SKOWHEGAN, Maine — Gov. Paul LePage and Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen on Wednesday unveiled a series of legislative proposals on schools that immediately were condemned by the state teachers union and legislative Democrats.
The legislation would allow students to choose their own schools, permit state-funded tuition to private religious schools, and ask schools to build better teacher evaluation systems and enhance career and technical education.
“This is a pretty ambitious set of bills, as you can see,” Bowen said during a press conference at the Somerset Career and Technical Center.
LePage said the proposal is “all about students.”
The intent of the four-bill package is “making sure each student gets the education that he or she wants, not superintendents or schools telling them what they need to study,” the Republican governor said. “We’re going to do everything we possibly can to give them the broadest scope of opportunities and pick the courses of study.”
Bowen said the bills are aimed at doing what’s right for Maine’s students.
“For as long as any of us can remember, we’ve had a school system that was basically structured around what made them administrative,” he said. “Schoolchildren attend the schools they attend because of their street address.”
The first bill proposes open enrollment — or school choice — whereby schools could accept students who apply from other districts if they have room.
LePage said having options available to students is important for Maine’s work force.
“All too often, the last 25 years, we’ve forgotten about trades and vocation in the state of Maine,” he said. “In order to move the state forward, we need one thing — a very talented work force.”
Bowen said that 17 other states in the country already allow for school choice. The proposed bill on school choice is based largely on Michigan’s law, he said.
If more students apply for more slots than are available, “we’d set up a lottery, a random draw system, so we don’t have school districts [selecting] certain students from here and there, and getting the best basketball players and the best math students,” Bowen said. “We want to have a fair process that is really going to allow options for kids.”
Maine Education Association President Chris Galgay strongly criticized the governor’s plans.
“This proposal pits one school district against the other with serious consequences. If schools begin losing students to nearby schools, they will likely face closure,” Galgay said in a statement. “The governor’s school choice plan is bad for local schools, bad for local communities and bad for Maine’s students and is an attack on the teachers who are tasked with educating them.”
Rep. Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan, who attended the news conference, also opposed the legislation.
“School choice will put more of a burden on property tax payers, widen disparities between the haves and have-nots and weaken public education in rural Maine,” he said.
The second bill, which would allow private religious schools to receive state funds, also would give students more options, said Bowen.
It removes “an existing prohibition against the use of public tuition dollars for religious schools that would otherwise meet all the other state standards for receiving public funding,” he said.
Bowen noted that a handful of private schools already receive state-paid tuition, and he said the approval process is very rigorous.
“One line of that statute says that [the private school receiving public tuition] may not be religious. So we’re going to propose that that one single line of the statute is taken out,” said Bowen.
Sen. Justin Alfond, D-Portland, criticized LePage’s proposal on school tuition.
“Using taxpayer money to pay for private schools is another example of short-sighted policy that chooses ideology over what’s best for Maine people,” said Alfond, who serves on the Legislature’s Education and Cultural Affairs Committee. “We should be doing everything we can to strengthen our public schools, which is an investment in our future work force. Anything less cheats our children and our economic future.”
Bowen said school systems in other countries use a model that Maine should follow — they train their teachers and school administrators well and give them plenty of support.
“We want to get out and really focus on teacher and leader effectiveness,” Bowen said. [“We’ll be] asking school districts over the next couple of years to build new and better teacher evaluation systems. We will see how well teachers are doing and the leaders are doing. We get information about what extra training opportunities they may need to go along with that.”
Bowen, who taught in classrooms for 10 years, said the evaluations he received were worthless.
“I still have a stack of evaluations from when I was teaching. I don’t know if I got any value out of those experiences,” he said. “We need to build a much more rigorous system.”
In a press release, the MEA said it fears that the proposed evaluation system of teachers “will allow superintendents and principals to reward their favorite teachers and fire those that may speak up [for] the needs of their students.”
“If we are serious about improving education in Maine, we cannot think the starting point is building in favoritism and managerial games,” said Galgay. “Ruining the ability for teachers to put their students first is not the answer.”
The bills should be in their final form by the beginning of next week, said Bowen.
If the religious schools start taking funds from the state…will the state 1. make up the loss of funding to public schools? The expenses will still remain the same, ie teacher salaries, electrial expenses, etc… 2. Will the private schools be subject to the state guidelines for education? What happens if the state mandates that they teach evolution? 3. If they religious institutions take this money will they then be paying property taxes?
This is such a touchy area. The latest flap at the Federal level is the whole birth control medical coverage in Catholic institutions. Once you dip your toes into these waters, watch out.
The problem, I think, comes down to what is really the church and what are really businesses owned by the church. I don’t think anyone would find a problem with exempting actual churches and church employees. However, when you have Catholic Charities, Inc., and a Catholic school, and Catholic senior housing, these corporations run as a business and likely hire non-Catholics. Some of these corporations such as CCI are paid with tax dollars for the services. If CCI is getting paid tax dollars to provide adoption services on behalf of the government for all the citizens, for example, they must provide them to ALL of the citizens, straight and gay. The same is true about health care. If the corporation is more “business” than “church” which obviously is the case for many of these separate Catholic companies, then they should comply with the secular law.
In reality, this is all ridiculous. 98% of Catholic women use, or have used, banned birth control methods during their reproductive lives. And, no one is forcing anyone to use the contraceptives. These are health-care options.
Besides, isn’t birth control a “mortal sin?” It seems they have more to worry about than paying for birth control when they should be worrying about paying with their soul!
(Of course, I am kidding!)
What’s this have to do with giving money to religious schools for parents that don’t want their kids to go to public school?
Tenuous link but the same principles apply. Just as organizations run as a business (and emplying non-members) for other than faith issues could (and should) be considered “businesses”, so should private “religious” schools be considered outside the realm of “church”. The possiblity of paying taxes (just as charter schools should since they will be businesses) is an interesting concept.
I digressed a bit (sorry) but the principle is the same – what aspects of the Catholic enterprise constitute “religion” and what aspects constitute “business?” If these “religious” schools receive taxpayer dollars, then the answer to your statement #2 is that the schools should comply with the state curriculum and if that includes evolution and sex education, including birth control, then so be it.
As far as #3 goes, I am not sure educational institutions, religious, private or otherwise, pay property taxes. Somehow, I have it in my mind if they are non-profit educational institutions, they do not pay property taxes. I may be incorrect on that.
The big rub for me is just this – if a religious organization sets foot in the secular waters and are paid by taxpayer dollars presumably to serve ALL of the public, then they must serve ALL of the public, and not cherry pick based upon some issue of faith. If they do not like that then they should not be playing in the secular sandbox.
A similar situation is what has happened in some states where same-sex marriage is legal. Some Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, and Notaries Public, have refused to perform same-sex marriages or issue same-sex marriage licenses. They have been warned they would be fired for not doing so. But, here is the deal. They signed-on to be agents of the state and to carry out lawful duties of the state. They swore an oath to uphold the laws of the state and perform their duties. If they choose not to fulfill the duties assigned to them, they risk dismissal.
There is a clear line drawn here. If you don’t like the rules (on either side), you don’t have to play, but you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.
wicked smaaht. thank you for commenting.
Well, thanks. Just seems to be “legal logic” to me. Once people understand the concept of “separation of church and state,” they can “get it.” Sadly, some cannot and think the two are co-mingled. The way some of the religious zealots speak, you’d think the Founding Fathers were sitting with Christ at the last supper.
They need to look up the “Age of Enlightenment” and “Deism” and then read about the founding fathers from reliable historical sources (not Fox News) and actually understand the mindset of the time among these men. Personally, I think they are turning over in their graves with the crowd on the scene now. They would like nothing better than to turn our democracy into a theocracy. This is the antithesis of what our founding fathers hoped to achieve.
take care. I look forward to reading additional comments from you.
sincerely,
I bet you never read the original version of MAINE’S CONSTITUTION where with over 35 acknowledgments to GOD; it is abundantly clear that Maine was founded as a Christian state.
People accepted that, and it was eventually chipped away by groups like the ACLU(Jewish) and other secular humanists but it is rooted in Christianity. Even Thomas Jefferson who was consulted on the design of Maine’s public schools was a frustrated candidate for the priesthood.
