The "Private Schools" do NOT get support of any kind from the government. NONE. NODDA. ZIP. ZILCH.

 

So where do you public school guys think the money to run the private schools comes from? It comes from the tuition the student pays to attend that school. Most of which is paid by parents just like you and me who simply want the best for their kids.

 

The average school teacher in a private school accepts 20% to 30% less for their annual salary than that of their Public School counterpart. They don’t have a pension plan and some don’t have health benefits. They rely on their spouses for benefits. This isn’t a complaint. It’s merely a statement about a conscience decision they each make because of their beliefs in the private system in which they choose to teach. Would you accept the exact same job you are doing today for less money because of your beliefs?

 

 

 

You folks call it recruiting. I’m sorry for your interpretation; but it’s Marketing. It has to be done in order to survive. We don’t have the cushey coffers of the State Government to fall back on when ever a program needs to be added; or a building needs to be built. We can’t go pass a State Bill in the House and/or Senate to raise taxes to give teachers better salaries; or better pensions; or health insurance. The money has to be raised to support the school and it's programs. That just happens to include sports. I for one am very glad it does.

 

The sad thing about this whole thread/debate is that this is the adults arguing about sports. What is the main purpose of any school? THE EDUCATION OF OUR KIDS INSIDE. If this kind of time and effort was spent on improving the public school systems, think about what we could get done as a nation?

 

So go ahead; put the Private Schools down for being able to do both, by creating a positive educational environment and an outstanding sports program and all for far less dollars than the Public Schools. We’ve got big shoulders we can carry the load. We’ve been doing it for years and we'll continue to do it for years to come. Just try to stop us.

 

:thumb:

 

Outstanding! I agree with you 100%. I also think this topic goes alot deeper than sports..I mean ALOT deeper.

Virtually every point and ASSUMPTION being made. Should be fairly clear.

Start at the top. Please tell us about the funding that private schools receive the state. The poster said they didn't receive any, you claim they do, make your case.

Start at the top. Please tell us about the funding that private schools receive the state. The poster said they didn't receive any, you claim they do, make your case.

 

Actually, the post said government. So, to make it easy for you I will ask a fairly easy question: Has there ever been a student at a private school on Free/Reduced Lunch or a private school using extended benefits on any Food Services Contract? Has there ever been a student under IDEA service contract? Has there ever been a student "contracted" due to particular circumstances? Has there ever been a student(s) where transportation has been provided? Has there ever been reimbursement to private schools under various grants programs, Title 1, for instance?

 

That should give you a start.

Actually, the post said government. So, to make it easy for you I will ask a fairly easy question: Has there ever been a student at a private school on Free/Reduced Lunch or a private school using extended benefits on any Food Services Contract? Has there ever been a student under IDEA service contract? Has there ever been a student "contracted" due to particular circumstances? Has there ever been a student(s) where transportation has been provided? Has there ever been reimbursement to private schools under various grants programs, Title 1, for instance?

 

That should give you a start.

Pretty slippery of you. I would guess that those programs benefit students not schools. I don't know of any program that pays the school to provide free lunch, however if you now consider this financial aid it conflicts with the KHSAA attempt of last year to exclude students receiving financial aid. This new definition would exclude a great number (unjustly I might add) of public school athletes.I see a good number of private school kids waiting for TARC busses, I guess you could call a student bus pass a benefit. I can't believe that the almighty NEA and ACLU would allow private schools to recieve public funds. I would say for the most part the answer to your question is no. If you have any facts to the contrary please share.

Pretty slippery of you. I would guess that those programs benefit students not schools. I don't know of any program that pays the school to provide free lunch, however if you now consider this financial aid it conflicts with the KHSAA attempt of last year to exclude students receiving financial aid. This new definition would exclude a great number (unjustly I might add) of public school athletes.I see a good number of private school kids waiting for TARC busses, I guess you could call a student bus pass a benefit. I can't believe that the almighty NEA and ACLU would allow private schools to recieve public funds. I would say for the most part the answer to your question is no. If you have any facts to the contrary please share.

