I don't know that we know that. I've seen articles and data that say different, but I'm not convinced one way or the other yet.
Women *crickets* Trump appointments *crickets*
- Thread starter Univee2
- Start date
Just from reading the CREDO research, which people on all sides seem to respect, it looks like charters over the past decade or so have gone from a slight net negative to a slight net positive, but still probably within the MOE, so to speak, on both ends. And that fits nicely with what I said a while back on page one: the real problem with schools is probably the unfortunate fact that we don't yet know what the problem is. In some cases, charters will help, in others they will not. But until we actually figure out the problem, we're really just throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks.
reading comprehension problem mister. Im not suprised that the successful ones are STEM, however i dont believe that MOST charter schools arw stem. We can guess who is attending the stem ones however. The same peopleattending public magnets. I think stem is a good idea regardless of charter or not. I simply suggested that the main reason certain members of the right wing push charters is because of religion, never did i say most chartwrs are religious.
i didnt read the study but did they account for financial and parental situation of charter and non charter users?
Perhaps they should not exist, but in fact they do. The first one, Muslim in nature (and now closed), was opened in Minnesota in 2003. Since then, more schools have been formed by Muslim, Christian and Jewish organizations.
These schools walk a fine line. They cannot spend public money on religious education, but they can be run by a religious or quasi-religious organization, and they can have a cultural focus that is undoubtedly religious in nature. In many cases, this fine line is quite blurry.
I'd certainly agree that some of the described activities are or should be unconstitutional. NHA's dalliance with creationism is a clear violation, for example. But should and is are two different words. These schools do, in fact, exist.
All that article does is describe the study that mjvcaj already linked directly, which we've since discussed.
Actually, you do.
Sort of. As part of a lawsuit settlement on that very issue, their sponsor became ineligible, and they were unable to find a new sponsor.
National Heritage Academies.
Sorry, I forgot WSJ links don't work. If you Google the article title, you'll be able to read it, even without a subscription.
Uh huh. That's all great, but none of it is the point. The point is that your state, like many others, is, in fact, seeing religion-based education sneak into the charter school system. Whether or not you think that's a good development and whether or not you still support charter schools in principle need not be answered the same way.
Well I did a little checking on charter schools, and it turns out that they aren't run by religious institutions - at least none that I could find. Even if there are a few they are very rare, so your theory is based on a false assumption.
Not everywhere. The magnet high school here in Cincy (Walnut Hills) is one of the best high schools in the U.S. (public or private). There is no lottery, only an entrance exam (requires some effort and capability, but I have been told it's not overly difficult). Not only is there no lottery, they accept some kids from outside of the Cincinnati public school district--and tuition is free even for them.
Not at all. And more importantly the same group pushing charters also push vouchers which can be used directly at religious schools.
Well, vouchers and charter schools are different things.
Using vouchers at religious schools has been blessed by the courts. And that makes sense -- it's no different than using federal loans/grants at Liberty, Notre Dame, or Texas Christian. The key here, viz the 1st amendment, is that it's the private party who directs the funds, not the government...which cannot discriminate between religious/irreligious or between one faith and another.
If any kind of voucher program, for instance, forbid their use at a Jewish (or Muslim, etc) school, then that program would be unconstitutional.
Not really if you believe charters to be quasi-private entities.
Why should my public tax $ be given to someone to spend on religious education? Ridiculous.
So that begs the quesiton, what does it take to create more Magnet schools for all students and families that want to enroll to be able to do so?
That's where I have a HUGE problem with charter or any private schools receiving public funds. If you want any element of religion, you should not be allowed near public funds.
Well, you're certainly entitled to find such a thing ridiculous. Lord knows I have a laundry list of things the government spends tax dollars on that I find ridiculous. But surely you realize that there's a difference between your belief that some allocation of tax dollars is ridiculous and that allocation being unconstitutional.
You may not like it that somebody who receives public assistance puts some of their monthly stipend in the collection plate at their church -- which, after all, may well be going towards paying for one form or another of religious education. But that doesn't mean such a thing would run afoul of the establishment clause. That would be absurd. And the key element here is that it is a private citizen who ultimately directs those monies, not the government. In fact, if the government did put such a stipulation on the use of those funds, it's far more likely that this prohibition would violate the free exercise clause than it is that the lack of one would violate the establishment clause.