No, I have not read the original of Maine’s Constitution. Actually, Maine came about as a part of the Missouri Compromise so that the North and the South would have equal slave/free states – Maine being free-state and Missouri being a slave-state. Have you read Maine’s marriage law since it was corrupted with religion in 1997? Appalling. When I was a Notary back in 1980, I performed a civil marriage ceremony. I checked the law then just for clarity. It was pure legalese. Very accurate. Very straight-forward. Not a long of fluff or pronouncements. Since that time, I check the Maine marriage laws and noticed how they were amended in 1997. I am surprised they made it past the separation of church and state rules.
As far as being a secular humanist, I would say I qualify. I am thankful for groups like the ACLU who fight to keep our country a democracy and prevent it from becoming a theocracy. We see how well religion-based governments work around the world – the Middle East being a prime example.
Here is the deal and it is this simple: Religion can do whatever it wishes to do. All of the religious crowd seems to think atheists are “out to get them.” Quite the contrary. We really do not care. You can do whatever you wish to do. You can marry or not anyone you want to. You can give 10% of your income to your church. You can pray 5 times a day. Nobody cares. Believe me they do not. What you do is up to you. Do you think it crosses my mind that some fool down south plays with rattlesnakes? Or, the Pope tells his flock that birth control is wrong (despite 98% of his flock committing this mortal sin)? Truly, no one cares.
The line is drawn when you start forcing your religious views into our secular government laws thus forcing people who are not part of your religion to suffer your views and restrictions. I realize you believe your religion is the only TRUE religion, but everyone else believes theirs is, too. I realize those other people are wrong, of course. Do you know that down in Texas they used to have Christian prayers every morning over the public address system? When they interviewed a herd of the big-haired mommas down there and asked them if they thought this might be inappropriate for the Jewish kids in the school, their answer was, “Oh, they could move.”
No, put me in the secular humanist column. The further apart religion is from our secular government, the better.
If you want separation of religion and state for education, then stop forcing people to use government controlled education by taking parents money in taxes to subsidize it so they can’t afford anything else.
Allowing freedom of choice in schools such as through some form of tax credits is only the first step in getting government control out of it entirely. As long as government is controlling the money for education there will inherently be a conflict between choice and separation of religion and state, and more fundamentally, separation of ideas and state control.
Unfortunately, I think your idea would severely handicap the poor. Education in the USA is the great leveler in society. In the past, in most countries, including those of us originating from the British Isles, only certain classes of people could afford to attend school. This created a forever downtrodden lower-class and perpetuated the class system in the UK. In the USA, we changed that model.
In the USA, public education is “free to all,” regardless of income. That is the point of public schools. Giving tax credits for those who actually earn enough money to take advantage of tax credits only pulls much needed funds out of the public school system. We live in a society where public education and the taxes for it are considered a justifiable cost “for the greater good of society.” We, as a society, fare far better having as many people educated as possible. Getting out of poverty is accomplished primarily through education. If anything, we should be promoting more and better public education in rural and inner-city areas so as to elevate people out of poverty. This is their only way out in today’s society.
I do not see where the separation of church and state comes into this as stated in your last sentence. Private and parochial schools exist and have existed for those who can afford them and wish to take advantage of them. Is “paying double” for education fair? In the big picture it is as it is raising the bar for all and making society all that much better. Childless people pay property taxes to support education. Hardly fair for them but it is fair for society.
Studies have shown the cost to the government of high-school dropouts. It is high. The unemployment rate is around 8.5% nationwide. For college graduates, it is around 5.4%. For high-school dropouts, it is 14.9%. For minorities, the numbers are far worse. Refer to this chart showing 2010 numbers but you get the idea:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
I do not have problems with public education other than it could be improved. Private education is usually exemplary (prep schools, academies). Home schooling concerns me due to the apparent lack of socialization skills and exposure to other cultures. I am from the school of thought that a traditional liberal education is needed generally and specific specializations may be added later. Education that is rather cloistered such as often is the case with religious curriculum and home schooling, in my opinion, does a disservice to the child. A broad-based general education is needed and restricting it either by religious tenets or simply isolation (home schooling) hinders social development. Social development is a critical factor in raising children who are aware of the world and who can successfully interact with others.
If you want to send your kids to private or parochial schools, then you should pay that yourself, out of your own pocket, as has been done in the past. Pulling funds out of public education just so you can send your Johnny and Susie to elite institutions is not fair to others. If you do not want government involved in education, then do not ask for government tax credits to accomplish your non-government goals.
“Government tax credits” are letting people use their own money in accordance with their own freedom of choice. “Pulling funds out of public education” by tax credits means keeping one’s own money so he is not forced to be subjected to the government “leveler”. Lower taxes are not a “cost” to government, which it is not entitled to it, let alone entitled to hold people down with a “leveler”. It is not “unfair to others” to be the best you can be, including helping your children. State suppression of that is horrible, not matter what the degree of education suppressed.
Education is too important to be controlled by government, and no one who wants to keep people down to a lowest common denominator in education is concerned about the quality of education; that is morally reprehensible collectivism.
There is no such thing as “Hardly fair for them (people kept down) but it is fair for society”. “Society” is an abstraction meaning a collection of individuals, not a thing. One can only be just or unjust towards individuals. Collectivism is inherently unjust to the individual. Forcing people to sacrifice “for the greater good of society” is an inherently collectivist, anti-American criterion out of the European counter-Enlightenment.
The “class system” of Britain and elsewhere in Europe was demolished here by American individualism right from the beginning (except the slave plantations in the south, which were eliminated later), not collectivism and statism. With no class system nothing held anyone back from success, and many poor, including immigrants, did spectacularly well.
The imposition of state control over education in the 19th century was not to solve a problem of lack of education, which was routinely being provided by mostly private, local education. The intent of the movement was control over children to mold them into what an elite wanted them to be as ‘good citizens’. It started as a battle for control between Catholics and Unitarians in New England in the early 1800s and was ultimately imposed under the influence of Prussian statism as a ‘model’ for education.
Separation of church and state is inherent in this debate because government control over education contradicts freedom of thought and conscience for the individual, which is why freedom of religion and separation of church and state should be more broadly formulated as separation of government coercion from ideas, including education. Anything else is statist.
Clearly we disagree on this point. For me, I believe there is a purpose for government when it comes to education (and other aspects). I look at the GI Bill, the State-run University system, Head-Start, Junior Colleges, Vocational-Technical Institutes, and other state-sponsored schools. I know many people who benefited from these programs who otherwise never would have been able to afford a good education and would have been a part of an American version of the British class system that no doubt would have developed had we not had public education. So, to that extent, I do not find “collectivism” all that “morally reprehensible.”
To me, you seem rather elitist on this point. I am from the school of thought that “a rising tide lifts all ships.” The pennies we pay for this public education is well worth it. No doubt, my ancestors, certainly all Universalists, Unitarians, and Congregationalists, would have supported the public education efforts of the time in stark contrast to the Catholic approach of their private schools. Although, as you mentioned, the dislike for the Catholics by my ancestors certainly prompted a push for public education.
In your last statement about freedom of thought and conscience by the individual. I could not imagine anything more opposite to that concept than a parochial school, excepting perhaps the Jesuits who at least didn’t beat you if you wrote with your left-hand. I am strong believer in a liberal education where everything is taught, the good, the bad, and the ugly. No topic is off-limits. Traditional religious educations, while generally very good on the subjects they do teach, seem to be ideologically constrained. I certainly can cite many examples of older friends and their horror stories of a religion-based education system. And, today, Creationism as science? I mean, really? You want more of these people running loose?
You also spoke of my public education being counter-Enlightenment? What could possibly be more counter-Enlightenment than religious education? The individualism (and implied free-thinking) of which you speak is only possible through a liberal education. When I speak with the ultra-religious crowd of today, they think our founding fathers sat with Christ at the last supper. If they really would study the Age of Enlightenment, I suspect they would be shocked. So much for the openness and worldview espoused by a religious education.
No, I believe I will take the moderate view on this. We need public education and yes it is there to mold individuals but only in the sense to teach them how to learn more, and in fact there is more to learn. It provides them with basic tools and the understanding they can accomplish anything. I contrast this with a religious education that molds them into a strict, follow-the-dogma-or-else path. I suspect public education is seen as a threat to traditional religious education. As far as non-religious private education such as academies and private schools, I am all for them. Who is going to pay for them is another issue where we will disagree.
