Am I mistaken in assuming Charter schools are much like private schools in you have to pay tuition to attend?

There is research that shows when data is disaggregated for socio-economic status that Charter schools do not perform as well as others.

Public schools are fallible and there are some that are poor, but the brush has been way too broad.

Public schools are statutorily obligated to make an effort to educate everyone - I would say morally as well. This includes students with disabilities. Charters can choose to not educate these folks in the first place, and can counsel them to return to their home public school if things are not working pout well.

I just completed an observation of a teacher who earned her credentials through an alternate route. She said what she needed was more training in pedagogy. Teacher training schools are big on pedagogy.

Teaching is an art and a science. Some people may be naturally gifted at it, but they still need to develop some skills. Certification routes help you gain those skills. There are some certified staff that I don't want teaching my children either, but I would rather take my chances with someone who has be trained than someone who has not.

 

Then don't put your kids in charter schools. Since this whole thread started with your rant about personal freedom how about freedom of choice in your child's education? Do you just cash out on kids that are forced by geography to attend a miserable school or in your government controlled world should everyone just sit down and shut up because the government and their agencies know what's best for you.

 

Talk about taking away personal freedom.

Am I mistaken in assuming Charter schools are much like private schools in you have to pay tuition to attend?

 

Yes you are mistaken. Charter schools are public schools.

Am I mistaken in assuming Charter schools are much like private schools in you have to pay tuition to attend?

 

You are mistaken. Charter schools receive public money and can limit attendees.

 

As to the above, no one denies anyone the right to attend a religious or private school. Heck Louisville is full of them.

Who was limiting the recognized marriage of the same sex partners - the government. It is the government that limits this - officially. Because it has let the institution of marriage creep into laws about everything from insurance to inheritances to (of course) taxes. It is the government who is the problem - not churches.

 

To prove my point - you are free to start a church - a church that openly recognizes gay marriage. All doable via your Constitutionally protected right of association. It is only when you go register or put a name of same sex couple on a tax return were you then run into problems. If tomorrow 'the churches' recognized same sex 'marriages' the problem would still remain - at the government level.

 

Now many of the religious groups have petitioned to keep the laws or deny the legal relationships. That is their right in a representative government - the right to petition. The libertarian view is that government should just get out of the 'marriage' business all together.

 

It is the "Church" however that comes out in force to keep the laws from being changed. Our elected officials succumb to that pressure.

 

I can see this one being a dent in my premise.

Then don't put your kids in charter schools. Since this whole thread started with your rant about personal freedom how about freedom of choice in your child's education? Do you just cash out on kids that are forced by geography to attend a miserable school or in your government controlled world should everyone just sit down and shut up because the government and their agencies know what's best for you.

 

Talk about taking away personal freedom.

 

See my post on all of the private schools in various parts of the state. No one keeps kids from attending those schools.

Again, a freedom of association issue. Why I am not free to associate with other like minded people to establish a school? Because it competes with the monopoly centralized school run by the government and paid with my (unwilling) tax dollars.

 

The government punishes those who exercise their freedom of association when it comes to schools. Who supports this restriction in a natural right? Often the teachers unions.

 

I support unions in the private sector. They have a place. But when a public union leverages their power to restrict a basic natural right and freedom its a different story.

 

Punished? Who is punished for attending Sayre or Collegiate or LCA or St. X or Trinity or Bluegrass Baptist or Anderson Co. Baptist or Cornerstone Christian.

 

FWIW I would be all for charters but, if they are receiving tax money, then they have to take all comers - they cannot limit enrollees and they face punitive action when everyone is not educated. It will also be viewed in a negative light when a student leaves to go back to the "public" school.

You are mistaken. Charter schools receive public money and can limit attendees.

 

As to the above, no one denies anyone the right to attend a religious or private school. Heck Louisville is full of them.