Here's how one of the introductory paragraphs of the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris SCOTUS decision summed it up:
This Court's jurisprudence makes clear that a government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. See, e. g., Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388. Under such a program, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients, not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.
So, if you don't like the idea, then vote accordingly, call your legislators, etc. But there's nothing unconstitutional about this.
On what basis? See my post above to toastedbread. This has been adjudicated -- there's nothing wrong (at least, so far as the 1st amendment is concerned) with public funds being directed to religious schools by parents who wish to use their public allocation of education funds there rather than at a traditional public school (or charter, or secular private school, etc.).
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that any school voucher program has to be designed in such a way as to allow their use at religious schools. But, given that the bulk of private schools in most areas are religious, such a program would be pretty useless with such a limitation.
When Indiana was devising its voucher program, there was some fear that allowing public funds to subsidize the tuition would lead to a clash -- as public funds rarely come without strings attached. Some folks in our diocesan school system were wary of accepting them -- believing that it would inevitably lead to the forced secularization of their curriculum. But I can say definitively that, in my area anyway, those fears haven't (yet, anyway) materialized.
But, to your point, where exactly should that stop? Should kids who go to religious schools also not be eligible for the free/reduced lunch program? You can say "Well, that's aid for food, not religious education." But couldn't you also say that the availability of free/reduced lunch at a religious school is also a form of subsidy for the religious education? After all, it's likely often the case that, but for the availability of free/reduced lunch, the school might otherwise be unaffordable for some. Ultimately, the price of daily lunch is just as much a part of the "total cost" of going to school somewhere as is tuition, books, etc.
Should we similarly prohibit recipients of GI Bill funds, Pell Grants, and other forms of federal subsidy at religious colleges and universities?
Frankly, I don't even know why we're still having this particular argument. It's been had and resolved.
I don't know anyone that thinks charter schools are focused on wealthy and privilege students. At least around here it's the exact opposite.
Also, the Cincinnati school I mentioned is not a charter school. It's a regular Cincinnati public school that draws students from all over the city. It's 100+ years old, and has operated in the same fashion (city-wide student body) for over 100 years.
That particular gripe always puzzled me too -- as it bore virtually no relation to what I saw with my own eyes. We have a charter school here called Joshua Academy. Pretty much all of the students at Joshua come from poorer neighborhoods -- and most of them are black.
The students at Sig come from all across the economic spectrum.
I'd guess that "it's about helping the rich at the expense of the poor!" has just become something of a Pavlovian response on the left for any sort of policy or social program they don't like.
Honestly, given that the specific intent of school vouchers (in particular, but charter schools as well) is to widen the array of educational choices for lower income families to better match those which higher income families have, I've always found it interesting that vouchers haven't been at least somewhat popular on the left. I certainly understand why teacher unions and others invested in the public education status quo would oppose them. Nobody who has benefitted from a monopoly has ever welcomed the prospect of that monopoly being broken up -- so I get their angst. But, as for others on the left who are just motivated by public policy aimed at improving the lives of lower-income people, I've never really understood their gripes.
The answer is simple for me, none of the public funds (including grants, vouchers or whatever other titles you try and put on them) should be allowed to go to an institution that spends any of the day with a religious focus or agenda.
If parents are sending their kids to private or quasi-private religious institutions, and they cannot pay for lunch, that's the problem of the institution and parents.
Objectivity and exposure are important, which is exactly why I suggested Zeke would be unfit to teach my child.
You're being stubborn. That was a long expose I linked, and you should have read the whole thing.
You should learn about what the "classical education movement" is, and how Christian groups use it to dance around first First Amendment restrictions.
This problem is real. It probably isn't nearly as widespread as someone like toasted assumes, but it's real nonetheless.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lol. The echo chamber in which you and IUBBALLAWOL reside is a place that I'd like to send terrorists for interrogation.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Right....but you do at least get the idea that your opinion -- which, here, you didn't so much as explain as restate -- doesn't qualify as a basis by which to disallow this. The relationship between government and religion is something which is regulated by the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The concept of publicly-funded school vouchers being redeemed by private citizens at religious schools has been subjected to, and passed, this test.
