large backlog.

Last month, a federal judge  held DeVos in contempt  for violating an order to stop collecting loan payments from former Corinthian Colleges students, a for-profit college chain that collapsed in 2015 amid allegations that it lied about the success of its graduates in order to get students to enroll.

Weingarten commented: “I’m not surprised that a judge held her in contempt because, just like her boss, she mocks the rule of law. Her rule is: she’s rich and she’s a believer in her ideology and that should drive it, not her oath of office, not that this is democracy, not that she is the secretary of education. So the mood [among teachers] is: we told you so, we knew she’d be like this.”

In addition, the 11th education secretary is   seeking to spin off the Federal Student Aid   office – which provides more than $150bn a year in federal grants, loans and work-study funds to college students – into a new agency. She says the office is an “untamed beast” in “distress”; critics regard the proposal as a waste of time and resources.

The long charge sheet against DeVos also includes   the withdrawal of federal guidance,   developed under the Obama administration, that spelled out protections for transgender students under title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.

DeVos has also proposed a requirement that colleges allow cross-examination of sexual assault and harassment accusers. Activists argue this would discourage victims from coming forward. Former vice-president   Joe Biden   has promised to reverse the guidance if he becomes president.

Weingarten said:   She’s unwound any number of protections that kids have in education because the Department of Education is supposed to be the civil rights agency for children. And when it comes to higher education, she really has betrayed the aspirations of kids who need and have student loans in order to make their aspirations real in postsecondary education.”

DeVos’s job appears safe as long as Trumpis president. But she has been sharply criticised by Democratic   2020   candidates, including moderates.   Pete Buttigieg   has vowed that, should he reach the White House, he would appoint a secretary who actually believes in public education.   Senator Amy Klobuchar   has promised to fire DeVos immediately.

John Delaney,   the first Democrat to jump into the race, joined the condemnation. “If we were grading her on a report card, I would give her very low grades if not a failing grade,” he said by phone from Iowa. “The reason I think she has not been a successful secretary of education was obvious from the day she was given the job, which is she doesn’t believe in the public education system in this country. She would voucherise the whole system if she could.”

But for now, DeVos and other cabinet secretaries seem relatively safe from the spotlight as Trump’s flame-throwing, attention-grabbing antics intensify. Delaney warned: “We have to be careful not to be so preoccupied with every single ridiculous thing the president does because, to some extent, it might be a strategy to distract us from the bad policy that’s actually getting done. Obviously the things he did with   Ukraine   deserve this attention they’re getting. But in some ways he’s the bright, shiny light and every little tweet causes people to just be incredibly preoccupied.

“Meanwhile, environmental regulations are getting rolled back. Ethanol waivers are being granted. There are proposals to spin off the entire student loan portfolio of the Department of Education. The list goes on and on and on of real policies that are happening that deserve much more attention. She has largely kept her head down and gone about her business, which I think is ideologically driven and hasn’t attracted that much attention.”
DeVos – whose brother, Erik Prince,  is the founder of Blackwater, a private security contractor notorious for its operations in Iraq – is the former chair of the Michigan Republican party. Critics say she used her wealth to push legislators to defund public education in favour of for-profit charter schools in the state, and students’  test results have  suffered badly as a consequence.

Neil Sroka,  a progressive activist based in Detroit, Michigan, said: “In the state of Michigan, ‘DeVos’ is a one-word epithet for everything broken in our education system. Michigan was a Petri dish and the future is now. DeVos pushed her policies on state schools and the chickens have come home to roost in Michigan.”

Sroka, spokesman for the political action committee  Democracy for America,  added: “It’s hard to say in administration like Donald Trump’s who the biggest villain is. The Trump administration has been a rogues’ gallery but Betsy DeVos, from the sheer lack of expertise to her defence of rapists and attempted rapists to her attack on any effort for students to throw off the yoke of student debt in their lifetime, ticks all the boxes.

“The scion of wealth and privilege has never had a real job but made it her life’s work to attack public schools, teachers and students. She only escapes scrutiny because so much incompetence, grief and evil comes out of this administration that she’s been able to ride out the storm. But she’s made it much more likely we’ll get a Democratic education secretary who’s a real champion for teachers.”