 

If you say for the most part the answer is no, then you are incorrect. The facts are out there. I am not going to waste the time to prove what is true. You do not know of any program that pays a school to provide free lunch?! Wow. OK, will just leave it at that. NEA and ACLU have nothing to do with the debate and question at hand. You call slippery, I will say you are simply uninformed on the subject matter.

The "Private Schools" do NOT get support of any kind from the government. NONE. NODDA. ZIP. ZILCH.--[B]Fact!![/b]

 

So where do you public school guys think the money to run the private schools comes from? It comes from the tuition the student pays to attend that school. Most of which is paid by parents just like you and me who simply want the best for their kids.--Fact!!

 

The average school teacher in a private school accepts 20% to 30% less for their annual salary than that of their Public School counterpart. They don’t have a pension plan and some don’t have health benefits. They rely on their spouses for benefits. This isn’t a complaint. It’s merely a statement about a conscience decision they each make because of their beliefs in the private system in which they choose to teach. Would you accept the exact same job you are doing today for less money because of your beliefs?--[B]All Facts!![/b]

 

You folks call it recruiting. I’m sorry for your interpretation; but it’s Marketing. It has to be done in order to survive. We don’t have the cushey coffers of the State Government to fall back on when ever a program needs to be added; or a building needs to be built. We can’t go pass a State Bill in the House and/or Senate to raise taxes to give teachers better salaries; or better pensions; or health insurance. The money has to be raised to support the school and it's programs. That just happens to include sports. I for one am very glad it does.--Marketing vs. Recruiting statement open to argument--The rest is all Fact!!

 

The sad thing about this whole thread/debate is that this is the adults arguing about sports. What is the main purpose of any school? THE EDUCATION OF OUR KIDS INSIDE. If this kind of time and effort was spent on improving the public school systems, think about what we could get done as a nation?--[B]Once again-Fact!! [/b]

 

So go ahead; put the Private Schools down for being able to do both, by creating a positive educational environment and an outstanding sports program and all for far less dollars than the Public Schools. We’ve got big shoulders we can carry the load. We’ve been doing it for years and we'll continue to do it for years to come. Just try to stop us.

 

:thumb:

 

Sorry Shadow, I tried to stay out of this for a while, but you're just not right in your assessments of BC's statements. See above, and I'd welcome being proved wrong on these!!

If you say for the most part the answer is no, then you are incorrect. The facts are out there. I am not going to waste the time to prove what is true. You do not know of any program that pays a school to provide free lunch?! Wow. OK, will just leave it at that. NEA and ACLU have nothing to do with the debate and question at hand. You call slippery, I will say you are simply uninformed on the subject matter.

So you are saying that private schools receive public funds to educate their students? If a disadvantaged kid receives benefits that supplies him with food, that is no benefit to a school. Although I think it is a little slippery of you to ignore part B of my point. Is a free lunch financial aid? Or is it a benefit for a student that the school helps facilitate? That is probably true of those other programs I'm "uninformed" about. Back to the original point, I asked you to give some examples where a private school is funded by public funds. I guess maybe in your world a simple "Wow. OK, will just leave it at that" will do but in the real world we like actual answers.

So you are saying that private schools receive public funds to educate their students? If a disadvantaged kid receives benefits that supplies him with food, that is no benefit to a school. Although I think it is a little slippery of you to ignore part B of my point. Is a free lunch financial aid? Or is it a benefit for a student that the school helps facilitate? That is probably true of those other programs I'm "uninformed" about. Back to the original point, I asked you to give some examples where a private school is funded by public funds. I guess maybe in your world a simple "Wow. OK, will just leave it at that" will do but in the real world we like actual answers.

 

No you don't. IF any cost is underwritten by a school for the benefit of a student, what in the world is any school about, save for the benefit of a student? The fact is you clearly stated there are no government funds used in private education. The fact is money provided to schools to use for free and reduced lunch is money. That is not too hard to understand. Further, the grant programs, the IDEA reimbursement, etc. There are plenty of examples and that is a fact. I sense you really do not want to know the facts, but rather hold to a misconception of total independence and that is simply not the case.

