So I'm doing research this summer on religious education in the U.S.
I know, in my own, Orthodox Jewish, community, there are more kids in the private schools than there are in the public schools. Private school is insanely expensive, so, in an effort to cut costs, a few years back, the Orthodox Jews voted themselves onto the school board - now, every member of the school board is an Orthodox Jew. The best they can do is cut a bloated budget, and provide textbooks and busing to the private schools, but not really more than that.
Recently, there have been developments relating to charter schools - where they can compete for state funds with public schools. My Professor thinks that the direction a lot of religious schools might be going in is to open up charter schools, which are privately run, and close them in the afternoon, and reopen them as religious schools.
Either way, we are studying different communities that are trying different things, with or without a similar demography.
Anyone who has any knowledge of Orthodox Jewish communities that are similar, or Mormon, Catholic, or any other communities - I'd love to hear about them.
Thanks for all of your help!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wish I could help. Unfortunately I went to a big expensive protestant private school, and my father's work package paid tuition.
All of this was in Hong Kong, so it's a vastly different dynamic than what you are dealing with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know of any such thing done in Mormon communities. There are lots of charter schools out in Utah, but I never heard of any of them being religiously-oriented.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
What is the education like in Utah? Do Mormon parents not send to public schools? Is that why they do the charter-school thing? Do they educate religiously separately?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Private school is insanely expensive, so, in an effort to cut costs, a few years back, the Orthodox Jews voted themselves onto the school board - now, every member of the school board is an Orthodox Jew.
Oh, wow. This is remarkably, insanely slimy. *shudder*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What is the education like in Utah?
Abysmal -- Utah ranks near the bottom of the US for money spent per child educated.
quote: Do Mormon parents not send to public schools?
Most Mormon parents send their children to public schools.
quote: Is that why they do the charter-school thing?
I think the charter school thing is in response to my #1 above.
quote:Do they educate religiously separately?
To an extent, yes. There's a program called "Seminary", which is a school-day religious education program for high school students. I grew up outside of high Mormon populations, so our seminary class (which was held in our church building) was early in the morning before school.
I understand that in some communities with large Mormon populations, the LDS church will build a seminary building very close to the high school, and the school will allow students to go off-campus and attend seminary instead of going to study hall.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mormons don't run elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. The religious education for high school (seminary) is done by early-morning classes or by putting in a building near the public schools. Religious education for college students not attending a church university is done through Institute. In Utah, there is an institute building near the college, and outside, there are classes offered at night.
There are Mormon high schools in parts of Polynesia, but it seems like the rules there are very different.
I agree, Tom. It's a very unpleasant picture presented there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Private school is insanely expensive, so, in an effort to cut costs, a few years back, the Orthodox Jews voted themselves onto the school board - now, every member of the school board is an Orthodox Jew.
Oh, wow. This is remarkably, insanely slimy. *shudder*
I am hoping that I misunderstood the OP. Armoth, could you please clarify. Are these private religious schools for only Orthodox students? If so, why would other people want to be on the school board?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Private school is insanely expensive, so, in an effort to cut costs, a few years back, the Orthodox Jews voted themselves onto the school board - now, every member of the school board is an Orthodox Jew.
Oh, wow. This is remarkably, insanely slimy. *shudder*
Why is it slimy? The amount of kids in public school was grossly disproportionate to the amount of money being spent on them. Slimy? Isn't it democracy?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Democracy is often slimy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't know the specifics of your state, but most charter-school legislation I am aware of does not allow religious schools -- charter schools are public schools and have to follow the same religiously-neutral policies as other public schools.
You might be able to do a charter school that operates only in the morning, but it would still need the state-required number of contact-hours per year. And the re-opening in the afternoon for religious education would have to be optional -- you couldn't bar a child from attending the charter school for not being a part of the afternoon program.
There is a MN case you might be interested in -- a charter school sponsored by a Muslim organization. There have been accusations of religious education happening during the school day. I haven't followed the case, so I'm not sure how it's played out, but I can try to find some links to it if you're interested.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The private schools are only for Orthodox Jewish students. The majority of the community is Orthodox Jewish. The minority (unaffiliated Jews and non-Jews) send their kids to public schools.
The public school had a LOT of money to spend, since they didn't have to educate most of the kids in the district, as they were attending private school.
It is also an area with some of the highest taxes in the U.S. In an effort to control the spending, and to provide "special needs" services to private school children, the Orthodox Jews took over the board. They can't spend any money on the private schools beyond books, busing and special ed, bc that's illegal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I bet if you asked a parent who actually had a kid in the public school, instead of stacking the board with people who had no intention of sending their children to schools they had authority over, they would not agree with your "grossly disproportionate" sentiment.
So, what, the band members were getting new instruments every year? Or maybe public school kids don't actually deserve to have art programs?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
You might be able to do a charter school that operates only in the morning, but it would still need the state-required number of contact-hours per year. And the re-opening in the afternoon for religious education would have to be optional -- you couldn't bar a child from attending the charter school for not being a part of the afternoon program.
That's exactly the idea.
Any links you can find would be extremely helpful, thanks!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I bet if you asked a parent who actually had a kid in the public school, instead of stacking the board with people who had no intention of sending their children to schools they had authority over, they would not agree with your "grossly disproportionate" sentiment.
So, what, the band members were getting new instruments every year? Or maybe public school kids don't actually deserve to have art programs?
I hear you. But surely, you can see things from the other perspective, right?
If done correctly, adjusting the budget should only introduce fiscal responsibility and not cause the district to differ from any other district that does not have this demographic oddity. Right?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's possible. But I don't trust that to happen when the people doing all the adjusting are those with no skin in the game and a definite interest in providing as little as possible and then calling it sensible.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
This is an article about some of the controversy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But surely, you can see things from the other perspective, right?
Sure. But that other perspective is full of sliminess.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But surely, you can see things from the other perspective, right?
Sure. But that other perspective is full of sliminess.
Well now you're just being rude.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, I'm not being just rude. I'm also pointing out that there's almost nothing slimier than infiltrating a group just to deliberately deprive it of its ability to function, especially when that deprivation is entirely self-serving.
I mean, can you imagine how absolutely infuriating it must be to have your children's future ripped from them by a bunch of bigots, just because the bigots got sick of paying extra to send their kids to entirely optional religious schools? I understand that this might be difficult for you to grasp, being a product of a purely private system, but these people have gamed their local democracy to obtain control over an organization serving a population from which they voluntarily choose to exclude themselves, just to hurt that population.
It's baldly, coldly selfish, and I think considerably less of that community for it.
[ June 07, 2010, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sadly, it looks like we did not misunderstand.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Some might say that it isn't infiltrating if the majority is Orthodox.
Also, trimming the budget is very different than depriving it of its ability to function.
This conversation is so odd to me - it's weird because you've decided something is slimy and wrong without any context when it's entirely possible that the whole situation was resolved equitably and equilibrium was restored.