School choice options are now a big part of the British educational system.. Educational choice and diversity were part of the post-welfare society and initiated by the famous liberal, TONY BLAIR.
Suggest you improve your education at http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335202888.pdf
I was referring to the old British class system where the working class got little, if any, education. That kept the working class “in its place.” Yes, certainly times have changed in the UK for the better. I recall a British woman with whom I worked, a generation older than me, telling me of how, based upon tests early in school, students would be sent to the “working track” classes or to the “university bound” classes. I cannot recall the terms used for this but she said it was tough to get out of a certain “class” and raise oneself up. That has changed, of course.
Even though the Queen is the head of the Church of England, the UK is not nearly as nuts as we are here about religion. To me, they have a much more pragmatic approach reminding me of the “sensible New Englander” we used to have before Jerry Falwell waddled onto the scene.
Your argument melts fast under the weight of actual experience with voucher and choice programs, like privately run charter schools. Low income minorities are huge boosters of them; and have made sure Union driven legislatures in Wisconsin & Ohio didn’t end them in the middle of the night.
Time for you to read up on the extent of the Wisconsin school choice program at http://www.schoolchoicewi.org/administrators/index.cfm.The list of approved schools is at their Dept. of Education..and plenty are religious schools.
The idea is to have good quality public schools, properly staffed and properly funded. Clearly, any inner-city school, poorly managed and poorly funded will suffer. An alternative are the charter schools. What should be learned from this lesson is that the kids and the parents who succeed in these schools are not the problem. Certainly, there are children and parents who are completely dysfunctional, but for those who are willing to do the work and educate their kids, they ought to have the best public schools going. We used to have that.
The lesson I see from this example is that we need to better run the public schools. As far as religious schools go, I stand by my disdain for some of the religious claptrap taught in some of these schools. I do not want my tax dollars spent teaching Creationism and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Ridiculous.
All great questions, I’m not sure anyone in government will want to answer, at least until they’ve convinced us all that this is a great idea. Here’s my opinion on what will happen.
1. No, those school who can’t compete will simply be shut down.
2. They should be but likely won’t. After all if they did they’d be just carbon copies of the public schools we currently have.
3. I doubt that very much.
This proposal is a feel good move for parents who believe that the solution to our educational problems lies in sending their children to private/private religious schools. That may have some merit for some children but as a whole/society it’s little more than a narrow minded approach that will pretty much destroy public education altogether. Essentially it will cause the parents who are concerned the most (As well as those who want to pretend to care) about what’s going on in public schools (And well they should be relating to behavior and work ethic of the general student population) to move their children and state revenues to support their children’s education into the hands of Private schools (Who are usually attempting to run on a profit margin/Friends of conservatives) or Private Religious schools (Also friends of conservatives). Leaving behind public schools housing students who’s parents either aren’t concerned about education or for that matter the general welfare of their children to begin with. Guess how these kids do in school? Guess where these kids will be left to go to school? Guess how long any such public school will exist?
The solution to good schools, good students, and good results is good parents. What does that cost? Nothing. What risk is involved in that ? Nothing. Once all the public schools have finally been shut down guess what that will mean? The same kids who don’t care about education now because their parents don’t care will be attending those Private and Religious schools that you thought were going to protect them. Results, their performance will go down just like and to the same level that we see now in public schools.
Additionally and here’s the real kicker that no one ever talks about. All your tax dollars that once went to supporting local public schools will be going into the hands of someone who’s in the end looking to make a profit off your children’s education. Hmm…so now we can see why the GOP is so hyped up on this idea huh? Those educational tax dollars are just about the last major revenue stream left in America that they haven’t been able to find a way to put into the hands and pockets of those who put them in office.
“It’s all about the children.” Yah, right! If anyone believes that then I’ve got a bridge to sell ya.
Excellent and well thought out comment. Just a shame “we the People” don’t have any lobbyists fighting for our side. surprising -Yeah right:)
Actually, I predict the Maine Education Association (teacher’s union) will belly up to the negotiations table to counter Bowen’s point of view. Don’t worry…
I can see them calling out sick and protesting this, I hope that is not what you call bellying up…. The union is the reason our kids education is as bad as it is.
indeed, ALL public unions need to be busted and broken up. And with the revolution that is afoot in this country right now, it will not be long before this goal is accomplished.
I agree with you. I’m in Montgomery County (MC) in Maryland, just outside of DC. This is one of the wealthiest per capita areas of the country. The public schools here are just great. I attribute this to parental involvement and a willingness of the citizenry to pay the price for good schools. A PTA meeting here is a full-house. Parents are involved with their kids and their kids’ education. The parents are demanding and insist on quality. This costs some money, understood, but the parents know a great education is critical for their children’s success. I might add the parents themselves are well-educated. 91% have completed high school. 78% have some college. 56% have 4-year degrees. 30% have advanced degrees. The median household income is $92,213.
Now, I am not mentioning this to sell anyone on MC. My point is that none of any of this would be possible if it were not for great schools, great education, and a strong commitment by parents to do what is best for their children.
The question is how does Maine attain great schools? I doubt the question can be resolved by comparing private vs. public vs. religious schools. Unless you get the parents on-board and involved and aware of the importance of all this, plus properly fund teacher payrolls and hire the best teachers, I just see more of the same. Don’t get me wrong, there are great private schools up there but Maine taxpayers will be paying a ton of money per student for the kids to attend the various prep schools with the great reputations. If you spend the funds now for the great teachers, tutors, and counselors, it is going to take a couple of generations to create parents who understand the importance of education and who are willing to do something about it.
4th highest taxed State in the Union. State income tax, County tax, City tax, non-resident tax. They tax taxes I think. Also a lot of federal dollars in this State.
Not sure where you got your numbers but Maine is listed as #9 of 10 in the most taxed State per capita with PA being the worst. Maryland is not mentioned.
http://247wallst.com/2011/07/21/108558/2/
Of course, in this slide show from Forbes (probably a more reliable source), Maryland is listed as #10 with a bunch of New England States with higher taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/most-taxed-states-lifestyle-income-tax-burden_slide.html
But, I think you really have to ask yourself what you get for your tax dollars. We do pay a State income tax (as does Maine). We do not pay excise tax on our cars every year. In fact, I simply mail in the registration fee and I get a license-plate sticker good for two-years. Cars are inspected once when the car is purchased. You almost never see a junker on the road due to the income level here (or, for that matter, a dirty car). We do have emissions testing. That is $14 every two-years and takes 10 minutes to do. No county income tax that I know of. No city income tax. There is a property tax on your home every year. Can’t say about non-residents as I am a resident. VA has/had a city car tax and a county tax (Fairfax). Yes, a lot of Federal dollars here. It kind of goes hand-in-hand. You need to have the education levels to support the Feds and that in turn drives the push for education in the suburbs.
I can say that for what I get for my taxes, I think it is a fair price. The schools, parks, recreation facilities, roads, and State University, the Montgomery County Colleges — all are very good. For example, the County recently built the Strathmore Concert Hall. This is a world-class concert hall, right on the Metro (subway) system. The place does very well and I have enjoyed many shows there. For the people who like sports there are arenas and stadiums and all that. There is even a huge soccer complex that hosts Olympic practices.
And, admittedly, the place is 51% Democrats, 28% Republicans, and 21% Independent. It is very socially liberal. Not a lot of obvious religious conservatism and Maryland is finally pushing for same-sex marriage. It currently recognizes SSM from other states. Nearby DC has had SSM for some time now.
Again, I am not here to push one place over another. Far from it. I happen to be here due to my work. I plan to retire to the family farm in Maine at some point. I was in Maine for the entire month of October and really enjoyed myself but quite honestly, I found prices high there for many things.
Back in 2008, my elderly mother suffered a stroke. She has a live-in caregiver at her home and is doing as well as can be expected. Of course, because of her condition, there are many elderly supplies that need to be purchased. This sounds ridiculous but we purchase many, many items online at Amazon.com and at CVS.com and have them shipped to Mom’s home. The prices are dramatically lower. I would much rather give my business to local businesses in Maine, but the prices, service, and delivery are sub-par. Ordering online is faster, less costly (no gasoline & better prices), more reliable (items are in stock), and better selection. That is a sad state of affairs.