The Department of Education did not respond to requests for an interview with DeVos.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Enoch @4    one month ago
She was hired as the Secretary of Education by her national government.

No doubt a difficult job...but also no doubt that she is ill-equipped for the post. If any cabinet position required the ability to bring all the disparate parties to the table in an effort to determine as to how to best educate our children (and is there anything more important?), she has shown neither the ability nor the will do so. 

Every parent has the choice of whether to place their children in public schools or choose an alternative, and that is a blessing that many countries do not enjoy. But to demand limited public funds be allocated to support that private decision, at the expense of those that may not have the financial wherewithal to make a similar decision, is contrary to the entire purpose of public funded education...and thus this important court case.

Here's hoping the decision is based on established Constitutional grounds and not on a religious freedom argument (already guaranteed) or even worse, political expediency. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3    one month ago

Being ill equipped for high offices seems to be the norm lately.

 
 
 
JBB
4.4  JBB  replied to  Enoch @4    one month ago

That is what we got when Trump nominated a Secretary of Education, Devos, who is fundamentally opposed to the historic mission of the US Department of Education. Public Education is a bedrock of American success and the anchor of our freedoms. Those tearing away at the foundations of our free public school system are sabotaging America's future and the future success of millions of America's less fortunate children...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Enoch @4    one month ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
For liberals, however, public funding of religious schools is blatantly unconstitutional.

 matters not what liberals think about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    one month ago

Matters not what whackjobs think of it.  

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    one month ago
Matters not what whackjobs think of it. 

I think you and Magic Eight Ball actually agree. Your posts essentially said the same thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    one month ago

Only I wasn't referring to liberals.  

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    one month ago

No....but we are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @5.1.3    one month ago

Don't you have some other article to troll?

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @5.1.5    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6  Dean Moriarty    one month ago

Do we really have people that want states trampling on our constitutional rights? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6    one month ago

What do you mean Dean?

Are you for or against public school funding, our tax dollars, funding private schools?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    one month ago

I'm for supporting the constitution and the buck stops with the Supreme court. If they find that the states are acting unconstitutional then we know the states were in the wrong. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6.1.1    one month ago

No, the states were not in the wrong.  

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  

The states are not trampling on our constitutional rights.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.2    one month ago

It doesn't make any difference the court isn't ruling on what I like, they are ruling on the constitutionality of the states actions. If the states are violating the constitution do you not see why their actions must be struck down? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6.1.3    one month ago

NOPE.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    one month ago

Ah yes, Public Education.  

A true Third Rail of politics in the USA

Sad

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7    one month ago

Which means what?

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one month ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_of_politics

The   third rail   of a nation's politics is a   metaphor   for any issue so controversial that it is "charged" and "untouchable" to the extent that any   politician   or public official who dares to broach the subject will invariably suffer politically. The metaphor comes from the high-voltage   third rail   in some   electric railway   systems.

Touching a third rail can result in   electrocution , so usage of the metaphor in political situations relates to the risk of "political suicide" that a person would face by associating with a certain cause, topic, or subject having a highly controversial or offensive nature.

It is most commonly used in   North America . Though commonly attributed to   Tip O'Neill , [1]   Speaker of the United States House of Representatives   during the   Reagan   presidency, it seems to have been coined by O'Neill aide Kirk O'Donnell in 1982 in reference to   Social Security . [2]
 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one month ago

Google it, you can figure it out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.2    one month ago

Obviously the only reason you're for this is because I'm against it.  

Move along now.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    one month ago

Wrong again on all counts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.4    one month ago
Wrong again on all counts.

Yes you are.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one month ago

I might be wrong, but the third rail is a comparison to the third rail on the tracks of subways that if you step on it can kill you.

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    one month ago

I used to work at a private school, they do not deserve public funds

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @8    one month ago

I couldn't agree with you more.

 
 
 
loki12
8.2  loki12  replied to  charger 383 @8    one month ago

Can i ask why not? if they provide an education, why shouldn't they? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @8.2    one month ago
Can i ask why not? if they provide an education, why shouldn't they?

If they get tax dollars, shouldn't they have to provide evidence that what they teach is accurate (i.e. evolution, not iron age mythology).

