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.

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.


http://wjtv.com/2016/08/23/parents-suing-state-of-mississippi-about-charter-schools-receiving-public-money/

Should charter schools receive taxpayer money?

That’s the question that a group of Jackson parents want answered and quickly.

Those parents are suing the state.

The Southern Poverty Law center announced they’ve asked a Hinds County judge for a summary judgement.

They hope to speed up the process to determine if charter schools can constitutionally receive tax payer money.

Parents and lawyers want a decision and fast.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the state in July saying that money taken from the Jackson Public School District and given to charter schools is unconstitutional and that property taxes shouldn’t be shared with schools they don’t control.

Yep, public and private should and need to be separate. They should probably take a page from the FFRFs playbook. They have had great success stopping stuff like that.

This is a beef up here too. I'm against public funds going to private institutions.

The flipside of the argument is those parents of private school kids pay taxes too.

 feeder wrote:
This is a beef up here too. I'm against public funds going to private institutions.

The flipside of the argument is those parents of private school kids pay taxes too.

I wouldn't say its a flipside since it is an elective education. They could choose to send their kids to publicly funded schools, but I am sure the whole reason they don't is obvious. So if you don't want your child to go to a publicly funded school, and want to fork over the money for a private school, then don't expect public help for your decisions.

 feeder wrote:
This is a beef up here too. I'm against public funds going to private institutions.

The flipside of the argument is those parents of private school kids pay taxes too.

They pay taxes, but what percentage of taxes go to public schools? 10%? It also goes to roadworks, daycare, all other publicly funded programs.

 redleger wrote:
So if you don't want your child to go to a publicly funded school, and want to fork over the money for a private school, then don't expect public help for your decisions.

I agree. I've had this discussion with friends who have their kids in private (Catholic) school, and that is their argument.

Well good on them.

while we are at it, can we also stop giving tax breaks to big companies too?

im sure that money could finally fix the freeways and roads out here in California

The schools presumably make a profit, though? So why are they getting subsidies?

They are not-for-profit institutions.

Herzlos wrote:
The schools presumably make a profit, though? So why are they getting subsidies?

The provincial government that administers the school system where I live is of a neo-conservative ideological bent. There appears to be a continued underfunding of public schools in an attempt to break the system so when they bring their ideologically pure P3 school system (P3 = private public partnership), it will be easier for voters to swallow. Allotting taxes to private institutions is part of that neo-con agenda.

There is a similar situation with the provincial health system as well.

In America I think that would be a harder pill to swallow. Anything even leaning toward socialism would be met with staunch and hard lined resistance. As long as it has zero religious ties, I could probably get behind something similar, then again look what happened with the privatized prison system. So no, public school and private school of any type should never even intersect, to include subsidies from tax payer money.

redleger wrote:Yep, public and private should and need to be separate. They should probably take a page from the FFRFs playbook.

Fantasy Flight Roleplaying Fyftem?

Kilkrazy wrote:They are not-for-profit institutions.

In theory, in the US, but there are a myriad of issues as well as non-profit not meaning no money either. One can become very wealthy on non-profit.

Since it came up the most recent Last Week Tonight specifically had a story about Charter Schools.

I was just about to link John Oliver's spiel on charter schools, so thanks Ahtman.

Can we just do away with private education in general?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can we just do away with private education in general?

Getting rid of competiion is never been particularly good idea.

 redleger wrote:
In America I think that would be a harder pill to swallow. Anything even leaning toward socialism would be met with staunch and hard lined resistance. As long as it has zero religious ties, I could probably get behind something similar, then again look what happened with the privatized prison system. So no, public school and private school of any type should never even intersect, to include subsidies from tax payer money.

P3 is not socialism. It's essentially corporate welfare. Even Canadian neo-cons worship at the altar of the Invisible Hand.

I was not aware schools where competition based before college.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was not aware schools where competition based before college.

Well, they are from the point of view of some parents. Look at stories of parents lying about their faith or moving house to get into a school catchment area in order to get their children into schools which are regarded as better than others.