And yes. It is self-serving. But that's what government is about, we organize ourselves together because what we can do together is greater than what we can do alone. Is it fair to expect people to contribute when they can't see any benefit from their own contribution?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There seems to be a huge conflict of interest in having a large group of people that have absolutely no intention of improving the public school system run that system in order to better accommodate a private school system and in order to do things like "provide textbooks and busing to the private schools."
Is there no ethics commissioner or equivalent?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Fast moving thread, that last was maybe four or five posts up.
I think it is on the edge but reasonably acceptable to elect politicians and oversight for the school boards that restrict the public school board from the outside.
But to infiltrate the actual public school board and plot to redirect funds as close to the rules as possible to also aid the private schools, that just beyond the pale of sliminess. What is the name of this community?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Whoa. Tom. Bigots?
Can we calm down for a moment?
None of it is motivated by bigotry. In the worst light? Selfishness, sure. But please be judicious in your choice of words.
The context you are looking at, sure it's infuriating, but i know you to be capable of looking at the larger perspective. You understand the theories of government, large and small, this community tipped, and it has the right to control its own spending.
When the religious are in the minority, it's sad for them - the lifestyles we lead do not exactly jive with public school education. That's our right, to have a choice.
Maybe this charter school system would be a whole lot fairer to everyone.
Mucus - Don't know. I'm about to get a lot better acquainted with the politics...
Look - I don't love this situation either. But I don't think it's fair to ask the Orthodox parents, who are hurting financially, to let a minority spend their own money, plus theirs, on their own children. Having private school parents who don't send their kids to the public schools make the decisions may not be the best solution either...
The community is Lawrence, New York - District 15.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:None of it is motivated by bigotry.
I submit, frankly, that Orthodox Judaism is a concept which is bigoted at its very core. But rarely is it a major issue.
quote:But I don't think it's fair to ask the Orthodox parents, who are hurting financially, to let a minority spend their own money...
Why not? They could always send their kids to public schools.
Look, there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- more important in a community than a well-funded and well-run public school system. It is the absolute heart and soul of local government. To see it subverted like this incenses me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:None of it is motivated by bigotry.
I submit, frankly, that Orthodox Judaism is a concept which is bigoted at its very core. But rarely is it a major issue.
I challenge that assertion.
And no, according to our lifestyles, we don't have that choice. Think about that for a moment - you assumption that your lifestyle is correct and that mine is an added choice - it's a little bit intolerant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You could always choose to disobey your God. You choose not to.
These people are not willing to pay extra money to obey their (fictional) God. And, because of the vagaries of democracy, they can now deprive children outside their social circle of quality schooling so that they can throw it at their own children. I'm not going to wave any flags.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course there is a choice. Religion is a choice. Given the choices you have already made regarding your chosen lifestyle, choices that are consistent with that are more limited, but you choose that lifestyle.
Tom, or choose to believe different things about God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here we go, some verification of the situation
quote:In each of the last four years, Orthodox voters mobilized to defeat the school budget -- one of the longest losing streaks on Long Island. Then in July, they took charge of the school board, though few of the Orthodox send their children to public schools. Out of seven seats, the new majority consists of four Orthodox members and one ally.
quote:Half the students are black or Hispanic, and 36 percent are eligible for a free or discounted lunch, a poverty indicator. ''Yet we had seven Intel scholars this year, tied with Bronx High School of Science and fifth in the nation,'' Dr. Fitzsimons said. ''We're no slouches.''
Once top rated academically, Lawrence has seen its academic scores and graduation rates slip, declines often noted by Orthodox leaders. Some defenders of the public schools say those trends stem from the steady shift of strong-scoring students to Orthodox day schools. Average spending per public student is about $24,000, one of the highest levels on Long Island. That figure is inflated, however, by the cost of busing, books and other programs for thousands of Orthodox day school students.
quote:But the schools have led to the greatest tensions, and the friction seems especially intense with more assimilated Jews. ''As a fellow Jew, it upsets me even more,'' Pamela Greenbaum, a non-Orthodox school board member, said of the aims of the Orthodox leaders.
This was four years ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, or choose to believe different things about God.
To be fair, Kate, I don't think the kind of Jew Armoth wants to be has that option.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, armoth, this entire thing reeks.
I would like to know exactly what we apparently don't know which makes it so that this is NOT what it appears to be on the surface, that being an incredibly callous subversion of an educational system purely for the self-interest of your own religious group.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As a point of information, in most states public schools are funded according to the number of students actually enrolled. Is your state different than this? If not, it's not like your public schools are getting a big pile of money based on the high percentage of students that choose not to enroll. In fact, they might be worse off than neighboring districts, since lowered enrollment means less of the per-student funding available for overhead costs that aren't lessened by lowered enrollment.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Religion is a choice just like lack of religion is a choice. And we're back to square one.
You believe my lifestyle is fictional - the same way I believe your lifestyle to be fictional. We don't make decisions for one another predicated on the assumptions that we are right. That's why I think it's reasonable that you get to use your money for your schooling, and I ask that you let me use mine, for mine.
And no one is depriving children outside their social circle of quality schooling. On what moral authority can you tell me that I must pay for the schooling of your children, but you need not pay for mine?
Is it immoral if I wish you well and prefer to separate? I prefer to pay for my own child and for you to pay for your own? The legal system is constructed in a way in which that is not possible unless there is a private school majority on the school board. Perhaps there should be a better solution, but for now, this is it.
And again, Tom, your bigotry accusation offended me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: As a point of information, in most states public schools are funded according to the number of students actually enrolled. Is your state different than this? If not, it's not like your public schools are getting a big pile of money based on the high percentage of students that choose not to enroll. In fact, they might be worse off than neighboring districts, since lowered enrollment means less of the per-student funding available for overhead costs that aren't lessened by lowered enrollment.
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to yet. However, it should be noted that wherever the money is going, private school parents are still paying taxes. But I'd agree that it would be wrong to "recoup" that money from the public schools if they are not the ones who are getting it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Tom, or choose to believe different things about God.
To be fair, Kate, I don't think the kind of Jew Armoth wants to be has that option.
But that in itself is a choice.
Armoth, you have to pay for public schools even though you don't choose to send your children to them for the same reason that I have to pay for schools. Childless people pay taxes too, you know.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Is it immoral if I wish you well and prefer to separate? I prefer to pay for my own child and for you to pay for your own? The legal system is constructed in a way in which that is not possible unless there is a private school majority on the school board. Perhaps there should be a better solution, but for now, this is it.
That is not a "solution". That is a subversion to try to get around a secular public school system and disempower it for your own benefit at the cost of children who are not part of your religious community.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The people running a school should be the people who actually have an interest in that school. It is definitely a problem if the school board consists of members whose only interest is keeping resources away from that school, so kids going to private schools can have them instead.
It actually seems like they are attacking it from the wrong point. The school board doesn't have the power to tax and give money to the schools, does it? It seems like there should be something above the school board deciding that - like a mayor or city council. And it seems like that would be the appropriate place to try and limit the amount of funding that public schools get, if there isn't enough interest in public schools there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's why I think it's reasonable that you get to use your money for your schooling, and I ask that you let me use mine, for mine.