So, to sum it up, you do the best you can where you are, I suppose. No matter where you are, you pay, one way or the other.
I wish you would stop being so critical of our “beloved” Governor Paul Richard LePage. He is THE MAN. Yep the man with the plan. He started off being the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS Governor and now that he has catapulted Maine into first place as the State with the most JOBS LOST per capita in the entire Country he is now fixin’ to fix our educational system. He’s gonna be gittin’ dem kids learnin’. In no time they will be readin’ and writin’ gittin prepared for all those great jobs that Maine employers can’t seem to fill. Them kids will be fishin’ and choppin’ and farmin’ like never before in the history of Maine. Yes siree Paul Richard LePage won’t rest until he has us right up there at the top of the list right ahead of Mississippi.
Would you rather us go where Baldacci was taking Maine to being the USA’s version of Cuba. He sure was implementing the policies that were coming from his buddies Fidel and Chavez (got oil from Hugo to help those Welfare Bums so they can’t freeze) after he got back from meeting with them both. I think I will stick with LePage and Republicans turning this state around for the better. It’s alot better than what the Democrats have been giving us.
Hey DC how’s it going. Good I hope. Yeah that was a terrible thing when Baldacci got the discounted oil from Hugo wasn’t it. I mean really, not letting old people and sick people and disabled people freeze to death is terrible isn’t it? I bet you will never see Paul Richard LePage doing something like that to save the State of Maine money and keep people from freezing to death. No siree if the oil doesn’t come from those nice people in Saudi Arabia, you know the same place that the guys that hijacked our airliners and ran them into buildings and killed over 3000 of our people came from, then let those old s.o.b’s freeze to death right? That will teach them a lesson won’t it? I know Paul Richard LePage is your hero. What a guy.
Yawn. Did either Emily Cain, Justin Alfond, Cynthia Dill, John Martin, Peggy Rotundo write those talking points for you.
Hey again DC. I don’t blame you for yawning. It must be getting pretty tiring trying to shill for Maine’s Loser in Chief Paul Richard LePage. As far as needing someone to write things for me no way. Unlike you with your skills in cutting and pasting I actually come up with what I post all by myself. Hey did I tell you that it was 82 here today. I was laying under the umbrella at the beach and I was wondering how you were doing. Hey did I tell you that one day last week I had to go to Volusia County to take care of a little business. As a matter of fact I was in Ormond Beach I’m sure you have heard of it haven’t you? That’s where your hero LePage has his residence. Funny how the Governor of Maine has a house in Florida but doesn’t own one in Maine isn’t it? Course if he didn’t claim to be a Florida resident he probably would have had to pay a lot more to send his kids to college here, that in State rate is a lot lower you know. Gosh I know how concerned LePage is about voter fraud and welfare fraud and all. Do you think saying you live someplace you really don’t to get a lower tuition rate for your kids’ education could be considered “tuition fraud”?
Be careful with all that Shock and Awhhh,
You just might knock Ole, Darkcat out of the —–Twilight Zone!
Yeah let’s continue Maine heading into the Abyss with these stupid foolish ideas that don’t work. How is that school consolidation working for you. How do you like Maine being ranked 27th in the country for its educational system. The garbage bin of junk that Baldacci, Sue Gendron, Angus King , Teacher’s Union, MPA, Liberal Democrats (Mr. Mccabe, Justin “Mr. Inheritor” Alfond) have been selling us for 40 years. Our schools are in need of an overhaul. We need to teach kids reading, writing, math, science, trade skills, life skills etc.. Which wasn’t done with Democrats we need the best teachers doing their jobs. Not being Liberal Activists which they have been known to do. Teaching kids Liberal Maine Democrat Propaganda. Such as Gay Marriage, Crossdressing , Transgendered issues, teaching our kids at a young age that Teen Pregnancy is good (Portland schools have been doing this for years). We need real reforms that the Governor and Steve Bowen are putting through if it works for 17 states. This policy comes from Michigan which is very liberal and it works their it can work in this Socialist Welfare Haven. Give us choice if they want to repeal it like they are threatenting to do. Then we should get a petition eliminating the 2 road blocks to fixing education and school sports in Maine . The Maine Teacher’s Union and the MPA.
Keep it up! I love it!
Yeah let’s continue the same failed one size fits all policy that hasn’t worked for the last 40 years. A policy that now has us ranked 27th in the country after Liberals in Augusta told us we were at top of the rankings LOL. A policy that has 75% of our schools failing in some form, a policy where test scores are pathetic kids doing worse in math, science, reading etc.. How has the school consolidation that was supposed to solve everything working for you. It’s so good more than half the school districts want nothing to do with it and those who did consolidate are pulling out. With towns like Starks in district here in Madison have pulled out with the rest including Madison wanting possibly out. You have towns that are supposed to be the lead towns in the RSU’s like Wiscasset getting the shortend of the stick. Even though they are paying the most they are losing kids at an alarming rate at their high school. We got sold a bill of goods from folks like Sue Gendron, Baldacci, Angus King and the rest of the liberals with their dumb goofy ideas that has been nothing more than large tax and spending increases on stupidity. I am glad LePage and Bowen are giving us change at least it gives us more options. Instead of contiuning the same failed agenda that clueless idiots such as Jeff Mccabe , Justin Alfond, Chris Galgay want us to keep on going with.
YAWN!!!!!
You nailed it! Thanks for taking the time.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit for what one does well and other people want. There is a lot wrong with the bloated forced spending going down the rat hole of so-called “non-profit” government schools and coercive unions with a government-enforced monopoly.
The state mandates you have an education now. What is to stop them from madating children whether public, private, religious or home schooled be mandated to be taugh anything.
Why should funding remain constant (or increasing) for failing schools with fewer students? The money is coming from the taxpayers, not an intrinsic entitlement from the sky for the unions. Parents or anyone else paying taxes into the failing public school system should have the right to support the education of their choice instead, with a full tax credit for the amount they pay for education. Government should not be allowed to control thought in the form of controlling education.
Funding Religious schools with tax dollars has been proven Unconstitutional and is forbidden.
A shift away from our traditional Secular values will only lead to more fruitless expenses.
Nothing new here. The Republican’s have been trying to privatize education for years, because it’s a potential money maker. They tried (and failed thankfully) to do the same thing with Social Security when they had Bush in the White House. This is not going to happen.
Yes, let’s leave things the way they are…..the public school systems are doing a bang up job…..
Fix the parenting and public schools will improve greatly
AMEN!
YES! The problem in schools IS NOT THE TEACHERS!! It’s the lack of parenting!
Agreed…..
Yeah especially the children in group homes where there are no parents.
You can’t fix this generation of parents, but if you increase the quality of education to the generation in school now we can.
No have the Maine Democrat Party, Maine Teacher’s Union and The Maine Principals Association stay out of the way on everything to do with schools period. While also getting the Liberal Activism that goes on in our schools which has been going on for more than 20 years now. We want our kids learning the subjects Math, Reading , Writing , Science, The Arts, Trade Skills, Life Skills. Not the propaganda that comes from the Teacher’s Union , The MPA, and THE Maine Democrat Party. Until that foolishness is done away with our schools will falter. Now we will have a choice soon. If these public schools are so great the head of the teacher’s union Mr. Galgay will stop crying, stop using scare tactics, and stop making threats of People’s Veto’s like he did last night on the news.
And these misguided plans will help how?
thank you Paul. now you may close all schools and then have money to give to the people that fund people as your sad self:)
thank you Paul. now you may close all schools and then have money to
give to the people that fund people as your sad self:)
If they privatized social security, at least there would be some assets in the system. Right now there’s a “lockbox” filled with IOUs from the government to…itself!
And whose fault is that? Borrowing our money to pay whom?