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.2  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @8.2.1    one month ago

No? If they get tax dollars they should be able to prove that their kids that graduate can read and write. Public schools can't do this. shouldn't we start there?

 
 
 
charger 383
8.2.3  charger 383  replied to  loki12 @8.2    one month ago

Many reasons, these are a few that come to mind right now :

First, who is in charge and how is school run.  School I worked at was run by a board of trustees that could not get along with themselves, Feuding, grudges and disagreements rivaling Congress today.  With good leadership that school could have been great, instead it struggles along.  

Financial accountability and stability,  

Educational accreditation and standards,  will others schools and colleges accept transcripts?

way they can treat students and staff   

what they spend money on

They can be more concerned with staying in business and looking good than providing education

where does profit go?  

Who is checking on things? 

that is just a few things.  

 

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.4  loki12  replied to  charger 383 @8.2.3    one month ago
Thank you for your response, Just a few thought, shocking I know!

Many reasons, these are a few that come to mind right now :

First, who is in charge and how is school run.  School I worked at was run by a board of trustees that could not get along with themselves, Feuding, grudges and disagreements rivaling Congress today.  With good leadership that school could have been great, instead it struggles along.  

Working there it had to suck, but if they were producing results higher than their public counterparts, I don't care if they mud wrestle each other, as long as the kids don't see it.

Financial accountability and stability,  

This is important, not sure what criteria to use, but i wouldn't want parents to find the school closed with no options,  Maybe an FDIC type financial inspection paid for by the school?  the public schools would fail on retirement alone.

Educational accreditation and standards,  will others schools and colleges accept transcripts?

This really should be the parents choice shouldn't it?

way they can treat students and staff

Again, we need to allow parents to raise their children, Obviously there can't be abuse,   

what they spend money on

Shouldn't this be irrelevant?

They can be more concerned with staying in business and looking good than providing education

This will be market driven, if they fail to provide an education they won't have customers.

where does profit go?  

Again, why should this matter? where does a doctors profit go who get medicare? WIC money, where does the profit go?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.5  MUVA  replied to  loki12 @8.2.2    one month ago

Yes 

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @8    one month ago

Yes, i'd like to hear both your reasons as well.

All things remaining equal, a person paying for public school gets ripped off by comparison if they choose to send their kid to private school.   I've actually got no problem not using public funds for private schools as long as the folks choosing to sending their kids to private school don't pay the same taxes towards public schools as people taking advantage of public schools.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3    one month ago

By your logic, I shouldn't have to pay any school taxes, since I don't have kids.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.3.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @8.3.1    one month ago

Logic?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
charger 383
8.3.3  charger 383  replied to  katrix @8.3.1    one month ago

You got that right

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.3.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @8.3    one month ago
I've actually got no problem not using public funds for private schools as long as the folks choosing to sending their kids to private school don't pay the same taxes towards public schools as people taking advantage of public schools.

So to avoid confusion, you are suggesting to somehow delineate taxes levied on everyone and separate those who choose the private option from those that take the public option?

In what instance does the taxpayer have any control as to how our tax dollars are allocated? Taxation simply does not work that way...hence the importance of the decision pending from the Supreme Court. Please expound as maybe I am missing something here.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @8.3.4    one month ago

It's pretty simple really.   It would likely involve a tax break for the private school parent.

No need to make it more complicated than that.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.6  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.5    one month ago

Then I could get a tax break too, since I don't have kids and shouldn't be paying for any child's education. Right?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.3.7  MUVA  replied to  katrix @8.3.1    one month ago

That I would be ok with but remember it’s all about the children even if they are not yours.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.8  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @8.3.6    one month ago

Okay, but lets not stop there.  

How about people with more kids paying more?   So we could have a family with 12 kids pay say 12 times more than a family with one kid.   Thus following your logic.

Would that be okay with you?

 
 
 
charger 383
8.3.9  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.8    one month ago

yes, there is now a problem with overpopulation.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.3.10  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.8    one month ago

That's fine by me too. If someone wants lots of kids, they pay for them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @8.3.9    one month ago

To both of you, that will never work.   Too many people can't afford to pay for a couple of kids let alone 12.