Except that's not what the public school system is. It is predicated on the premise that, for the good of the community, even childless people have to pay to school the children of the community.
If there is some group that doesn't want to send their children to public school, that group can pay for it.
quote:Tom, your bigotry accusation offended me.
Then you should really try not to belong to such an exclusive club.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Not exactly Kmb, because I have the option to cost the district a lot of money by indeed sending my kids to the public schools. Private schools, arguably, save the state a lot of money.
When it reaches the point that an private school majority can possibly achieved on the school board, don't you think that it's fair to introduce fiscal responsibility, and perhaps some benefit to the private school children?
Tresopax - I'm not sure about the answer to this one either, but I know that one of the public school parents who ran for school board, and lost, ran on a platform suggesting a 1% tax increase. Not sure if that means that the board has the power to tax. I'll find out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That you equate "fiscal responsibility" with "private schooling" is, frankly, another problem -- and a claim that is fairly easily disproven.
And, no, there should be no public benefit to private school children.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's why I think it's reasonable that you get to use your money for your schooling, and I ask that you let me use mine, for mine.
Except that's not what the public school system is. It is predicated on the premise that, for the good of the community, even childless people have to pay to school the children of the community.
If there is some group that doesn't want to send their children to public school, that group can pay for it.
quote:Tom, your bigotry accusation offended me.
Then you should really try not to belong to such an exclusive club.
Okay. But that system has it's obvious flaws, which I've pointed out, and you have not acknowledged. Seemingly because you have been arguing with me emotionally, or maybe you just don't like me and are not inclined to validate my point of view at all. ::shrug::
As for the "exclusivity" of my club, you can join it whenever you like. How's that for exclusivity?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, also, save the state a lot of money by not sending any children to any kind of school. I don't understand your point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But that system has it's obvious flaws, which I've pointed out, and you have not acknowledged.
Which obvious flaws do you think have not been acknowledged?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That you equate "fiscal responsibility" with "private schooling" is, frankly, another problem -- and a claim that is fairly easily disproven.
And, no, there should be no public benefit to private school children.
I'm asking you to join me in a debate about the philosophical underpinnings of the principles you just asserted. That's the level at which we're conversing. Simply responding with the principles without engaging my points is ALSO rude.
Dude. What is your problem? I come from a context, and from a particular perspective. You want to change my mind? You'll need to understand me. I mean, as long as you want the conversation to be productive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Dude. What is your problem?
My problem is that you posted this thread asking us to help a group of complete and total assholes, without having an inkling of the possibility that they were being assholes. That disappointed me enormously.
Philosophically, the public school system exists to teach the populace. It cannot do that effectively, as long as it must be geographically based, unless it is free from the vagaries of both the market and a fluctuating local population. This particular proposal is even worse for a public school system than vouchers (which I also oppose), precisely because it turns over control of other elements of the school system to people whose only interest in it is to see it undermined. I believe this is, in fact, even slimier than when those jerks in Kansas took over school boards to push their own anti-scientific agendas; at least they cared enough to want to influence the curriculum, instead of just redirect funds.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From this discussion, it looks like Orthodox Jews are bad neighbors - terrible neighbors, who will deliberately deprive the children that don't belong to their social group. Is that really an image any group wants to perpetuate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that Tom has a problem understanding the context. He - or at least I don't agree that that context gives you a pass for bad behaviour.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I appreciate that Tom. If it makes you feel better, the research will be used to form solutions that are a lot better for everyone than this one.
What disappoints me more than the fact that you've judged this community without any of the real facts - when it is indeed possible for this solution to have been equitable - is the way you talked to me. Accusing the community of bigotry, my religion of bigotry, without backing it up - you've been a giant ball of rage on this thread.
I find that truly disappointing.
I mean, who am I? Am i such an irrational jerk on this forum? Does the name "Armoth" evoke that knee-jerk response - "omg, that moron of a theist and his wacky ideas."
Not fun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, imagine is a bunch of Catholic moved just into the border of your school district, took over the board and diverted the public money to Catholic schools. Even though I am Catholic, I would think this a bad thing to do and would oppose it. Basically what your group has done is take over a public governmental organization, not to benefit the public in general, but to get more resources for your particular group. How are we not supposed to see that as bad?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are someone who failed to notice when the public was being severely inconvenienced when it met the interests of your social group. You are also someone who, as far as I can tell, fails to appreciate the rather unique and valuable properties of public schooling. No more, no less.
(For what it's worth: any solution that involves giving public funds or resources to religious schools is not, IMO, "equitable.")
I'm not angry at you. I'm angry at Orthodox Jews in general, who still voluntarily set themselves outside the rest of the population and have the nerve to demand that they be treated like members of that population. If your group has deliberately promulgated weird, freakish, inconvenient, and inexplicable behaviors just to seem different, you lose my sympathy when you complain about not being served by the mainstream.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, I have been thinking about this and I don't think that you can dismiss Tom because he thinks you are "a moron theist with wacky ideas", after he thinks the same about me. My wacky theist ideas, though, do not include (at least they should not) placing the the good of people who share my particular wacky ideas (or ethnic background) above the good of everyone else. If yours do, and in this example they seem to, you are still responsible for that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth, unlike you, I know from PERSONAL experience what the pinch of those tuition payments feels like. (I'm sure you have some idea what your parents go through, but it's not the same thing.) I have also had a child in public school for a time. (Not for financial reasons, as it happens.)
And I have to say, I agree with Tom and kmb on this one. Voting in a frum majority onto the local school board to reduce taxes is pretty scummy.
I am hesitantly in favor of vouchers (with certain caveats), and am vehemently AGAINST the charter-half-day schools (we have a new one here in L.A., and while I greatly respect the motivations of the gentlemen running it, I think the school itself is dreadful).
I don't consider putting my kids in public school an option (especially the older two), but the fact is, putting them in private school is my CHOICE.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, rivka.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Is it immoral if I wish you well and prefer to separate? I prefer to pay for my own child and for you to pay for your own? The legal system is constructed in a way in which that is not possible unless there is a private school majority on the school board. Perhaps there should be a better solution, but for now, this is it.
Well I guess we could find some sort of compromise. Allow the whole separation thing, but with some sort of assurance of equality in terms of the separate, governmentally funded social systems. Would you be a fan of that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wonder how Amish communities structure their relationship with the larger municipality or state.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Amish schools are actually kind of interesting; I wrote a paper on them back when I was an education major. They tend to be small schoolhouses with very few facilities, almost all of which are constructed or donated by the community; the teachers are generally unmarried women under the age of 25, most of whom have around an eighth-grade education, and are paid under $35 a day. Multiple years are taught in the same classroom(s), and the older students are expected to oversee the younger ones. Physical punishment is uncommon but permitted.
That said, many Amish children actually attend public schools. And the Amish may also pay property tax, depending on whether or not they have built their home as common property or not. (The Amish frequently sign their estates over to the church, at which point it usually becomes immune to taxation.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If there was an "jerk of the year award", I'd nominate those who conspired to take over a public school board in order to undermine the school for sure.