Roads, welfare, wars, national parks, medicaid whatever. There really was nothing else to do with the money but buy government bonds. What else could they invest in? Canada? The problem is structural: our government can’t properly invest surplus funds, only spend them. They should NEVER have been allowed to take in a surplus…they’ll only p@*s it away!
well, it’s the progressive’s fault who set up the unsustainable system in the first place. Even if there were money in the trust instead of IOUs, the dollars coming in at this point are greater than the dollars going out. It’s a failed system, as are all centrally planned economic programs that are predicated upon a fiat curency derived from debt.
Actually, the increase in SS tax that would supply the “trust fund” occurred in 1983 under the Reagan administration. Until then it was pay-as-you-go. Very clever, actually. Because it was packaged as “savings”, the administration could claim it wasn’t a tax increase. All the proceeds, of course, funded the huge defense spending increase.
I think demographic changes were happening in the 80’s as the “Greatest Generation” began to retire in large numbers, (the first real test of the system) and the Social Security system had to be revamped including the “pay as you go” system.
True, that was the impetus, but the change itself went above and beyond the increases that were necessary, under the guise of “we’ll save that extra for future baby boomers”. Of course, it was “saved” by lending it to another part of the government, which will now have to raise taxes or cut other programs to pay it back. So we have a pay as you go program regardless, but the government stole a surplus from working people for the past 30 years.
If Bushy had privatized SS when he wanted to the money would have been invested in the market. Remember all his talking points about the market being unstoppable, and capable of generating far more returns.
Well the following market crash and resulting great recession would have devastated those investments, retirees would have been eating dog food or jumping of buildings like ripe fruit.
I bet you wisely put all your money in gold didn’t you.
Public education is an an dated, outmoded way to educate our children. It’s time we get progressive, let parents have the choice where, when and how they want their children to be educated. What are you afraid of?
They do that in Europe and it works quite nicely. Of course they also have single payer/universal healthcare, pay higher taxes and of course are all Socialists!! ;)
Personally I’m opposed to state funding of private schools period. I don’t think that spreading the dollars any thinner will correct the core problem which I see as lack of interest on the part of the parents. Kids learn what they’re taught, if their parents don’t value education then the children will learn it’s not important.
with the exception of Germany, Europe is also flat broke and swimming in unsustainable debt that their grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying off…that sure would be a nice act to follow!
Er, aren’t we (the USA) also flat broke and swimming in unsustainable debt that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying off?
Yes we are.
Stop forcing everyone to support government schools through taxes so they can’t afford anything else and we won’t need “state funding” of private school alternatives.
“Interest” by parents has no influence over what is done to their children in a government monopoly on schools.
Well said.
I’m afraid of turning a huge part of our state and federal budget, and an enormously important function of our government, over to a group suits looking to make a quick buck. I find it most interesting that it’s always people who claim to be conservative that are first in line to cash in on the public’s wallet.
Now don’t you worry your lil head one bit Bangorian. Paul Richard LePage has got this situation well in hand. He has even got the perfect person all picked out to run all the private schools here in Maine. Jock McKernan
What is wrong giving people choice where to go to get an education. I also like open enrollment idea it may boost enrollment in smaller districts that are struggling. But to continue the failed one size fits all policies which includes local control that Democrats have been claiming has been successful when it has been not we need change. You have towns across Maine including in the district I live in (Madison SAD 59) pulling out looking for a new start trying to find the best place to send their kids. Having open enrollment especially at the middle/jr high and high school levels would be a nice start to solving these problems. I think they should do something about the Sports Programs as well. Where costs are getting out of control , transportation costs & fuel costs very high (diesel near $5.00 in places) something needs to be done about bringing down these costs as well. Consolidation in that area should take place. We need to look at these changes positively because the Democrats ideas hasn’t worked with the Teacher’s Union , the MPA always fighting any changes as well.
This is not about choice. It’s about making money.
No it’s about fixing an awful public education system that has been broke for decades with Democrats ignoring the problem while proclaiming everything is all roses. Well we are 27th in the country and dropping. We need an overhaul a new system that allows choices, open enrollments to schools in our local areas to give us a look at sending our kids to better schools. Continuing down the same failed path hoping you can can get a better result won’t work.
Stop taxing people to pay for your monopoly and you won’t have to worry about “cashing in on the public’s wallet”. Telling people what to think in education and forcing everyone to pay for it is not a proper government function.
The people who “claim to be conservatives” are trying to get their own money back so they afford to get around the government system. Controlling thought in education is not an “enormously important function of government”, quite the contrary.
I for one am afraid for the parents and children that can’t afford to go to the best schools due to transportation or other as yet unforeseen issues. This is only going to increase the gap between those that have and those that have not.
Republicans have done far too little to “privatize” education and a lot more. “Privatization” means freedom of choice for individuals as opposed to the progressively increasing imposition of government social controls. “Profit” earned by people providing others with what they want is not evil. The enormous government-forced payments into the bloated bureaucracy and corrupt union tenure system for the failing educational system in the name of “non-profit” is.
Privatise profits—Socialise Losses!
It’s the Republican Way!
Give Taxpayer Money Vouchers to their cronies,
Give the Landfills to the Taxpayers!
I can’t wait for 2014; Beat the Bully!
Taught for 40 years, including 12 years in Maine before retiring in June, largely because of the ongoing administrative stupidity that permeates the system.The available solutions are viable and include respect for vocational students, the tracking of careers, interests, and academic paths that award credit for mastered knowledge. Teachers who advocate for these and other strategies that have proven successful in the past are usually ignored and castigated for their thoughts. Religious schools are being projected as an alternative path because they’re the only ones open to flexibility and sound reasoning. This doesn’t have to be. Experienced teachers and newly certified teachers are leaving the profession in droves, due to the stagnation that all are forced to endure. The students, of course are always the losers. Was told by my building principal and the English Department Chair that a senior student doing well in my Special Education English class and who was a successful lobster fisherman, earning $30,000 a year was in fact a “failure” because he would surely need assistance when completing his fishing license. With this type of attitude can success be viable? Regardless of what you and your sons and daughters are told, if they don’t follow of the only path revered by those in charge they are considered failures and unsuccessful. Only the rising of parents who are willing to appoint Board Educations willing to restructure a slanted foundation can forge a new path. Don’t really know if this is feasible, but without a new foundation, the structure of the current system will remain flawed. Ken
Very well stated…..thanks for sharing your insight and experience……
It was well stated and I agree, but you know, just once I’d like to read a headline that didn’t have the words “LePage” and “Controversial” in the same sentence. He’s like a little ankle biting dog. Coming at you from all sides.
It’s an interesting style for a public CEO; and it seems to work with namby-pamby liberal legislators who’ll do anything to avoid resolving a conflict. Messy to watch; but some of the final products are quite acceptable.
You’re very welcome. Hope the ideas get some thoughts rolling. Ken
It is rather comical to see “religious” in the same sentence with “flexibility” and “sound reasoning”. An informative letter, nonetheless.
It’s rather comical to read comments from folks who think the only two religions in the world are christianity and islam. There are many religions out there that utilize sound reasoning and allow flexibility. It’s sad that you are such a sheltered American, but then again, most of us are.
Are you presuming that I think there are only two religions in the world? And that I’m sheltered? Hardly.
No, I’ve examined many religions and still come away with a dislike for what so-called “faith” does to rational thinking…whether it’s the warm and fuzzy believers or the burn-in-hell crowd. A certain disconnect from reality happens, which I find disturbing…especially when it enters the political realm.
I happen to be one who believes true faith and reason do not clash as you seem to believe. In fact I believe that faith enlightens reason. That’s why I am not afraid to challenge through reasoning any idea I don’t agree with. On the other hand I don’t appreciate being ridiculed by some posters for having reasoned arguments simply because I happen to be Christian. Let me make one thing clear: I don’t intend to leave my religion or my conscience behind when I enter the voting booth. I believe all citizens should do the same because, if they don’t, then the direction of our society and our nation will be largely determined by non-believers who want believers not to vote according to their own personal conscience.
I’ll ask you what I wrote to another poster earlier…how would you feel about your tax money supporting an Islamic school? Does their “faith” enlighten reason from your point of view?
Thank you for your response. To tell you the truth, if the school does not advocate the overthrow of the government or does not attempt to incite public disorder, I don’t have a problem with parents wanting to send their children to a muslim school just as long as the basic learning objectives I mentioned earlier are fulfilled.
