Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because the money being use to fund private schools(Like said above) and the money used from out of the parents pockets an be used as donations to make schools better.

But thats directly their money.

I dont think taxes should be used for private schools. however if a group of people want to give their children a better education and have the funds to do so they should be able to pay for a private school that meets their expectations.

that doesnt stop them from paying taxes that still go to public schools.

as well the public educational system has far more problems then money can fix.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Troy wrote:

What if the state school is terrible?

Then they should be glad that the money that was being given to a private school is (potentially) going back into the state school so it won't be terrible.

That condemns the student to a poor education then. Ever see "waiting for Superman?" its about poor kids playing an educational lottery to go to a magnet school (I think in Washington DC), else there's no real point in even going to school. Urban school districts are typically subpar. Some, as in Chicago's, are downright criminal. But the wealthy don't go to them so its ok.

Same to same for NYC. Anyone with money sends their kids to private schools. The rest can suck it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Troy wrote:

What if the state school is terrible?

Then they should be glad that the money that was being given to a private school is (potentially) going back into the state school so it won't be terrible.

That condemns the student to a poor education then. Ever see "waiting for Superman?" its about poor kids playing an educational lottery to go to a magnet school (I think in Washington DC), else there's no real point in even going to school. Urban school districts are typically subpar. Some, as in Chicago's, are downright criminal. But the wealthy don't go to them so its ok.

Same to same for NYC. Anyone with money sends their kids to private schools. The rest can suck it.

But then you could argue that if the rich people didn't have the option to pay for their kid to go to a different school then the political pressure and money they bring could go quite a long way to improving the struggling state schools.

 Desubot wrote:

I really dont like those alternative schools ether. seems more like a giant science experiment than actual education. and in the end good or bad the children will have to face the consequence (good or bad).

That said, im fairly against the standardization of learning. its a hella lot more complicated than a standard way of teaching could ever cover. also common core needs to die.

A lot of the alt schools I've seen are generally for the MTV crowd... By that, I mean the moron who got knocked up at 15 or 16 or whatever. The alt school by me has a built in daycare.


I should elaborate on my comment though.... I'm not suggesting a standardization of learning, I'm suggesting that, as in my state where there are curriculum benchmarks for each grade level. I think that ALL schools need to meet those requirements. I'm not suggesting that all schools teach common core, or any other specific program, I'm merely suggesting that where the state/governing body of education in the area creates a benchmark that says "1st graders should be able to understand 200 unique words, and read 30 words per minute," I really don't care HOW a school gets kids to that common point, I care that kids are at that point.


And for what it's worth, I've done a bunch of reading on Common Core, and it isn't all bad. Basically, a group of people with a ton of experience in K-12 education (as in, retired teachers, and people who train teachers) found a better way of educating students. They noticed problems, particularly in the STEM fields where kids would enter college and get into upper level math (the kind needed for physics majors, engineers and the like) but were basically failing out because they didn't/couldn't get the basic principle of WHY the problems they've been doing by rote memory for so long worked that way. That is what Common Core aimed to fix. The problem is, those educators got their findings and theories out there, and a corporation found it, and figured out how to monetize it, sell it to the gov't and now we have an extremely shoddily implemented program on our hands.

Also, as a parent with a kid going through common core since Kindergarten, and I've been helping with homework (which I disagree with), starting from that grade and we're about to enter 2nd grade, the gak makes sense... I can see the progression and whats going on at pretty much all times.

But rich people have the option now. The wealthy don't send their kids to charter schools. Charter schools are an option for those who don't have the means to go to private school, but want to escape horrific public schools they are forced to go to.

EDIT: In full disclosure when I was a youngin, living the carefree life of being chased by hyenadons, my parents and three other couples formed a church school to keep us out of the local district. This decision was made after someone was shot in the playground of the elementary I was slated to attend. The school was filled up very quickly with kids from the neighborhood trying to escape.

The school and church still exists FYI. They now have sermons in Spanish, coolio.

yeah, there is also this as a reason against http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/112892364.html

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Troy wrote:

What if the state school is terrible?

Then they should be glad that the money that was being given to a private school is (potentially) going back into the state school so it won't be terrible.

That condemns the student to a poor education then. Ever see "waiting for Superman?" its about poor kids playing an educational lottery to go to a magnet school (I think in Washington DC), else there's no real point in even going to school. Urban school districts are typically subpar. Some, as in Chicago's, are downright criminal. But the wealthy don't go to them so its ok.

Same to same for NYC. Anyone with money sends their kids to private schools. The rest can suck it.

But then you could argue that if the rich people didn't have the option to pay for their kid to go to a different school then the political pressure and money they bring could go quite a long way to improving the struggling state schools.

In pretty much every municipality and state it would be faster and easier for rich people to get together and start a new private school than it would be for rich people to work through state agencies and politicians to donate money specifically to upgrade the schools in their children's district.