Keeping my post within the terms of service is difficult, with how angry I am at this situation. Seeing you defend their despicable actions, Armoth, is painful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Tom. Looks like the Amish are exempt from Social Security and medicare taxes but not from other taxes.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Well this thread was certainly productive in terms of getting a perspective I don't often get.
Although I disagree, if this the way most of you feel, I don't think saving money is worth bearing the animosity most of you have.
Either way, the research I'm doing is towards a solution that doesn't divert any funds from public school kids.
Samp - yes, I'd be a fan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Is it immoral if I wish you well and prefer to separate? I prefer to pay for my own child and for you to pay for your own? The legal system is constructed in a way in which that is not possible unless there is a private school majority on the school board. Perhaps there should be a better solution, but for now, this is it.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well I guess we could find some sort of compromise. Allow the whole separation thing, but with some sort of assurance of equality in terms of the separate, governmentally funded social systems. Would you be a fan of that?
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp - yes, I'd be a fan.
We'll go ahead and call this proposal the "Separate but Equal" solution. It sounds catchy!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samp, don't be a jerk.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It may not have been honest, but I think the point is valid. To have the majority segregate itself from the minority and still receive public funding is exactly the goal here, as far as I can tell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Samp, don't be a jerk.
I want Armoth to see how indefensible his OWN proposals are. That anyone participating in this gross malfeasance towards the secular school system for their own benefit does not at all acknowledge the moral qualms with it baffles me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Separate but equal" seems to be a perfect way to describe the proposed system. He put it in a sarcastic way, but he wasn't wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't object to what he said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Could you address what he said, istead of focusing on the delivery (which could have been a lot worse)?
Why should public funds pay for private education? What's wrong with public education and then religious classes done separately?
This is a sincere question.
For the vast majority of the curriculum, I would think much of the material would be the same. Same math, same sociology, mostly the same history, mostly the same literature.
Why should an entirely separate system be subsidized that duplicates what's taught in public schools? All that effort to create separate schools - the public schools would amazing if even 50% of that money and backing and support were devoted to the general education.
I'm assuming that secular subjects aren't short-changed in favor of religious classes - that seems like a bad idea - so why not have religious schools just teach religious classes, like an extra-curricular?
If that's unacceptable, and if another wish is to have an environment that is homogenous, why should public funds support it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Could you address what he said, instead of focusing on the delivery (which could have been a lot worse)?
The irony. It BURNS.
I wasn't the one to propose this system. So I'm not sure why I'm being asked to support it now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Samp, don't be a jerk.
I want Armoth to see how indefensible his OWN proposals are. That anyone participating in this gross malfeasance towards the secular school system for their own benefit does not at all acknowledge the moral qualms with it baffles me.
I think that Armoth is thinking about this. Pounding him is not going to help.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, kmb.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And of course the Orthodox public school would eventually get far better teachers, equipment, resources, etc.
It may start with the best of intentions for fairness, but history has taught us how such arrangements end up.
I still would greatly prefer "Separate but Equal" to "We Take Over Your Board and Cut Your Spending". I think the latter is far more evil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that Armoth is thinking about this. Pounding him is not going to help.
kay, if you think so. But, unfortunately, everything I just blatantly exposed is right. Oh, so it was a 'jerk' trap. It's straight-up the cruel truth about Armoth's proposals.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wow. I guess I feel stupid for not realizing that you were trying to trap me.
::shrug:: My community is hurting because the education it wants to afford its students is too expensive to pay for twice. It's hard to pay taxes and not receive any benefit for your own children from that money.
I came to the table with my context, and my assumptions. Today, I've internalized a broader context, and acknowledged its validity, so much so, that I conceded that the context for which I was initially advocating is inferior - that my "plan" was not worth hurting "you".
Realize that I had to come here and talk to all of you to work that all out. Does that make me an evil person? Work that out for yourselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You being evil isn't at issue. I sure don't consider you an 'evil person.' I think a strident sense of entitlement for your community had blinded you to what is very much so objectionable to what that community has committed to, and does not like to recognize the malfeasance in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, given that context, being able to to think about a even incorporate the new perspective that has been presented here is a pretty remarkable thing. Good for you, Armoth.
Who likes to recognize malfeasance in their own community instead of just getting defensive, especially when being pounded.
Honestly Samprimary, the point was made.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:My community is hurting because the education it wants to afford its students is too expensive to pay for twice.
Then pay for it once, and at the same time let your children interact with the greater community?
Hardships induce a lot less sympathy when they are self imposed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Then pay for it once, and at the same time let your children interact with the greater community?
If you don't understand why many of us absolutely do not consider this an acceptable option, I am unable to explain it to you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good for you, Armoth.
Seconded.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is a good thread. Not pretty, things got uglier than they should have, but an important point ended up being made and acknowledged.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that, given that context, being able to to think about a even incorporate the new perspective that has been presented here is a pretty remarkable thing.
This. It's to your credit that you took it as well as you did, I think.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If you don't understand why many of us absolutely do not consider this an acceptable option, I am unable to explain it to you.
Oh I absolutely do.
However, the choices as I see them are.
1) Allow people who pay for private school to opt out of paying public school taxes. 2) Allow public schools to discriminate based on religious membership and still get public money. 3) Armoth pays for private school and also pays public school taxes. 4) Armoth sends her kids to public school.
Number 1 and 2 are unacceptable to American society, to the extent that I don't believe they need to be debated here. If someone is willing to challenge them directly, we can hash them out.
Armoth says option 3 is hurting her.
She has option 4. If this is unacceptable to her, then I'm sorry for her, but that doesn't make 1 or 2 acceptable.
Adding a new option...
5) Have like-minded people take over the public school board and purposefully reduce the resources of the public school so Armoth pays less public school taxes.
...is disgusting, insidious, and completely unethical. I can't believe that national news hasn't had a field day with it.
[Edit: Not to interfere with the love-fest, but the fact that the situation still currently exist makes it hard to suppress my outrage for the sake of civility.]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth is a he.
And I happen to agree that 3 is the only acceptable option. (With 4 for anyone who is comfortable with it, of course.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would argue that everyone in society benefits from a strong public school system, regardless of whether they have kids attending said schools.
Edit: For example, in the same way that we all benefit from good roads, even if you don't have a car.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Could you address what he said, instead of focusing on the delivery (which could have been a lot worse)?
The irony. It BURNS.
I wasn't the one to propose this system. So I'm not sure why I'm being asked to support it now.
So...that's a no?
Or are you just out to prove that you can be as tacky in your delivery as Samp? Because if so, well done!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Armoth is a he.
You know, I saw that earlier in the thread, but for some reason my mental shift didn't take. Sorry Armoth .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Then pay for it once, and at the same time let your children interact with the greater community?
If you don't understand why many of us absolutely do not consider this an acceptable option, I am unable to explain it to you.
Actually, please do.
Why is public school for most subjects and then separate religious education so unacceptable?
I can think of a few explanations, but I'll give you a chance to explain.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I actually do appreciate the "love fest" - since I had to suppress a lot so that we could all achieve it.
