posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how Amish communities structure their relationship with the larger municipality or state.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Tom. Looks like the Amish are exempt from Social Security and medicare taxes but not from other taxes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a good thread. Not pretty, things got uglier than they should have, but an important point ended up being made and acknowledged.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.]
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
And I happen to agree that 3 is the only acceptable option. (With 4 for anyone who is comfortable with it, of course.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
You know, I saw that earlier in the thread, but for some reason my mental shift didn't take. Sorry Armoth .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