So how do you fix that problem if everyone is expected pay for their own kids regardless of the school they go to?

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.12  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.11    one month ago
So how do you fix that problem if everyone is expected pay for their own kids regardless of the school they go to?

Public schools, supported by taxpayers. If you don't have kids, or if you have kids but don't want to send them to public schools - oh well, you still pay school taxes. You know, how it currently works.

But you can't propose a tax break for the private school parents because they're not utilizing the public schools, without also giving a tax break to people who don't have kids and therefore don't utilize the public schools.

Too many people can't afford to pay for a couple of kids let alone 12.

Well then, they probably shouldn't have 12 kids.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.13  katrix  replied to  MUVA @8.3.7    one month ago
That I would be ok with but remember it’s all about the children even if they are not yours.

Oh, I have no problem with some of my taxes going to support public education; I'm a huge fan of education. I was making a different point.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.3.14  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @8.3.13    one month ago

I've never had a beef with my taxes paying for public education.  That's the way it should be. 

Again, I do have a problem with my taxes paying for private/religious schools.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.3.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @8.3.14    one month ago
I've never had a beef with my taxes paying for public education.

Same.  As a business owner, I would prefer to be able to hire educated employees.  I am therefore quite willing to pay taxes to support public education.  Their religious persuasions are none of my concern, and I will neither hinder nor support them in those pursuits.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.16  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @8.3.12    one month ago
But you can't propose a tax break for the private school parents because they're not utilizing the public schools, without also giving a tax break to people who don't have kids and therefore don't utilize the public schools.

Why not?   You're doing it now with public schools if you have no kids.   I don't see you arguing to not have to support Public schools if you have no kids.   People with 12 kids are paying no more than people with one if they have the same taxable values in their families.   Why are you so against people of faith and their schools or other private schools?   Simply because you don't agree with them?   So much for everyone getting their chance to pursue their own happiness right?   I guess they can pursue it but only as long as you agree with it.

Got it .....

Well then, they probably shouldn't have 12 kids.

I agree but hell bells, why stop there?   We could institute a China like rule where everyone could only have one point five kids max.   Yep, that would be great in the land of the free and the brave!

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.17  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.16    one month ago
Why are you so against people of faith and their schools or other private schools?

Because private schools aren't subject to the same regulations as public schools. If they're going to take taxpayer dollars, they have to be subject to certain controls that they aren't currently being held responsible for.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.18  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @8.3.17    one month ago
Because private schools aren't subject to the same regulations as public schools.

We (I) have already agreed here, to receive public money they would have to be.   And its not like many already aren't.  

There are many fantastic private schools out there outperforming public schools in almost every measurable educational category.

The public system tends to hate that.   No doubt about it.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.19  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.18    one month ago
The public system tends to hate that.   No doubt about it.

That's because it's a conundrum. Public schools can't succeed if we siphon off the money to private schools. And while there are some great private schools, there are also some terrible ones, and the government can't really do much about it. Charter schools have been a major failure in many places, for example.

But again, once we subject the private schools to the same controls - they are now public schools. So what is the point then? Too bad we can't have different styles of learning in our schools, so that every kid isn't forced into the same learning model which doesn't work for many of them. But every new thing seems to flame out - remember the open classrooms that were all the rage? They worked for some but failed for a lot of kids.

And really, without more parental involvement, schools can only do so much no matter how much money we throw at them. If you don't teach your child that reading is important and that learning is valuable, if you come home and pop open a six pack every night and watch reality TV, your kids are not in shape to get the most from their education. And if you don't teach your children morals and values, the school's time is spent more on discipline and it affects everyone's learning experience.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.3.20  Split Personality  replied to  katrix @8.3.19    one month ago
That's because it's a conundrum. Public schools can't succeed if we siphon off the money to private schools. And while there are some great private schools, there are also some terrible ones, and the government can't really do much about it. Charter schools have been a major failure in many places, for example.

Exactly.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.21  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @8.3.19    one month ago
That's because it's a conundrum. Public schools can't succeed if we siphon off the money to private schools. And while there are some great private schools, there are also some terrible ones, and the government can't really do much about it. Charter schools have been a major failure in many places, for example.