Maybe you could suppress your outrage for the sake of civility for the simple reason that it makes conversations more productive.
Realize that I'm feeling really odd right now, since I feel compelled to communicate a lot of this to my community. I think they would do well to read this thread, and to discuss things with their neighbors. I like to consider myself a level-headed guy, and this was a difficult conversation to have. Trying to figure out the best way to communicate this to friends and family, and beyond.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Maybe you could suppress your outrage for the sake of civility for the simple reason that it makes conversations more productive.
Indeed. I think the same point could've been made just as strenuously and effectively without the name calling.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: On what moral authority can you tell me that I must pay for the schooling of your children, but you need not pay for mine?
Is it immoral if I wish you well and prefer to separate? I prefer to pay for my own child and for you to pay for your own? The legal system is constructed in a way in which that is not possible unless there is a private school majority on the school board. Perhaps there should be a better solution, but for now, this is it.
This is one of the most un-American statements I have read. You wouldn't being enjoying the freedoms of the USA if everyone felt the same as you. Most Americans wouldn't be. In fact, I think the USA would be a much diminished nation if this anti-social compact mentality were really adhered to, instead of the piecemeal way it seems to me that most people (likely myself included) occasionally follow it.
-Bok
EDIT: And the thread passed me by. Kudos to Armoth for keeping his head (regardless of whether he changed his position or not). A lot of other Hatrackers would do well to note his example.
[ June 07, 2010, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:On what moral authority can you tell me that I must pay for the schooling of your children, but you need not pay for mine?
I don't have any children at all. Why should I pay taxes?
In fact, why even bother with public education? Really, all parents should be responsible for hiring tutors or paying for school for their own children, and if parents can't afford to pay for it, then there should be a permanent, perpetual underclass of uneducated people generation after generation available for exploitation and our economy should be permanently crippled! If people want their children to be educated, then they should figure out how to be rich. Clearly.
-----
As others have said, the parents of children in private school have rejected the free education offered to them. That they choose another option is not the responsibility of the state to support.
However, it is still their responsibility, as members of society, to support that option of a free, good, public education for the other children.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Realize that I'm feeling really odd right now, since I feel compelled to communicate a lot of this to my community.
I'm sure if you approach them with as much diplomacy as you've approached this thread, they'll listen with respect.
I hope you also manage to convince them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is public school for most subjects and then separate religious education so unacceptable?
I can think of a few explanations, but I'll give you a chance to explain.
Seconded. Again, not because I can't think of reasons why, but because I'd like to find out the true reason.
Also, I'd like to point out that there is the choice of living in other countries, where either public funds are allowed to go towards religious schools, or where private school is the norm, and thus taxes aren't so high. And, of course, there's Israel. I'm not pointing this out in a "If you don't like America, get the heck out" sort of way - just that there truly is choice in this matter. If you choose to live in the US, where the idea (if not always the practice) of the separation of church & state is perhaps the most radical of all the Western nations, then things like secular, public education are things you simply must accept. It's the direct consequence of the first principles the US was founded on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I would argue that everyone in society benefits from a strong public school system, regardless of whether they have kids attending said schools.
Edit: For example, in the same way that we all benefit from good roads, even if you don't have a car.
I completely agree. However, it can be argued that a strong system may or may not be an efficient one, in terms of how funding is used. (Which, to be clear, is not a defense of the whole taking over the school board thing. I've already said I find that unacceptable.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'll give you a chance to explain.
How gracious of you.
I decline.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Also, I'd like to point out that there is the choice of living in other countries, where either public funds are allowed to go towards religious schools, or where private school is the norm, and thus taxes aren't so high.
Quite true. England, for example, has publicly funded religious schools. (Although they have their own problems.)
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: And, of course, there's Israel.
Also very true. And one reason many Orthodox Jews do move there is the free school tuition.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Wow. This is nuts.
So, let me just get a yes or not answer for this query so I can make sure I've absolutely understood what happened here correctly. I know it's a probable re-hash.
1. There is a public school board taking funds from the state to give secular kids a secular education. 2. A group of people who do not participate in the public school system and have no interest in it elect themselves onto the school board. 3. Using their domination, they divert funds from the secular schools and the kids to their own interests.
Is that correct? A yes/no answer would suffice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:. That's why I think it's reasonable that you get to use your money for your schooling, and I ask that you let me use mine, for mine.
Taxes aren't a fee for service program. We pay taxes to be good neighbors and good citizens. We pay taxes to support community infrastructure that benefits everyone. Part of that infrastructure in the US is the public school system. People aren't assessed a public school tax based on the number of children they send to public schools. People who have no children, people whose children have grown up, people who have 10 kids attending public school and people who send their kids to private schools ALL pay taxes to support the schools because having a well educated populous benefits everyone.
I recognize that some people don't believe taxes should be used to pay for children's education. While I think that stance is both immoral and impractical, there is an ethical ways to pursue that agenda. If you don't believe that taxes should be collected to support education, you can vote and lobby to change the laws. This isn't however what Armoth's community has done. Rather than trying to change the laws that govern school taxes and school funding, they've tried to subvert the public school system by taking over the boards that govern the public schools. That is grossly unethical.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Teshi, I think 3 is overstating the situation. As far as I can tell, they are -- at worst -- reducing the cost to taxpayers of the local schools, in theory by improving efficiency. I am concerned about their bias, of course. And possibly their methods. It's hard to find details online. But while I agree that it is immoral, I see no evidence that they are actually "diverting funds".
Edit: It seems like some of the funds are being used for special needs kids, including those in private school. However, that is true (by law, to varying degrees) in most school districts.
[ June 07, 2010, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Teshi, I think 3 is overstating the situation. As far as I can tell, they are -- at worst -- reducing the cost to taxpayers of the local schools, in theory by improving efficiency. I am concerned about their bias, of course. And possibly their methods. It's hard to find details online.
rivka, That's not how I understand the circumstances. The way its been described, it appears that the Orthodox Jew's on the school board have voted to use public school funds to pay for books and busing. While that is allowable under the law, I think its unethical. I'd like to know more about this particular school board and its duties.
In the areas where I've lived, the school board gets a set amount of dollars per student in the system. That amount is generally set by state legislators and city and county councils and not by the school board. That money doesn't go back to the tax payers in the school district if they run things more efficiently.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The way its been described, it appears that the Orthodox Jew's on the school board have voted to use public school funds to pay for books and busing.
That was true before the new board was voted in. It looks like their (initial, anyway) attempts to increase that funding were not been successful.
As far as decreasing taxes, they blocked a tax increase.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
7 Canadian provinces, of course, has publically funded Catholic schools which I can enlighten you a little about. These schools were grandfathered in by an agreement made waaay back when Canada was gluing itself together between Ontario and Quebec. Back then, English-speaking meant Protestant and French-speaking meant Catholic and there were minorities of each in each province. As part of the agreement, each province agreed to offer schooling of the other religious denomination and in the other language.