 

So can schools like Manual and Male. In fact I would assert that one of the reasons that so many schools in Jefferson County are in the pathetic shape that they are is because schools like that take the best and brightest away from the other schools. Are you then opposed to the concept of magnet schools?

 

In Ace's view of the world if a kid is geographically bound to a poor school his or her only option is to either pay tuition at a private school or suck it up and go to the poor public school. What if they can't afford the tuition? I thought you were the compassionate one. I don't see it.

See my post on all of the private schools in various parts of the state. No one keeps kids from attending those schools.

 

 

I saw it. It's a smoke screen. See my post about magnet schools.

Punished? Who is punished for attending Sayre or Collegiate or LCA or St. X or Trinity or Bluegrass Baptist or Anderson Co. Baptist or Cornerstone Christian.

 

FWIW I would be all for charters but, if they are receiving tax money, then they have to take all comers - they cannot limit enrollees and they face punitive action when everyone is not educated. It will also be viewed in a negative light when a student leaves to go back to the "public" school.

 

Punished in that I pay taxes that support the schools that are not used. Basically paying twice for education. Maybe I should thankful the government 'lets' me send kids to a non-government sponsored school. But I am forced to pay the one not used.

 

Chartered schools and private schools represent a choice that is resented. That is obvious. But monopolies rarely like competition - or free choice.

So can schools like Manual and Male. In fact I would assert that one of the reasons that so many schools in Jefferson County are in the pathetic shape that they are is because schools like that take the best and brightest away from the other schools. Are you then opposed to the concept of magnet schools?

 

In Ace's view of the world if a kid is geographically bound to a poor school his or her only option is to either pay tuition at a private school or suck it up and go to the poor public school. What if they can't afford the tuition? I thought you were the compassionate one. I don't see it.

 

I absolutely agree.

Punished in that I pay taxes that support the schools that are not used. Basically paying twice for education. Maybe I should thankful the government 'lets' me send kids to a non-government sponsored school. But I am forced to pay the one not used.

 

Chartered schools and private schools represent a choice that is resented. That is obvious. But monopolies rarely like competition - or free choice.

 

Your property taxes come no where near what it costs to educate a student, unless your property taxes are between 7 and 10 thousand dollars a year. It is a social contract, and it is constantly broken. You taxes pay a small part of an attempt to have an educated population. You would not want to live in world where most folks were not educated.

I absolutely agree.

 

So then in the world according to Ace everyone goes to the government school mandated by geography even if those schools are failing. If the parents aren't happy that their kids are required to attend a poorly performing school then they can send them to private schools, but if they can't afford to send their kids to private schools they shouldn't have any options to try to help their children be successful. That's compassion.

Your property taxes come no where near what it costs to educate a student, unless your property taxes are between 7 and 10 thousand dollars a year. It is a social contract, and it is constantly broken. You taxes pay a small part of an attempt to have an educated population. You would not want to live in world where most folks were not educated.

 

I paid property taxes before and after kids were in school. And it will plenty more than the cost of education. And I and the others that used private schools saved the school system a lot in cost avoidance since they did not have build additional space or hire additional teachers. But it is why vouchers and Charter Schools should be allowed. But that would threaten the government monopoly (that is somewhat beholding to a teachers union). By making it financially hard to even exercise the natural right of association, the government has suppressed this natural right.

 

The 'social contract' term is usually used for the soon-to-be insolvent social security system. It takes around 15% of every dollar earned. Maybe we should pray for no more 'social contracts'. Oh...too late...now health care is another mandated 'social contract' that also restricts freedom of association, along with freedom of commerce, etc.

You would have to pay $1000.00 per year in property taxes for 108 years to cover the cost of educating one student for 12 years.

 

Soon to be insolvent social security? 2037 doing nothing. Imagine if the ss trust hadn't loaned the ameican people $ to balance the budget.

 

But we digress . . .

 

My overall point was supported earlier,and I missed it. Conservative government suppresses freedom to marry who you want because it is more responsive to "the church" than it is to the people.