On the contrary, it is sad that the government/union monopoly has been allowed to create such a failed educational system that even schools supporting some form of religion are more reasonable in comparison.
Still, I have a big problem with tax money supporting schools that teach as truth what many of us consider to be nothing more than fairy tales. Fix the public system instead of stepping around it.
somainecoast in reply to msscv: “Still, I have a big problem with tax money supporting schools that teach as truth what many of us consider to be nothing more than fairy tales. Fix the public system instead of stepping around it.”
You can’t fix statism, it has to go. Religious people have the same problem being forced to support and subject their children to what they regard as public school indoctrination (concerning religion and a lot more) that you justifiably have in not wanting to pay to spread their views as ‘truth’. You don’t have freedom of thought and freedom of speech when you are forced by government to support and subject your children to ideas you find dangerous, false, or abhorrent.
As long as government is controlling education the inherent problem of freedom of speech, and thought cannot be avoided. As long as government, at any level, is funding education, it also has the responsibility to control how the limited money is spent. That is a contradiction inherent in government control of education.
The best approach to phasing it out cannot be to tax people whose views you reject and don’t want taught so they are forced to use schools you approve of, and is not government spending on ‘vouchers’ redistributing tax money, but tax credits that allow individuals to support anyone’s education before the government gets hold of their money at all.
[Edit for DuncanDwyer below: Any of us could give examples of ideas that we regard as “false, destructive or abhorrent” and explain why, but that is besides the point in regard to political freedom. Truth is determined objectively by each individual assessing the reasons for it, not by government or collectively — there are no collective minds, only the minds of individuals. What is true must be accepted by each individual who understands the reasons for it. But people may disagree on what is true based on their own understanding or mistakes, and have a right to hold their own views, right or wrong, and not be forced to support those ideas they reject or despise. Political freedom requires acknowledging this political right regardless of whether or not any of us agrees with someone else’s particular views or rejects them as unreasonable or are convinced that we can show that they are objectively true or false. Freedom of thought is, in this context, a political concept that pertains to the individual’s choice, not the content of his ideas; no one (or the government) has a right to force another’s mind. As for where anyone should want to send his children to school for an education for what he has decided is true taught by the best methods, as opposed to indoctrination, is something only he can decide for himself — just as only he can decide what he believes is true and why — not anyone else and not the state. This isn’t subjectivist “true for me and true for you” — ideas are objectively true or false — but only each individual mind can determine for himself what that is. If you decide by the wrong methods then you are in trouble, but it’s your responsibility to do the best you can; government has no proper role in forcing you what to think.]
[As for Craftsman1962 below: 1. Obviously I am not “slammning beliefs down his throat” by telling him he can’t control what others are taught to think through a government monopoly on schools. 2. Freedom of thought is much broader than a side show of competing religions. Freedom of though is possible only in a secular nation, not theocracy. Secular does not mean government control.]
I definitely wouldn’t want to send my kids to a school that teaches them ideas that are dangerous and false, let alone ones that are abhorrent! Can you give me some examples of each of these?
What I get out of that is that religious parents are being forced to use their tax dollars to pay to send kids to public schools that do not teach their views. Birth control, sex ed, and even the Big Bang are all things that the more conservative religious parents feel are abhorrent, dangerous, and false based on their beliefs. My beliefs are a little more liberal in that regard, but I do understand the argument.
Ohhhh, I get it now. You see, I thought that when you said “dangerous, false, and abhorrent,” that you meant there were things going on in the schools that were actually dangerous, or perhaps even false. I’ll admit that I was also a little worried that some of the teachings might have been abhorrent. It seems what you REALLY meant was “distasteful to those who disagree with logic, contradictory to archaic notions of the world that belong in mythology texts rather than science books, and offensive to close-minded bigots.”
Taking all of that into consideration, it seems to me that we ought *not* tailor out children’s education on the pathologies of a handful of parents, but instead teach them what we know of the truth, math, literature, writing, the arts, and science (which, like it or not, includes biology and human anatomy).
Look….America is a SECULAR country. ALL religions are equal here. We know your kind would like to be able to slam your belief’s down the rest of the countrys throat…but we will never let you do that.
Here’s the problem with your view. You are the one who wants to impose secular religion (or philosophy) on everyone else by refusing to permit school choice. The use of vouchers makes it possible for everyone to educate their children in the school of their choice, whether public, private, secular or otherwise. Don’t forget, until the mid 19th century when the government began to mandate education for children, there were no public schools.
If you don’t support religious education schools, t hen don’t send your children. This would open choices for all families, and no just those that can afford to pay tuition. Religious families pay taxes too, and deserve to be recognized as an option AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACCREDITED! Manu are not, and those schools should not be a public option.
I don’t support religious education schools, and I shouldn’t be forced to send my tax dollars to them, plain and simple. If you can’t afford to send your children to a school that specifically teaches your slanted view on life, then they shouldn’t go there. That is why we have public schools, so that people of all backgrounds can send their children to an institution that is neutral when it comes to religion and personal politics. Not to mention all of the kids that wouldn’t be allowed to join these religious schools, based on the beliefs of their parents. Separation of church and state should not be sacrificed for the sake of a few religious schools.
Having attended one of those pricey private catholic schools, I’ll tell you that you don’t have to share religious beliefs of the school you’re attending. Not only were there other christian faith kids at school, there were plenty of Jewish families who sent their kids, just because it was the best education available. Your comment, “If you can’t afford to send your children to a school that
specifically teaches your slanted view on life, then they shouldn’t go
there. ” is pretty funny. You sound quite bitter, and I hope you manage to find some peace in your life. You’re a great public school advocate, that’s why my kids are in private school too.
How long has it been since you have been in a public school? Do you really think they are “neutral when it comes to religion and personal politics”? Get your head out of the sand. They are far from “neutral”. And, what about my tax dollars? I am forced to support these humanistic, liberal, and ungodly schools with my tax dollars. This is not a “separation of church and state” matter, but a question of allowing tax paying Americans to educate their children in the school of their choice – even if it is religious! Let’s turn it around. What if the only public funded education was religious? Would you pay for your child to go to a non-religious school or would you want your government to support your choice?
Although it has been a little over 10 years since I was in a public school, I am a parent. Some teachers may not always be neutral when it comes to religion and personal politics, but it is part of their job to be none the less. I can only speak for the teachers I had, and those for my children. You can’t really turn it around, because the government does support your choice to send your children to a private religious school, out of your own pocket. It is more like you are saying you want to send your children to a school that discriminates and have the state pay for it too. Funny how some of you do not seem to understand my argument. I do not believe any school that denies or expells a child, based on the beliefs of the parents, should receive public funds.
You’re saying essentially that all state funding should go to public
schools. Why so? Yes, you might prefer public schools but not all people
prefer them. So why can’t they have their choice as well when it can be
provided for through a voucher system. Don’t forget, the first schools
in this country were not public. In fact according to the web link below “only until the end of the 19th century did governments begin to compel children to attend school.”
http://www.privateschoolreview.com/articles/237
No, what I’m saying is that all state funding should go to schools that will accept any child. I actually went to a private school for a few years as a child, and I did receive a quality education. My only problem would be with religious schools. Religious schools are notorious for not accepting or expelling students, based on the beliefs of their parents. It would be one thing, not to admit a student based on academics and behavior, but is another to discriminate. These religious schools can pick and choose, who they want to enter their classrooms, as much as it pleases them, but it shouldn’t be at the tax payer’s expense.
You don’t have to support “religious” schools, you have to pay taxes that provide education to our children. The same as you do right now, the same as I do.. what do you care where the child is being educated as long as they are being educated!!! This whole blog has turned into and issue about religious schools when that is not what it is ALL about. Charter schools are “PUBLIC” schools as well that choose to excel or choose to specialize! But I know it is more fun to jump on the religious band to serve as some kind of outlet to vent you’re issues.
As I said before, my issue with religious schools is in regard to admittance. I do not deny that they may offer a quality education in many subjects. If people feel their child needs an education from a school that teaches the values of a particular religion, then more power to them. Public dollars shouldn’t go towards it, and if people cannot afford the luxury of a private school, we have quality public schools that do exist. Maybe those that can afford private religious schools, should qualify for a tax exemption, based on not having their children in a public school system. I actually have no issue with Charter schools. I have never read any information about Charter schools denying or expelling a student, based on the beliefs of the parents.
