Catholic charter school

[JoeyKnothead]

It's started...

Catholich charter school.

For debate:

Should organizations immune to taxes be allowed public tax dollars to advance their religion?

[Purple Knight]

Charter schools get to pick their students if not by the individual, then by location.

Why does this add up to better results?

If they're blacklisting the incorrigible, then our society's idea that everyone can get something out of education is not correct. If better students simply equal better results, and they're able cherrypick and thus able to stack their decks, then government can also use those metrics to determine what a good result and a bad result is, per student.

If they're better because of discipline, and there ultimately being consequences for behaviour that disrupts learning, then we need to go back to that. If that means expulsion, so be it.

We already threw all the money in the world at schools and it only made them worse, so time to start throwing souls in and see if it helps.

Teachers are notoriously underpaid and overworked.

...schools have budgets...

True both. And thus, the schools always cry for more money. And they always eventually get it, and it never goes to the teachers, who are always forced to pay out of pocket for supplies their students need, or let them do without. This is an engineered situation. Look at the post office. The post office is government-run, and it works, decently if not perfectly. It's better than Fed-Ex but that's not saying much. It works because they can't cry for extra money because, "Oh the children, they need the best."

Good luck with that. They outlawed handing out Bibles in my school, so they took us outside to do it.

That's pretty disgusting. I don't think handing out Bibles should be banned as long as children are free to not take them. But the way they got around that law turns my stomach. If they were making students go outside and forcing them to pray I would be even more livid.

See the Wedge document, and laws banning atheists from public office.

I don't think one state doing this is bad. States having leeway to test horrible policies is almost the entirety of the good of there being different states. If they raise taxes too high (Massachusetts) people flee, and they have to lower them again. If they ban only the honest members of a group from public office, they're going to get more corruption. But maybe I'm wrong so let them try whatever they think will work. The smartest person in the world can be wrong and the silliest-seeming policy can work and we'll never know unless we let states try out their insanity.

So we disallow tax exempt organizations the tax dollars they use to do it.

Churches shouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place. But if they can give children a better education, is their religious propaganda that much worse than making kids sit and watch ads to pay for their education? That might be what's coming.

[JoeyKnothead]

Charter schools get to pick their students if not by the individual, then by location.

Why does this add up to better results?

Weeds out those more difficult to teach. Ever see a charter school in the projects?

It can also be reasonably assumed Catholic policies would impact teachers, et al.

If they're blacklisting the incorrigible, then our society's idea that everyone can get something out of education is not correct.

Of course. Only now we have theists deciding the issue under the auspices of the state.

If better students simply equal better results, and they're able cherrypick and thus able to stack their decks, then government can also use those metrics to determine what a good result and a bad result is, per student.

Public, non-charter schools can't be selective.

If they're better because of discipline, and there ultimately being consequences for behaviour that disrupts learning, then we need to go back to that. If that means expulsion, so be it.

Sure.

We already threw all the money in the world at schools and it only made them worse, so time to start throwing souls in and see if it helps.

Teachers are notoriously underpaid and overworked.

...schools have budgets...

True both. And thus, the schools always cry for more money. And they always eventually get it, and it never goes to the teachers, who are always forced to pay out of pocket for supplies their students need, or let them do without. This is an engineered situation. Look at the post office. The post office is government-run, and it works, decently if not perfectly. It's better than Fed-Ex but that's not saying much. It works because they can't cry for extra money because, "Oh the children, they need the best."

Agreed, but not quite sure how this addresses state sponsored religion.

Good luck with that. They outlawed handing out Bibles in my school, so they took us outside to do it.

That's pretty disgusting. I don't think handing out Bibles should be banned as long as children are free to not take them. But the way they got around that law turns my stomach. If they were making students go outside and forcing them to pray I would be even more livid.

Agreed.

See the Wedge document, and laws banning atheists from public office.

I don't think one state doing this is bad.

What number of states would it take to make it bad?