That's why I asked you "on what basis?" I mean, are you just saying that you disagree with the court's holding in Zelman? If, like toasted, you're just saying that you don't want your tax dollars going to that....well, get in line: we all can name plenty of things we don't like the government spending our tax dollars on. And, by all means, I certainly don't have any problem with somebody advocating for or against legislation to have a program like this.
But there's no First Amendment infringement with such programs -- because the government isn't the one directing the funds.
But, there again, most religious schools (at least the ones I'm aware of) do participate in the free/reduced lunch program. And, while this is clearly a taxpayer subsidy of religious education, it's perfectly legal.
So I guess we're just down to: if you don't like it, then don't do it. But you don't really have any basis upon which to stand in the way of others doing it.
Actually, they are. By the commonly accepted definition, a magnet school is one operated by a public school district that has students from across the district (or at least a larger portion of the district than a regular public school). Charter schools, on the other hand, are operated outside of the public school district in which they are located. Yes, many are set up to accept students from across an entire school district, but that does not make them a "magnet school" (at least not by the accepted definition of a magnet school).
DSST is a charter school. It is not a magnet school: http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...ublic-schools/dsst-stapleton-high-school-4081
Strictly speaking, Noodle is correct. Magnet schools are public schools that attract students from larger geographic areas with specialized curricula. They started as an attempt to voluntarily desegregate schools, as an alternative to busing.
There are charter schools that also have specialized curricula, and there are charter schools that draw from a wide geographic area, but the term "magnet school" is generally understood to refer specifically to public schools.
Charter schools are indeed operated outside of the public school district in that they are operated in accordance with their charter by an entity other than the public school district. Yes, they receive public money, have to comply with various statutes, report to the local school district on various things, etc. And no, charter schools are not magnet schools.
As for your comment that you "know there are magnet schools that are not charters," gee, that would be because magnet schools are not charter schools. As usual, more drivel from you. But that's par for the course.
Of course they are public schools. But neither Goat nor I suggested that they weren't.
Last edited:
Good lord. You don't need more than a third grade reading level to understand in what context the term "public school" means "traditional public school as opposed to charter school."
A mistake I continue to make myself. CO.H reels you in with a series of reasonable posts, but in any long discussion, he invariably reverts to his standard sophistry, making it impossible to carry on an actual conversation. You'd think we'd learn our lesson by now.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You're wasting your time. He can't be taught anything. He's never wrong...especially on topics on which he knows nothing.
He's good for point-and-laugh, but that's about it.
In the spirit of bringing sense back to this question consider this. I mentioned DSST (a Denver charter with a STEM and values focus) as being a magnet school. Goat and Noodle said that a charter cannot be a magnet. Then the shit hit the fan. Okay; more about that below. Here's the thing. The Denver School Board has exported the DSST curriculum to at least two other non-charter high schools and one Jr. High. It is installing the DSST curriculum in another non-charter high school. So here we have the DSST curriculum in several schools, one charter and the remainder not. Why is it a problem to call all of these facilities "magnets"? I don't get it. (FWIW Denver operates all its schools as a weighted open enrollment district, so the term "magnet" is not as meaningful here) As I said, my grandkids attend a charter. They go there because of the curriculum. While their parents knew that it was operated by a charter, they were attracted to the educational program, not the charter. It also was like a magnet. Their school is listed as a Denver elementary school along side all the other elementary schools in this quadrant of the city. Some of those on the list are charters and some are not.
To be fair to goat and Noodle, I found a website that discusses magnet schools exactly as goat and noodle said, making a distinction between charter and public (in those words) and carefully noting that magnets could not be charters. I couldn't find who operated the web site, but the tone and tenor of it suggested that it was operated by the NEA or other professional educator organization. The NEA is largely opposed to charters, and they believe it is in their interest to keep the public/charter school distinction alive and well. The bottom line is that the importance of the distinction is probably very community dependent. In Denver where the NEA candidates are not a school board majority, there is not a lot of distinction between charters and traditional public schools. In other areas where NEA candidates are a majority, the distinctions are likely more important and maintained.
I don't know if this is an eating crow post or is an olive branch post. But it is what it is.
Last edited:
Similar threads