I am not responsible for what this ‘blog’ has turned into..lol. I get notices to my comment replies, on my phone, so I have no idea what it has turned into after I have read the article and posted my first comment. Last I checked, the reason for having comments after an article, was for people to post their personal opinion, including if they have an “issue” with what the article discusses.
Ok, then I take it you would have no problem with your tax money supporting an accredited school that teaches Islam. Just making sure you are consistent with your views on this.
I not only like your reply, but LOVE it. I would absolutely support a family that selected a state accredited school whose religious education centered around the koran. That’s the whole point. If I don’t personally agree, then I simply choose to not use it, but would not prevent others from their choices.
Well, heck, why stop there? If we can have Christian prayer in schools over the PA system, then how about installing a minaret for the “call to prayers” five times per day and feet washing stations needed before one prays?
You haven’t lived until you have had to listen to that atonal chant five times a day. I used to work in Iran under the Shah and that would get real old real quick. It is so off-key to Western ears. It’s like listening to auditions for “America’s Got Talent” held in the Deep South.
Of course, listening to those funeral dirges yammering on about suffering on the cross in the Catholic churches is right down there on the music choice list.
Comment originally posted here was intended elsewhere.
What you are trying to do is prevent parents from determining what their children ought to learn. Providing children learn the basics of reading, writing, spelling, math, and civics, it’s not up to the state to determine what else they should be learning. When the state unnecessarily intrudes in family life, it becomes a tool of repression. That’s one very good reason why the use vouchers is so important.
Parents aren’t always the best judges of what is best for their kids. Usually, yes. But not always.
That’s right, parents aren’t always the best judges, but neither is the state. The state’s main interest is to see that children learn the basics I’ve outlined. Whatever else parents want their children to learn is protected by the first amendment rights of free speech, assembly, and religious liberty. The decades of systematic indoctrination by the old Soviet Empire left its citizens without hope and the ability to make decisions for themselves and their families. This led to widespread drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention the lack of incentives to make a better life for themselves and their children. As a result, this society collapsed and much suffering continued for a long time.
Kind of stretch comparing the Soviet system to ours, I think. Besides, to me the word “indoctrination” in our society more closely mirrors religious teaching.
Indoctrination is social engineering done by the government at the public’s expense. Thomas Jefferson had very strong words against this practice. In the 235-year span since the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the 1st Amendment, when did any religion successfully usurp the government? Your fears are unfounded. Religion has served a vital role of making this one of the greatest nations on earth. Regrettably with a growing rejection of it in the past 40 years our nation has gone on the decline.
I know you’d like “indoctrination” to be just about the government, but that’s not the case. Look it up. It can refer to any number of things, including religious dogma.
All I can say to you is this: know your real enemy. The churches, even though you may dislike them, are not trying to control your life or coerce you like the government can. The founders of the Constitution understood that point very well, thus the reason for the 1st Amendment.
I wonder how these guys are going to feel when people start getting state money to teach that Rastafarian principles are the best, that legalized Marijuana is good, gay marriage and abortion are individual rights…on and on because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Many of the churches are very much trying to control my life. As a gay person, I do know my real enemy; they attempt to block the road to equality at every opportunity.
So because you are a “gay person” and have some issue with religion, others should not have the right to support a parent or child’s choice to go to a religion based school that without funding could not afford it? Look who’s trying to block equality. public vs. religion, gay vs. straight. HMMM! amazes me how people scream for equal rights and fight against other’s.
Huh? Block equality? No. I just don’t agree that tax money should go to funding religious schools. That’s not the same as saying I stand in the way of a parent’s choice to send their child to one. Just don’t ask me to help pay for it.
As I’ve pointed out, religious beliefs are largely fairy tales as far as I’m concerned, and shouldn’t be taught as fact on the taxpayer’s dime. And judging by the postings here, I’m not alone in my opinion. In fact, the BDN poll on the topic, as I write this, shows almost 75% against the funding.
I detested religion long before the culture wars over gay rights here in Maine. I hate seeing what dogma does to a person’s rational thinking.
Evolution is taught as fact in public schools! And my tax paying dollars go to that teaching! What’s the difference? Feel what you want to feel about religion, I really don’t care. But at some point we need to change the way the education system is right now.
Thanks for those first two sentences…I rest my case :)
Actually, I work with a bunch of people from the other side of the Iron Curtain. Yes, there was despair and problems, but not the lack of hope or the ability to make decisions. They simply could not do anything about it.
To a person, all of them have told me they knew what was going on in the world and what the “real world” was like. However, they lived in fear of being reported to the government. They had few options. Life was difficult. But, I give them credit for what they have learned and how they managed to accomplish what the did. Their abilities in the IT field are very good. They had to “make do” with stuff we threw away years ago.
Perhaps, this adversity made them stronger.
So, having the church intrude into family lives is okay? Teaching Creationism and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? And, that someday, people will shed their clothes and rocket into space? You want a tool of repression? Try the church. It has a long history of repression, denial, and magical thinking.
I agree on some points. Teach kids the basics. Teach them the truth. Teach them a liberal arts background where they learn to explore the world, all options, all subjects, and not to swallow the follow-the-leader-or-else dogma of the religious crowd.
The theory of evolution is still a theory. Much about it remains unexplained even though I generally support it. As to repression, where is the history of church repression in this country since its founding? Expressing itself publicly is not repression, but government intrusion in its 1st Amendment free exercise is. “Congress SHALL (emphasis is mine here) make no law (as in ObamaCare)…prohibiting the free exercise thereof” by forcing church organizations to provide health insurance coverage (contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations) against its beliefs. Now what else will the government mandate? Surgical abortion? Euthanasia? Medical experimentation on unborn human beings? Infanticide that Obama supported as an Illinois State Senator? Mandatory “Comprehensive S*x Education” in public schools beginning with kindergarteners?
Check your definitions. Evolution IS a theory ( a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena), but not a hypothesis. It has moved beyond the hypothetical state to a generally accepted explanation of the development of life on Earth. .
I don’t disagree with you evolution is a theory even though there are still some unexplained phenomena about evolution. Exactly what form and direction it has taken is still not fully explained. Undoubtedly, as you stated, it has “moved beyond the hypothetical…”
And, to contrast that, Carbon-dating is pretty darn accurate. When it says something is 14 million years old, I’m inclined to think the margin of error doesn’t begin to explain how some people think the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever number they yammer on about).
You see, this is the kind of stuff that drives those of us who use logic, reasoning, and critical thinking for a living, absolutely nuts. It is as if someone came up to you and told you the earth is flat and is held up by giant tortoises and the sun revolves around us. Then, they point to a book, quote it, interpret some statement within it, and nod knowingly, and expect you to believe it. Heck, they even want to turn it into a law and make a Constitutional amendment against ever again discussing the issue!
Truly, something has crept into the water supply, and it is not good news. How could we put a man on the moon in 1969 and still have people think dinosaurs and humans co-existed?
It just blows me away.
I’m not worried schools will be teaching any time soon the earth is merely 6000 years old. I don’t believe that myself, and if someone wants to believe that, I’m not concerned. People are free to think what they want.
That said, don’t bend out of shape for something that likely won’t affect anyone else. Life is just too short not to enjoy the good it offers.
The problem is if school vouchers cover religious schools, what is the litmus test for which religious schools get the vouchers and which do not? I would not want to be the poor SOB handing those out to a Catholic school and then refusing to hand them out to a school set up by the New Holy Roller Evangelical Church of God Almighty Fundamentalist Church & Bait Shop.
You know that Koran burning preacher and those fools that picket soldiers’ funerals would be in the middle of it, trying to get their vouchers.
Do I smell a court case brewing?
Ahhhh…Salem, Mass maybe?
Church repression in this country…are you serious?! Salem, Mass for one.
Church repression? Ask any gay Catholic. Ask any ex-Catholic. Did you miss the news? They started a new program called “Courage.” It’s based upon the AA 12-step program. The goal is to rid one of homosexual thoughts, or lacking that, teach one to live a life of chastity.
And, this has worked so well for their priests.