States having leeway to test horrible policies is almost the entirety of the good of there being different states. If they raise taxes too high (Massachusetts) people flee, and they have to lower them again. If they ban only the honest members of a group from public office, they're going to get more corruption. But maybe I'm wrong so let them try whatever they think will work. The smartest person in the world can be wrong and the silliest-seeming policy can work and we'll never know unless we let states try out their insanity.

States had leeway to hold slaves. I'm sure ain't proud of that

Churches shouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place. But if they can give children a better education, is their religious propaganda that much worse than making kids sit and watch ads to pay for their education? That might be what's coming.

It's about"You can't tax us, but we can tax you."

[Purple Knight]

Public, non-charter schools can't be selective.

No, but however charter schools are knowing which students will succeed, public schools can also know that. When we expect the poor kid from the projects to have the same achievement range as anyone else (therefore if he doesn't perform well, the school he goes to has failed) we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It has all kinds of perverse incentives against that very child. If the school can better improve its test scores by feeding all the effort into the geniuses who will improve a lot, and ignoring that child, then he'll be ignored. If we know him from the rest, we can make his improvement worth more.

Agreed, but not quite sure how this addresses state sponsored religion.

That we have this death spiral of money being flooded into schools and it never goes to help teachers or students. If money doesn't help why not pay with our souls? The Catholics want the souls and unlike the public school bureaucrats, might actually give an education in exchange for what they want.

As long as they don't force religion on people. If it's all children who were already catholic going there anyway, or they're forced to accommodate people who don't want to pray, and as long as the children don't come out of there knowing every verse of the Bible but not math, the State is getting what it pays for.

What number of states would it take to make it bad?

50. I'll admit that if most of them were doing it and it limited peoples' ability to escape, that would be pretty bad too.

States had leeway to hold slaves. I'm sure ain't proud of that

So I can also admit that if there's a moral component (and there clearly is with the no atheists in office thing) states having the right to test policy - and the fact that that works for sieving working policy from dysfunctional policy - may miss the issue. But I hope, I really do hope, that there's at least some correlation between what works well, and what is morally right. I hope morality isn't crippling by nature. However, my hoping does not make it so. What the negative correlation would do, however, is make morality ultimately impractical. And at the point that it is impractical, maybe we should still pursue it, but we won't.

If every system takes more energy to be moral than immoral, we're going to have to quit making systems moral when we run out of extra energy to waste on it.

But I don't think that's necessarily the case. If giving people rights can sub for the energy-wasting process of having everyone fight for dominance before they earn the right not to be trampled, then morality might actually save energy.

It's about"You can't tax us, but we can tax you."

Agreed.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #13

That we have this death spiral of money being flooded into schools and it never goes to help teachers or students.

We've had too much money taken away from public schools in the form of private school vouchers.

as long as the children don't come out of there knowing every verse of the Bible but not math, the State is getting what it pays for.

The State isn't supposed to be paying for religious education; that should be up to religious institutions which arrange for their own private funding.

https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/ ... -debunked/

[Purple Knight]

We've had too much money taken away from public schools in the form of private school vouchers.

And for the same reason. Public schools can't seem to do the job.

as long as the children don't come out of there knowing every verse of the Bible but not math, the State is getting what it pays for.

The State isn't supposed to be paying for religious education; that should be up to religious institutions which arrange for their own private funding.

Well, what would you say if instead of a few classes that teach the Bible, the children had to watch ads? Nabisco will give the school precious, precious money. But they want something in exchange: Make the kids watch some ads for oreos.

This is how I see it. The kid watches a few ads for a product. They will probably buy the product, otherwise why would the company pay to have the kid watch the ad?

Christianity is a product. And it's not even the worst product out there. I would rather my kid believe a fairy tale is true than be put on the food addiction train by the next flashy-looking snack and weigh 800lbs and be diabetic.

[JoeyKnothead]

Public, non-charter schools can't be selective.