What's your point?   Public schools have been failing our kids for decades in many places.   Charter/Private schools didn't start popping up everywhere because everything was hunky dory in the public school system.   They started popping up because in many places Public schools were and are failing our kids.   That WOULD NOT be happen if everything in Public education was all good.

But again, once we subject the private schools to the same controls - they are now public schools.

No they aren't.   Are you suggesting one of those "controls" is mandatory participation in union labor?   I know i'm not.   Its one of the reasons new private schools are popping up everywhere.   Issues with union labor.

And really, without more parental involvement, schools can only do so much no matter how much money we throw at them. If you don't teach your child that reading is important and that learning is valuable, if you come home and pop open a six pack every night and watch reality TV, your kids are not in shape to get the most from their education. And if you don't teach your children morals and values, the school's time is spent more on discipline and it affects everyone's learning experience.

All of that is true regardless if kids are going to public or private schools so i don't really see any cogent points there.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.22  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.21    one month ago
Charter/Private schools didn't start popping up everywhere because everything was hunky dory in the public school system. 

And everything isn't hunky dory in the private or charter school systems, either - particularly charter schools. Obviously we haven't figured it out, regardless of how it's funded.

Are you suggesting one of those "controls" is mandatory participation in union labor?  

In my state, participation in the teachers' union is not mandatory.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.3.23  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @8.3.22    one month ago
And everything isn't hunky dory in the private or charter school systems, either - particularly charter schools.

I never said it was.   The point i was making was that if Public schools were doing their jobs well many private and charter schools would never have existed.   You can't point out the problems with one without pointing out the causality of the other

Are you suggesting one of those "controls" is mandatory participation in union labor?  
In my state, participation in the teachers' union is not mandatory.

Pretty sure in my state all Public system school teachers are union but i'm not 100% on that.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.24  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @8.3.23    one month ago
Pretty sure in my state all Public system school teachers are union but i'm not 100% on that.

I don't think any state forces teachers to join the union. But about half the states force teachers to pay union dues even if they choose not to join (mine does not).

 
 
 
MUVA
8.3.25  MUVA  replied to  katrix @8.3.19    one month ago

The nice thing about a private school is if it is a bad one you can put your kid in another one.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    one month ago

As we saw with Trinity, if the school is just doing what other schools do, there shouldn't be discrimination. 

We're still going to end up in court until the end of time on this stuff, because there is never going to be a bright line defining secularism and sectarianism in the schools. Is there a substantive difference between a teacher with a cross around her neck, a cross on the wall, or a cross on a jersey? Does that have anything to do with curriculum? We can debate this stuff endlessly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR PRIVATE/RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
10.1  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  Tessylo @10    one month ago
I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR PRIVATE/RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

You're a good democrat so I'm sure you have no problem with your tax dollars paying for free college for everyone, right?

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @10.1    one month ago

You know what they say about assumptions, right?

 
 
 
Ender
12  Ender    one month ago

First off, the original case was thrown out along with the law that brought it, so according to some precedent, they shouldn't even be taking the case.

Second, now I find it ironic that all the sudden conservative people are against state rights.

This would be taking away public funds for public schools to fill private coffers. That people cheer this on shows me their priorities do not lay with the children that need the funds the most.

This whole thread reads like conservative people are on this bandwagon just because it is happening under a trump administration. Some are not thinking about what this would actually do (or do not care) and are going to defend anything trump, no matter what.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @12    one month ago

By Jove I think you've got it.

I KNOW that is the case with several of the posters here, though I will not name names, ahem.  

 
 
 
loki12
12.2  loki12  replied to  Ender @12    one month ago
This whole thread reads like conservative people are on this bandwagon just because it is happening under a trump administration. Some are not thinking about what this would actually do (or do not care) and are going to defend anything trump, no matter what.

TDS is alive and real. exactly what the fuck does trump have to do with this? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @12.2    one month ago

Buzz off with that TDS bullshit.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
13  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

Look at this competing seed provided by the Federalist:

Supreme Court To Decide If Atheism Can Keep Its Monopoly On K-12 Schools

How moronic.  That's what religious private schools are for.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



30 visitors