I don't see the big deal with state tax revenue being used to help fund charter schools. The reason the state and county fund public schools is because education is beneficial to the entire community, good schools help create good citizens, increase property values and make the area more desirable for residents and employers. Those benefits also come from charter schools. If the schools are being run properly and are successfully educating students then they are a benefit for the community. The taxes you pay fund the local schools whether you have children enrolled in them or not so why shouldn't the tax revenue help all the schools in the area? If you want charter schools and private schools to be more accessible to children in low income families the best way to get the leverage to make that a reality is to give them state funding on the conditional of admitting more low income students. Having the state continue to fund schools that are bad while everyone in the community who can afford to sends their kids to other better schools does nothing to help combat the education gap created which has long lasting multifaceted negative consequences for the community.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Personally, I applaud these parents. I agree that charter schools have benefits and have their place in society, but by being private and selective education, they should not receive any tax payer funding. The whole point of charter schools is that they're better education for people who can afford it, a luxury service.

I am for fee paying schools receiving government support, with certain caveats. The school must be a non profit and it must be demonstrated that the intake of pupils eases pressure on the state school system.
Tax breaks are reasonable. And to some extent support so long as it is less than the local government would have to pay for individual pupils if they were educated in the state school system. If th intake doesn't include sufficient numbers from the local community, regardless of whether it is selective, then funding should not happen, though tax free status for non-profits is still fair.
Also a fair portion of the savings by the school should be passed on in the form or bursaries for parents who cannot afford to pay.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Personally, I applaud these parents. I agree that charter schools have benefits and have their place in society, but by being private and selective education, they should not receive any tax payer funding. The whole point of charter schools is that they're better education for people who can afford it, a luxury service.

I am for fee paying schools receiving government support, with certain caveats. The school must be a non profit and it must be demonstrated that the intake of pupils eases pressure on the state school system.
Tax breaks are reasonable. And to some extent support so long as it is less than the local government would have to pay for individual pupils if they were educated in the state school system. If th intake doesn't include sufficient numbers from the local community, regardless of whether it is selective, then funding should not happen, though tax free status for non-profits is still fair.
Also a fair portion of the savings by the school should be passed on in the form or bursaries for parents who cannot afford to pay.

Agreed.

I can also see the point of those arguing against charters, but only if they eliminate all private schools. That way it would force everyone to be in the same school district, and avoids the good schools for a certain class and poor schools for everyone else.

There's a very simple incentive to government for subsidising charter schools - it means the government isn't facing the full cost of educating that kid. Let's say it costs $5,000 per student per year in the government system. The charter school has to charge $4,000 for every kid in its system. The charter school might be better for kids, but $4,000 is a lot of money when the public school is free. But if government offers a $2,000 subsidy per kid, the charter school can drop its fee to $2,000. That's money that a lot more parents will be able to find. Sure, government is still spending money, but every kid that shifts from the public system to a charter school is a saving of $3,000 to the state.

Whether that's legal I don't know, that's up for a court to decide. But it can make good financial sense for a government to subsidise private schools.

The problem with government funds going to a private school is that there are now church v state issues. A private school can mandate religious activities, where as no government entity can fund these activities.

 redleger wrote:
The problem with government funds going to a private school is that there are now church v state issues. A private school can mandate religious activities, where as no government entity can fund these activities.

They'll do just what Planned Parenthood does...

By making sure that the 'cost of some non-objectional service' doesn't exceed the amount received from government funds. (basically, everything else except religion classes)

Which assumes that private funds are used to provide for that.

That way, you can say 'no, these government dollars isn't used to teach religion'.

 redleger wrote:
The problem with government funds going to a private school is that there are now church v state issues. A private school can mandate religious activities, where as no government entity can fund these activities.

That isn't a problem, because government can make funding conditional on a bunch of tests, such as the charter school having no religious instruction or making that instruction optional for each student.

John Oliver did a great job slamming charter schools that failed kids. I do feel he left out the other side of the coin. Public schools often fail them too.

Ever hear of the "School of No"? The Principal only showed up for her job 60% of the time, and when she did it wouldn't be until 10 or 11. Most of the classes had no books. Fake students were enrolled to pad the books. Many classes lacked enough desks or chairs. There were classes that existed on paper that didn't exist in reality. Kids were sent to the auditorium to watch movies on a daily basis. All the while the Principal and her teachers were funneling money into their own pockets. This was a PUBLIC school.

Charter schools have good sides too. Just look at New Orleans. After being wiped out by Hurricane Katrina the city looked to charter schools to fill the gap when it's public schools were destroyed. It worked, and test scores are up.


Now, don't get me wrong, I don't just blindly support Charter schools. I feel that they should have STRONG oversight by the community. I feel that they should be heavily regulated and randomly audited. I also feel the same way about public schools.

I think the best places for charter schools are in areas where home location determines what school you attend. For some people living on the wrong side of the street means the difference between a decent public education and a terrible education that is possibly dangerous. These people deserve to have a choice other than probable failure.