No, but however charter schools are knowing which students will succeed, public schools can also know that. When we expect the poor kid from the projects to have the same achievement range as anyone else (therefore if he doesn't perform well, the school he goes to has failed) we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It has all kinds of perverse incentives against that very child. If the school can better improve its test scores by feeding all the effort into the geniuses who will improve a lot, and ignoring that child, then he'll be ignored. If we know him from the rest, we can make his improvement worth more.

Can you rephrase that in five year old?

That we have this death spiral of money being flooded into schools and it never goes to help teachers or students. If money doesn't help why not pay with our souls? The Catholics want the souls and unlike the public school bureaucrats, might actually give an education in exchange for what they want.

It's problematic to have bigots teaching our children.

As long as they don't force religion on people. If it's all children who were already catholic going there anyway, or they're forced to accommodate people who don't want to pray, and as long as the children don't come out of there knowing every verse of the Bible but not math, the State is getting what it pays for.

The state would of course be getting what it pays for - an establishment of religion. Do you really think a Catholic, or other religious organization, wouldn't use this opportunity to further their religion?

What number of states would it take to make it bad?

50. I'll admit that if most of them were doing it and it limited peoples' ability to escape, that would be pretty bad too.

States are already limiting people's rights to cross state lines for medical procedures. Where the state is bound to theology, such issues are to be expected.

Snip remainder in agreement.

[Purple Knight]

Can you rephrase that in five year old?

Right now public schools pressured for "achievement" have an incentive to ignore students that will improve less. However the charter schools know who that is and exclude him, the government can know who that is and reward the public school appropriately for his achievements, instead of giving them an incentive to ignore him.

Is it a matter of poor inner city kids? Well, establish a baseline that applies to poor inner city kids and reward public schools for exceeding that baseline.

It's problematic to have bigots teaching our children.

The state would of course be getting what it pays for - an establishment of religion. Do you really think a Catholic, or other religious organization, wouldn't use this opportunity to further their religion?

They would, and I don't see it differently than an opportunity to have Nabisco further their oreos. If we run out of money, we may have to force the children to watch ads. Nabisco may "adopt a school" and that would be pretty dystopian. I'd rather my kid be religious than addicted to some corporate product that makes them physically unhealthy. I believe life ends when it ends, so I want the child to have a physically better life. If they believe a fairy tale is true, that's sub-ideal, but I prefer religious brainwashing to corporate brainwashing.

States are already limiting people's rights to cross state lines for medical procedures. Where the state is bound to theology, such issues are to be expected.

Right of exit is fundamental to the system of policy testing to work.

It might be a different issue in the case of medical procedures. The insurance companies don't want to lose customers or be forced to compete with the likes of the cash-only Oklahoma Surgery Center which, thanks to no insurance or Medicaid or Obamacare red tape, costs about a tenth as much.

[JoeyKnothead]

Can you rephrase that in five year old?

Right now public schools pressured for "achievement" have an incentive to ignore students that will improve less. However the charter schools know who that is and exclude him, the government can know who that is and reward the public school appropriately for his achievements, instead of giving them an incentive to ignore him.

Is it a matter of poor inner city kids? Well, establish a baseline that applies to poor inner city kids and reward public schools for exceeding that baseline.

The cuncuror concurs.

As always, your perspective is important to have.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15

We've had too much money taken away from public schools in the form of private school vouchers.

And for the same reason. Public schools can't seem to do the job.

They certainly can't do the job with too little money.

That seems to be the modus operandi of the powers-that-be: starve public schools of funding and then cry, "Look! Public schools are failing!"

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #15

We've had too much money taken away from public schools in the form of private school vouchers.

And for the same reason. Public schools can't seem to do the job.

They certainly can't do the job with too little money.

That seems to be the modus operandi of the powers-that-be: starve public schools of funding and then cry, "Look! Public schools are failing!"

Applies to pretty much any government prigram. Starve the beast and complain it's useless.