Reducing options would be bad.

also having a school that can basically guarantee class room sizes and individual attention, all of which is pretty much missing in public schools is very nice for those who can afford it.

 feeder wrote:
The flipside of the argument is those parents of private school kids pay taxes too.

There is nothing stopping them sending their children to a state school.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The flipside of the argument is those parents of private school kids pay taxes too.

There is nothing stopping them sending their children to a state school.

What if the state school is terrible?

 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 not sure how charter schools work in Mississippi, but in Texas, this statement above would not be accurate as charter schools are not "private" schools. Instead they are chartered public schools, i.e. established by charter instead of by an independent school district.

More info here;

http://www.txcharterschools.org/what-is-a-charter-school/

I personally have no objections to charter schools and in a lot ways see them as more accountable than the monolithic independent school districts (ISD's) in Texas since if the Charter school fail to meet parent expectations, parents can vote with their feet and thereby directly impact the schools funding. They also are not a taxing entity unlike the ISD's in Texas who often spend tax money in ways that a majority of their residents do not approve of yet have little or no recourse to change or influence e.g. Katy and McKinney including huge high school football stadiums bundled in with bond money for new schools thus "forcing" the electorate to vote for higher taxes to pay for those stadiums even if they do not support them because it is tied up with the proposal for new schools which is often a legitimate need.

One charter school, YES Prep, in particular, has been very successful and is highly ranked http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/texas/districts/yes-prep-public-schools-inc/yes-prep-southwest-18459/map. It's schools are located in inner city Houston and offer a compelling alternative to HISD and other area urban school districts that are notorious for their poor overall academic achievement, poor fiscal management, and charged political climate.

Disclosure: My wife is a public school teacher in a suburban district and my children currently attend public school in a suburban school district.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

I personally have no objections to charter schools and in a lot ways see them as more accountable than the monolithic independent school districts (ISD's) in Texas since if the Charter school fail to meet parent expectations, parents can vote with their feet and thereby directly impact the schools funding. They also are not a taxing entity unlike the ISD's in Texas who often spend tax money in ways that a majority of their residents do not approve of yet have little or no recourse to change or influence e.g. Katy and McKinney including huge high school football stadiums bundled in with bond money for new schools thus "forcing" the electorate to vote for higher taxes to pay for those stadiums even if they do not support them because it is tied up with the proposal for new schools which is often a legitimate need.

Voting against your local football team sounds like an Unamerican thing to do


I am against the idea of the majority of private schools for K-12 education. Hell, I don't particularly like "alternative education" schools either. But, I think that any school that receives public money, should be monitored, if not controlled by a public interest. For example, if a charter school opens up near my house, it should adhere to the learning/education standards set forth by my local school district, even if that school district does not actively control said charter school.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



Voting against your local football team sounds like an Unamerican thing to do


I am against the idea of the majority of private schools for K-12 education. Hell, I don't particularly like "alternative education" schools either. But, I think that any school that receives public money, should be monitored, if not controlled by a public interest. For example, if a charter school opens up near my house, it should adhere to the learning/education standards set forth by my local school district, even if that school district does not actively control said charter school.

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.

 Desubot wrote:
Reducing options would be bad.

also having a school that can basically guarantee class room sizes and individual attention, all of which is pretty much missing in public schools is very nice for those who can afford it.

That is the point. Those who can afford it get better options in schools. While poor people get stuck with what is essentially a babysitting service.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Reducing options would be bad.

also having a school that can basically guarantee class room sizes and individual attention, all of which is pretty much missing in public schools is very nice for those who can afford it.

That is the point. Those who can afford it get better options in schools. While poor people get stuck with what is essentially a babysitting service.

And? If i want the best for my children then i want the best for my children, not your children.

and instead of getting rid of options, why cant we boost up standard schools to help those kids instead of putting everyone in the dumpster to try and crawl out with no help.

Because having a more educated populace effects everyone, so everyone should have a invested interest in making all schools equal and better. Not just the best for their own kids.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because having a more educated populace effects everyone, so everyone should have a invested interest in making all schools equal and better. Not just the best for their own kids.

So then why not build up on the state public school instead of killing private schools?

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.

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.