Quebec has secularized both its Engliah and French school boards. Ontario has secularized its Protestant board, but not its Catholic one. This is, of course, a ludicrous problem of inequity.
It's also a problem for society, as Catholic boards have different standards of certain areas of education, especially sexual education. This, of course, doesn't stop young people from being educated in useful things like birth control, which further adds to the bizarre nature of these schools. They also have a lower standard of teachers, because they require people to have a note from a priest in order to become employed.
I, as you can tell, am strongly opposed. I've been in a few Catholic schools and whether it was the ones I've been in or if its all Catholic schools, I found the effort in the classrooms to be less in the Catholic classrooms.
I've also come across some rather hideous comments, such as things suggesting that Catholic schoolchildren are more honest. That kind of talk is detrimental, although thankfully is largely disregarded by the student population once they reach high school.
*
In the UK, county authorities have jurisdiction over Religious Education, although it usually has to be "non-denominational". However, this does mean that they can offer prayer assemblies, provided the God discussed is vague enough to be unoffensive. Atheist students may, of course, sit out. Although one school snidely remarked on its website, "no provisions are presently made" thus making it clear that the parent who asks for provisions is alone and putting everyone to a lot of trouble.
I myself attended a publically funded religious school in Essex as a child. There was no requirement of the students to be religious although most people went along with it. We had Church of England assemblies and thanks-god before-mealtime prayer. Most of the children attended because it was the nearest school.
I can still recite the Lord's Prayer, though. Our Father who art in Heaven...
I am against publically funded religious education, whether it's non-denominational or not ("non-denominational", ha-- as long as you're religious). Secular schools in Ontario educate fine, moral and ethical youngsters without religion filling the day.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Armoth, I think the main point to bring up is that paying for public education is not really paying for your own child's education. When you pay for public education, you are paying for the privilege of living in a society where everyone is educated. Consider for a moment what it would be like if 50% of the population was illiterate or unable to do basic math. In Texas, with the text book issue, people were making a huge point about what it was going to mean to our state to have people think we failed at education- how many companies were going to choose not to settle in Houston because the high school graduates were uneducated? While a lot of people go to college, I know my husband's work hires and trains straight out of high school, so the quality of high school education does matter to their company. But, I would spend some time thinking about how having an educated population benefits you beyond your own child's education. That might help with the feelings of paying twice, because honestly, you aren't paying for the same thing with those two bills.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's not so much the points to bring up. It's the process of thinking outside your own context and considering other people.
You may laugh at that, but it's hard to do. We have our own problems, and this was a "solution" or at least some sort of remedy to help alleviate that.
It took talking to real people, like you, for me to consider that. Arguments aside, I have to think of some other strategy to make it as real to them as you did for me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I have to think of some other strategy to make it as real to them as you did for me.
When you come up with something, please share. I have had this discussion way too many times.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: I think it's very admirable that instead of getting too bent out of shape that folks took umbrage with your religious community's solution, instead, you tried to understand just what made them feel so aggravated.
Folks could have been a bit more civil, but you kept things on track, that's a very good thing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I suggest pointing out to them how they are shooting themselves in the foot if they weaken the education other kids are getting. It is in their best interest to support a strong public school system.
They did what they thought was right for their families, which is understandable, even though it might have been misguided in this case. But what is actually in their best interest is making sure that public education is well supported.
I'm sure we can come up with lots of reasons why, if that will help.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I suggest pointing out to them how they are shooting themselves in the foot if they weaken the education other kids are getting. It is in their best interest to support a strong public school system.
While I agree, I have found that this is unlikely to convince anyone who does not already grant the premise.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is public school for most subjects and then separate religious education so unacceptable?
I can think of a few explanations, but I'll give you a chance to explain.
Seconded. Again, not because I can't think of reasons why, but because I'd like to find out the true reason.
.
This question intrigued me as well. I have no knowledge of Orthodox Jewish schooling. So I have been doing some reading, and though I still have no clear answer WHY yeshiva (Jewish schooling) is so important, Here is a blog post that gives some insight into HOW profoundly important it is (seems to be required, or at least all but required) in Orthodox Judaism.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
It wouldn't help convince people, but aren't there other things that Orthodox Jews essentially pay twice for. For example, taxes pay for the FDA, but Orthodox Jews need kosher food so they pay more for that. I am assuming that if it meets kosher demands, it meets FDA quality demands plus. This cost is of course hidden. The amount of taxes set aside to pay for inspectors is not delineated and the higher priced food isn't broken into two charges- food part and inspector fees. So, maybe the solution is for the community to just call it local taxes and not say which part is for the schools, which for the roads, etc. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am assuming that if it meets kosher demands, it meets FDA quality demands plus.
While a common assumption, it's only true for some things. There are no kashrus standards for food colorings, for instance.
But yes, JOs pay extra for lots of things. Schools are just one of them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Lots of people pay for things they don't often use. Vegetarians pay tax for meat standards. Non-drivers pay for roads. People with jobs pay for people without jobs. People who aren't ill pay for people who are ill. People who've never been to a national park in their lives pay for National Parks. People who will never go to space pay for other people to get launched into space.
This is a secular society that supports a generalized version of reality which has roads and schools and hospitals and such. It's made as such to make it as easy as possible for lots of different types of people to live within.
You're paying for this generalized society that supports not only the people who live within it but also the people who live outside it, for whatever reason (and religious belief doesn't get more of a pass than being a vegetarian non-driver without any kids). These schools are educating the people who may save your life if you get hit by a car walking along the road, who grow food for you, who run the bank and who fix the roads. Even if you choose one aspect of living outside the secular society, your support system IS the secular society and you pay taxes to keep that support system going strong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that a big part of the reason that this is troublesome for me is the underlying sense that "community" in this situation is defined as exclusively the Orthodox Jewish people. The duty and civic responsibility that I think should belong to the entire population covered by the school board has been dismissed in favor of a loyalty to only those who share ethnic and religious ties. I think that this is an example of a mindset that is dangerous.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think you're right about that Kmb. It's not a hassidic sect, it's Modern Orthodoxy, which prides itself on its ability not to shun the secular world, but to incorporate the secular world into its religious identity. But I guess it's difficult to see outside that perspective of "community" especially when you've come in to the majority.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that this is an example of a mindset that is dangerous.
In my case, you are preaching to the choir.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I'm fine with public funds paying for our public schools. Private schools are private. I am against public funds going to them, just as I am against public funds going to ANY private company.
I thought public school was just fine. The teachers do not get paid much, but they taught because they cared about education. And the three month summer vacations
I'll probably be flamed for saying this, but I also wouldn't mind if dropouts be temporarily charged or taxed at a higher rate for public education than those that make the effort to finish. If they can provide a valid reason why the dropped out then it could be waved.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pounding him is not going to help.
No. I want armoth to feel pain and hate himself. Forever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Naw just kidding. HEY ARMOTH, sorry if I was on your case too much.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Don't worry about it.