Sorry Shadow, I tried to stay out of this for a while, but you're just not right in your assessments of BC's statements. See above, and I'd welcome being proved wrong on these!!

 

BG I may agree for the most part with this but, that last statement which you call a fact is not a fact.

 

It said "If this kind of time and effort was spent on improving the public school systems, think about what we could get done as a nation"

 

My arguement in my last post is that this is already being done. :thumb:

BG I may agree for the most part with this but, that last statement which you call a fact is not a fact.

 

It said "If this kind of time and effort was spent on improving the public school systems, think about what we could get done as a nation"

 

My arguement in my last post is that this is already being done. :thumb:

 

 

Without any doubt whatsoever!

creating a positive educational environment and an outstanding sports program and all for far less dollars than the Public Schools.

:thumb:

 

This is the quote that may be fact but is skewed because of the students marketed/recruited to the private schools. Which Public does not have that luxury as long as there is compulsary eduacaion.

No you don't. IF any cost is underwritten by a school for the benefit of a student, what in the world is any school about, save for the benefit of a student? The fact is you clearly stated there are no government funds used in private education. The fact is money provided to schools to use for free and reduced lunch is money. That is not too hard to understand. Further, the grant programs, the IDEA reimbursement, etc. There are plenty of examples and that is a fact. I sense you really do not want to know the facts, but rather hold to a misconception of total independence and that is simply not the case.

Catholic schools on the high school levels do not get lunch program monies and do not take the IDEA monies either.

No you don't. IF any cost is underwritten by a school for the benefit of a student, what in the world is any school about, save for the benefit of a student? The fact is you clearly stated there are no government funds used in private education. The fact is money provided to schools to use for free and reduced lunch is money. That is not too hard to understand. Further, the grant programs, the IDEA reimbursement, etc. There are plenty of examples and that is a fact. I sense you really do not want to know the facts, but rather hold to a misconception of total independence and that is simply not the case.

I think you are missing the big difference in financial aid paid for tuition and free/reduced lunch. Financial aid is directly tied to the students ability to attend school, receive an education and be eligible to play athletics. Free/Reduced lunch is not tied in any way, shape or form to the students ability to do any of the 3.

 

In addition, the schools only receive free and reduce funds as a reimbursement not up front and they spend it to buy goods and services. It is called a reimbursement fund. THe school is NOT Directly involved in the process that determines who gets the funds and who does not. The state sets the criteria and if you fit the criteria you receive it.

 

Contrast that with financial aid that private schools receive and I assume that each private school makes the determination for themselves on who receives financial aid.

 

So the argument that free/reduced lunch is somehow equilivant does not hold water. The local school system is NOT directly involved with determining whom is going to receive this money and whom is not. Where in the private school, the private school is DIRECTLY determining who will receive the money and who will not.

I think you are missing the big difference in financial aid paid for tuition and free/reduced lunch. Financial aid is directly tied to the students ability to attend school, receive an education and be eligible to play athletics. Free/Reduced lunch is not tied in any way, shape or form to the students ability to do any of the 3.

 

In addition, the schools only receive free and reduce funds as a reimbursement not up front and they spend it to buy goods and services. It is called a reimbursement fund. THe school is NOT Directly involved in the process that determines who gets the funds and who does not. The state sets the criteria and if you fit the criteria you receive it.

 

Contrast that with financial aid that private schools receive and I assume that each private school makes the determination for themselves on who receives financial aid.

 

So the argument that free/reduced lunch is somehow equilivant does not hold water. The local school system is NOT directly involved with determining whom is going to receive this money and whom is not. Where in the private school, the private school is DIRECTLY determining who will receive the money and who will not.

 

You are correct but that is not the point. To suggest there is NO underwriting to private education costs is not valid. Further, add the Title 1 programs, IDEA reimbursements, etc. you then get into a level of expenditures that amount to a fair dollar package. The point made was NO government funds are provided to private schools. The fact is, it does happen. The delivery system is really not the point, the money still goes into a source that is non public.

Catholic schools on the high school levels do not get lunch program monies and do not take the IDEA monies either.

 

That is not correct. It may be the case in your experience but it is not the case in many places.