I am kinda disturbed about Tom's problems with Orthodox Judaism though...wish we had resolved that...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What part of those differences do you think can be resolved?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nor do they necessarily need to be resolved. Someone can belong to a toxic culture while still being a decent person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well that is good as I think that most of the various communities to which most of us belong include some toxic elements.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I am kinda disturbed about Tom's problems with Orthodox Judaism though...
Don't worry too much about it. He's a nice guy anyway. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
So, in summary, Armoth comes from a toxic culture of bigoted Orthodox Jews, but he’s a nice guy.
Yeah, I’d say he’s a nice guy. Reading through this thread, I’d say he’s one of the only nice guys in it. He took the attacks not just on the issue at hand but on his people and his culture in general, and turned around and was still polite and generous. He humbly offered to look at it from the perspectives he was being pounded with. He admitted he could be wrong, which is something that doesn’t happen very often around here. Sure glad he was able to mask the toxic, bigoted culture he comes from. I mean, that’s just looming in the background, isn’t it? It must take all his strength to hold it back and not let it through into what he posts on Hatrack. He does it so admirably. If I didn’t know any better, judging from all of his contributions at Hatrack, I’d say he was the product of a humble, polite, and generous upbringing, not a toxic, bigoted one. But thankfully, no explanation is necessary when you level those accusations. It’s just a given.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Wow. I guess I missed this thread. And to think, I can remember when Tom still insisted he was "only" an agnostic. I'm surprised no one whistled on him.
Thing is: this kind of thing isn't unusual. It's pretty common for the elderly to try to take over a school board because they feel that it's unfair that they should be paying taxes for someone else's kids and not receiving any benefit.
Likewise, it was white school boards that closed schools after Brown vs. The Board so they wouldn't have to integrate the schools. In some of those cases they actually set up a sort of voluntary school "tax" that went to private academies, specifically so that they could support white only schools using what amounted to the same funds that had previously been going to the public schools.
But some of the stuff schools have been pulling lately are pretty slimy too. Around here, the property tax for the town gets voted on at the town hall, while the school tax gets voted on at the elementary schools. So invariably, they hold concerts on election day, to make sure that parents are there to vote. Or they'll threaten to remove the most popular programs if the vote fails, rather than just trimming the budget through good management. We've had an increase in the school tax rate every year for at least 14 years, and it's getting really ridiculous. Our district has built 2 new schools and increased the size of the high school twice, costing millions of dollars, but when the vote failed, suddenly they decided to close buildings and argue that we didn't need the space. And they try to make it sound like the tax rate is going down by saying things like "this year we've given the voters what they wanted by decreasing the tax hike from 8% to 3%". Kinda like when they "lower prices" at Christmastime.
And let me add to what others have said here to Armoth: it really is refreshing to see someone take criticism as well as you have in this thread. Wish politicians could do that well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And they try to make it sound like the tax rate is going down by saying things like "this year we've given the voters what they wanted by decreasing the tax hike from 8% to 3%".
Bear in mind that this means that, all else being held equal, no one is getting a raise. That's a bigger sacrifice than it sounds.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Bear in mind that this means that, all else being held equal, no one is getting a raise. That's a bigger sacrifice than it sounds.
First of all, you're just plain wrong. Teachers and administrators are receiving their contractually obligatory raises.
And all else being held equal, yes, but property values do go up, and development happens. The tax rate can't go up indefinitely, or we'll eventually be paying more in taxes than we pay for our mortgages.
And by the way, I haven't got a raise in three years, my brother in law got a 25% pay cut, my best friend spent much of this past year working a reduced work week (hence 20% pay cut) and my wife lost her job. In a good economy, I'm all for teachers getting raises, but right now isn't the time.
[ June 08, 2010, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Has your local tax base increased in the last year? Ours, locally, has dropped about 4%.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In the last year? Maybe not. But if it didn't it's just a blip in the overall increase. My house is worth twice what I paid for it 14 years ago, but my school taxes are 4X what they were when I bought it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd be surprised if your school budget is four times higher, though. I don't know where you live, but schools around here have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid. Given that my total property tax is something like $3300, I'm not particularly bitter about it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:This question intrigued me as well. I have no knowledge of Orthodox Jewish schooling. So I have been doing some reading, and though I still have no clear answer WHY yeshiva (Jewish schooling) is so important, Here is a blog post that gives some insight into HOW profoundly important it is (seems to be required, or at least all but required) in Orthodox Judaism.
Fourthed. While that link is interesting, it didn't really address the why.
Armouth, I'll add to the chorus that is impressed with your response to this thread. Would you mind explaining the importance of private education in your faith? I think it would help me (and others) better understand the context in which these events occurred.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I appreciated all the kind words. I just feel like I owe so much to this community (Hatrack) - I dunno, I'm thinking of doing a landmark where I introduce myself more properly - but I grew up in a semi-isolated Orthodox community. And while I don't feel like I wasn't exposed to a non-Orthodox world (I read books, watched tv and movies), I didn't get to talk to real people about real issues that were outside the Orthodox sphere. And I think that's kind of important.
I like to consider myself a well thought-out guy, but I have tremendous respect for many of you on this forum. And I'm willing to listen. It's actually a lot easier to check ego at the door when all you have at stake is your online persona.
I know you guys all want to know what the deal is with yeshiva schooling. It's SO complicated. I tried to write it up yesterday and I ended up erasing it all. Maybe I'll say a bit and you can ask questions, but honestly, I feel like until you paint yourselves in blue and hang out in the trees with the rest of us, I'm not sure you're really gonna understand it.
In Judaism, it is a commandment, in fact, leveled a commandment that stands above all others - to LEARN the Torah. There is so much religious philosophy centered around how the mere study of God's commandments and wisdom is a devotional act that brings you closer to God. I go to law school, and I still return to a yeshiva at night to continue Torah study. It's one of the most fulfilling things I do, and for a lot of people, it is the best part of their religious practice.
I mean, in a Speaker for the Dead sort of way - to come to know is to come to love, and this is the way we come to know God.
So much background is required, Hebrew, Aramaic, Bible (in Hebrew) and its commentators, Talmud, Law, Philosophy, self awareness, they're all part of the curriculum and are deeply rooted in our lifestyle.
Okay. Tired. Bed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: but honestly, I feel like until you paint yourselves in blue and hang out in the trees with the rest of us, I'm not sure you're really gonna understand it.
*giggle*
This is a great line. I plan to steal it.
Layla tov!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Blue paint and hiding in the forest? I never knew Braveheart's army were Orthodox Jews.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Is it Braveheart or Avatar? Either way, I can't say that either appeals Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Armoth, I think I can understand why studying Torah is so important, what I don't understand is why public secular school supplemented with a separate religious schooling (perhaps in early morning, late afternoons or evenings) seems so unacceptable to many Orthodox Jews. Here are some of the reasons I can imagine.
1. There is concern that if students study at a secular school their study of Torah will be seen as less important than achievements in secular subjects.
2. Secular (public) schools teach so many frivolous subjects (art, music, gym, dance . . .) that students would have insufficient time left to dedicate to the study of Torah.
3. At a yeshiva, all subjects are taught in the context of Torah. There is freedom to discuss religious topics when they are relevant in primarily secular classes like history, literature and science.
4. At secular schools students would be expected to participate in activities that Orthodox Jews would find unacceptable.
5. At secular schools, observant Jews could often be forced to choose between following their commandments and participating in activities like choir, dance or sports. Jewish schools can offer similar activities in a way that is in keeping with appropriate practices.
6. People are afraid that Jewish children will be ostracized in public schools.
7. People want their children to be immersed in the Jewish community and aren't comfortable associating with non Jews. They are perhaps even afraid that non-Jews will corrupt their children.
I could probably come up with more but doing so won't help me to understand whether any of those reason are the reasons you and your community don't consider public schools an option. Can you please help me understand which of any of those (or other reasons) are important to you?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
1,3,4,5,6, and 7 are true.
2 is not. I had art, music, gym, the girls had dance. 4 is relevant to that - the programs like dance, and gym are divided. Many high schools are actually not coed.
But yea, there isn't much cheerleading in Orthodox Jewish schools. But that's kinda why I want you to come out and check things out - because there are realms where you might consider us extreme, and there are realms where we are totally normal - and I think you'd be surprised about that.
As for #7 - that's the part that's most difficult to explain. It's not so much the lack of comfort, though, for some, I'm sure that's true - I think it's more the fear of the affect that another person's kid would have on you and your kid. Like I said, boys and girls don't touch before marriage. Orthodox Jewish kids dress a bit more modestly. You may laugh, but I find it mind-blowing in law school when I show up to class in the summer and sit next to a girl in a tank-top. ::shrug:: It's just not something I'm used to - and would definitely have made my high school experience a lot harder...
#3 is also huge. Modern Orthodox Judaism prides itself on its exposure to the secular world. They don't believe in separate realms - earthly, mundane, impure vs. holy, exalted, spiritual. They believe that the secular is a vessel for spirituality - that God is in science, art, music, philosophy, literature, etc. So there was always that undercurrent in my education, and especially in my college education.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
As a guy, I have to say that being in school with attractive, sometimes under-dressed women certainly didn't damage my education, and it made it a lot more fun Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Modern Orthodox Judaism prides itself on its exposure to the secular world.
Not including tank tops, I presume? Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As a guy, I have to say that being in school with attractive, sometimes under-dressed women certainly didn't damage my education, and it made it a lot more fun
Agreed. But depends what your values are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am currently listening to an interview with one of the board members, Dr. Asher Mansdorf. (I believe recorded a couple days ago, although I can't find it in the archives.) He STRENUOUSLY objects to the idea that he or the other JO board members are in it for themselves or the non-public schools, and bragged about improvements in the facilities and test scores of the public schools in the district.
Doesn't really seem like they're "diverting funds from the public schools".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Doesn't really seem like they're "diverting funds from the public schools".
But that's exactly what they're doing. Now, he can assert that he's doing so by cutting waste and salaries and focusing monies on other capital projects, but that doesn't address the central criticism.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The public school teachers are now higher paid. The buildings are being renovated and becoming handicapped-accessible. Not to mention wired for the 'Net, including wifi.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The first link reports the scores, but doesn't report how they are changing over time. It seems like one of the links mentioned that scores were going down. Is there any unbiased information on the differences in the scores of students in the public schools after the change?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'd love to see that as well, but I haven't figured out where to find them -- or if they're even available online.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The public school teachers are now higher paid.
One of his criticisms of the "old" way (in his editorial) was that the school teachers were overpaid, especially compared to neighboring schools. Is that no longer the case?
Also, let's keep in mind that we're talking about an enormously wealthy and underpopulated district. Of course the schools can afford infrastructure improvements and wifi; it's only this guy's assertion that it wouldn't've happened without him. A more salient question is: does he approve of infrastructure improvements only when yeshivas are allowed to use the facilities?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Edited in response to edits above.)
quote:One of his criticisms of the "old" way (in his editorial) was that the school teachers were overpaid, especially compared to neighboring schools. Is that no longer the case?
I don't know. It is a fair question.
[ June 10, 2010, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: it's only this guy's assertion that it wouldn't've happened without him.
And yet, it had not for quite a few years before, even though the neighboring districts had.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't a surprise that wifi, for instance, was not installed before 2004.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, specifically, we have a list of specific infrastructure improvements that didn't happen, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that they were neither planned nor scheduled before the board change. The question becomes, then, whether these improvements were actually more critical than the (hypothetical) expenditures which were occurring -- and, again, whether he would have supported any infrastructure upgrades at all were his central agenda not to extend the use of those facilities to religious organizations.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The upgrades he mentions are those that the private school kids will use.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The 95k average teacher's salary plus benefits seems amazing to me. It makes me wonder, what is the starting salary? Are the benefits non-existent? Is NY really that much more expensive to live in then say Phx (where my friend with a master's in education makes 30k a year- I know her salary cause I helped get her on WIC and some other programs- she's got 2 kids).
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The upgrades he mentions are those that the private school kids will use.
Which ones? I know that we never used public facilities for anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The upgrades he mentions are those that the private school kids will use.
A few of them may be. Many are not.
And to be clear, I'm still unconvinced that these guys have only the district's best interests at heart. It does seem like it may be more nuanced that it was suggested, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The 95k average teacher's salary plus benefits seems amazing to me.
Teachers in DC make well over 80K, and have the possibility of making up to 130K if their students do well on tests.
I'm not sure, but it's my impression that average teacher salaries in the West are well below average teacher salaries in the East, even accounting for the cost of living. There are more cities in the East, and I think that factors in (as it really should, considering the difference in the price of real estate).
Armoth, thank you for the explanation. Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Glenn Arnold said (way back on page 3)
quote: First of all, you're just plain wrong. Teachers and administrators are receiving their contractually obligatory raises.
And all else being held equal, yes, but property values do go up, and development happens. The tax rate can't go up indefinitely, or we'll eventually be paying more in taxes than we pay for our mortgages.
And by the way, I haven't got a raise in three years, my brother in law got a 25% pay cut, my best friend spent much of this past year working a reduced work week (hence 20% pay cut) and my wife lost her job. In a good economy, I'm all for teachers getting raises, but right now isn't the time.
That may be true where Glenn lives, but it definitely isn't true where I live. I'm a public school teacher. Ten days have been cut out of the school year (five for students, plus five more for teachers), so there goes the pay for those days. Georgia states a state minimum salary for all teachers across the board, and local systems add to that. My system has cut that allowance by 30%. Also, all "extra stipends" like coaches, after-school work, lead-teacher, etc., are gone by the wayside. Plus there was no contractual raise. Plus insurance is going up. So, I'm now going to make less next year than I did when I moved to Georgia seven years ago. So, yes, the economy is affecting teachers as well. Also, the summer work I used to get with the state education department no longer exists, so I'm off to find non-education work. In Georgia, at least, teachers are not riding high on the proverbial hog.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
My wacky theist ideas, though, do not include (at least they should not) placing the the good of people who share my particular wacky ideas (or ethnic background) above the good of everyone else. If yours do, and in this example they seem to, you are still responsible for that.