So, apparently, not only am I a sinner but I am the equivalent of an alcoholic. Yeah, right. Nice group of folks. And, that condescending crap about, “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Well, first off, I’m not sinning. Second, it is none of your beewax – I don’t belong to your cult.
No church repression?
As far as Obamacare goes and the whole contraceptive issue – no one is expecting actual churches or church employees to be forced to comply. The question really gets sticky when you consider the corporations and other business interests owned by the church and operating in the secular world, some of which receive Federal taxpayer funds. Now, you have stepped into the secular world and you are subject to those laws.
Defining that line seems to be the issue. If you have an non-Catholic employee of Catholic Charities, Inc., why should they be denied coverage that is guaranteed to other employees working for other companies?
There is the problem that needs to be solved.
Why should a non-Catholic employee of Catholic Charities be denied coverage guaranteed to other employees? If you are referring to coverage for abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization being mandated by Obama, the answer is simple: the Church will have no part of it. If the employee doesn’t like it, he will be free to go work elsewhere, find an insurance willing to insure him at his own cost, or pay the costs of these services from his pocket if he wants them. Anyway, that scenario likely won’t happen. If Obama doesn’t change the mandate, I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will declare it Unconstitutional with near unanimous consent among the justices. That’s why I’m not really all that concerned about the issue.
Yes, well there is the sticking point. The question is whether or not the corporate entity for which the non-Catholic employee works is actually covered by the First Amendment with regard to religion. A corporation, it could be argued, is not a church or a religious institution. It is a corporation and it is in business for profit. It is a stretch to consider it a religious institution. That is why here in DC, Catholic Charities, INCORPORATED, opted to pull out of the adoption business rather than allow a married gay couple to adopt a child. CCI is a corporation and it was paid $22M/year by the DC government to provide services to ALL DC residents, not just the residents the church feels are not sinners. Because CCI received tax dollars (and lots of them), they were expected to comply with the law as they are a separate corporation.
Instead, they opted out of the adoption business in DC, claiming they were “forced” out. In reality, they chose not to comply with the law and backed out themselves. Furthermore, when it came time to extend spousal benefits to the spouses of their gay employees, they refused to do so. Their solution? The cancelled all spousal benefits for all employees, straight and gay.
Very Christian of them.
The 1st Amendment does not restrict the free exercise of religion to churches. It states, “Congress shall (not WILL) make no law ….prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion).” Look it up for yourself. I’m not making up these words. So obviously it makes no difference if the free exercise of religion is being practiced by an institution or hospital. It’s still the free exercise of religion that is being abridged ultimately by Congress that enacted bad law giving Obama the power to coerce.
It’s obvious in Mass that the Church had to live by its own tenets. It was not given any option through a religious exemption that the state could have extended. So what else could it do but to close down. The Church at all times and in all circumstances has to live by the teachings handed down to it by Christ Himself and his apostles. It’s called to be faithful to the gospel. Success is in God’s hands. As to “gay” adoption, you and I won’t see eye to eye most likely, so I’ll spare my breath.
Second point first: True enough. The church has to, or probably would, live by its own tenets. However, to say that the government “forced” the church out of the business is more of its typical passive-aggressive behavior. “It’s not OUR fault, THEY made us do this.” [Just like the priest sexual abuse issues – blamed on the “Woodstock” generation but making no reference to well-documented cases from the 1950’s, long before the sexual revolution of the mid-1960’s. Much before that was not well-documented and most priests and their victims are long-since dead.] In DC, where this whole issue first came to a head, Catholic Charities, Inc., announced they were “totally pulling out of DC if gay marriage became law.” The DC Council called their bluff. Little surprise, CCI folded in lieu of losing a $22M/annually contract – I mentioned this before. I find it interesting that $22M is the price tag for their tenets. Their whole attitude was that of a group of spoiled brats who did not get their way for a change.
On gay adoption, I will let you know how our 11 year old daughter pans out with two dads. So far, she’s doing great. And, given how your side of the fence with its 50% divorce rate and less than 50% of new couples being married, I think any child would be lucky to have two parents who must go to extraordinary lengths to have adopted a child. As hard as this is for you to accept, there always have been gay families and there always will be. We are in your neighborhoods and I would wager if you spoke with your kids, they would tell you of their friends who have two mommies or two daddies. It is far more common and accepted as routine than you might believe. The only reason it is in the news is that we are finally asking for the legal rights that everyone else is entitled to.
On your first point: The Amendment reads in full – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I have read this many times. Congress will not establish any official religion for the country – opposite to England which has the Queen as the head of the Church of England. That makes sense. Second point: Congress will not prohibit the exercise of any religion. Also makes sense.
Where we disagree on is what is a religious organization. I contend that a corporation created using secular laws for the goal of making a profit (or being zero profit but feeding profits tot he parent organization) is not a religion. Corporations are considered separate entities hence the whole “limited liability” aspect. And, with recent Supreme Court rulings, this separation is even clearer. These corporations are subject to other laws such as income taxes, FICA collection, labor laws, minimum wage laws, OSHA safety laws, and on and on. Why, all of a sudden, are they not subject to health insurance mandates? Why are the other laws okay to obey but not this law?
You seem to feel this “religious shield” extends to corporations owned by a church. If that is the case, I think I will declare my corporation a “church” and become tax-exempt. Ridiculous, of course.
This will be resolved either by the administration caving in to political pressure or in court where the definition of what constitutes a religion, as far as the government is concerned, is determined, or the church rolls over on this one. One of these three scenarios could occur. However, having been in DC for 30+ years, my prediction is that some compromise will be reached where employees of these corporations owned by churches will somehow get the option to purchase an add-on policy out of their own pockets for a minimal fee, or somehow the add-on will be offered to them via some other means so the church can claim it is not supporting this part of the insurance. That’s my call on it.
Of course, I have another question: Statistics show that 98% of Catholic families use, or have used, birth control during their reproductive lives. I am not Catholic (no surprise there), but isn’t birth control considered a “mortal sin?” And, that a mortal sin does not get forgiven if there is premeditation and/or there is no contrition? I understand that if a mortal sin is committed accidentally then that is forgiven. But, committing a mortal sin with premeditation and no contrition is a straight trip to Hell. Well, birth control, including vasectomies for the guys, must be premeditated. No guy has a vasectomy “by accident” and certainly not without premeditation. So, if this is the case, and 98% of Catholics use birth control, it looks like heaven is going to be pretty empty. I am just trying to follow the logic on all of this. I think the 98% number is plausible – I do not see those huge Catholic families like we used to see. I know an older family in Maine with 21 kids! In my day, they had 5. Now, I see 3. Any thoughts? I am serious – I do not see how the church says one thing and 98% of the parishioners do something else.
You have so, so many misconceptions about the Church and other matters based on your own prejudices and apparent hatred that I can’t even begin to tell you. I have made my case against gay marriage at various parts in this BDN forum and others. People like yourself however keep going off the subject and going on a tangent like you just did by pointing fingers and excoriating. Oftentimes when I make a comment people like you come back with questions. When I answer these questions, then I get more questions, but on a different level, in return. This process of questioning never ends. So at that point, you know what I do? I just end the conversation. People know in their hearts what is right and what is wrong. If their conscience is weak, it is particularly difficult to explain anything to make them understand. I’ll say this much; gay marriage is just one huge experimentation just as the concept of consensual sex was in the 60’s, if you go that far back in time. I can tell you one thing I know in my heart and mind: the latter idea has created a lot of chaos in our society (like a 50% divorce rate) for which the only solution I know of is going back to God’s living word.
I would like to say “Ta Dah” but I will refrain. As I mentioned, some compromise would be reached. Here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNP_p
So, now the insurance companies get to offer this coverage for free rather than the church pay for it. I suppose the insured person then can opt in/out of that coverage as their conscience deems fit.
The Catholic 98% can breath a sigh of relief.
Problem solved. Let’s move on.
read the bible and you will understand. But of course you won’t because it will not agree with you’re way of thinking.
Your presumption is the bible is fact. I do not presume it is. I have read excerpts and stories from many religious books and fables and folklore from many cultures. I am more in line with Jefferson’s bible – keep the ethics, morals, and fables, but remove the hocus-pocus.
What are you talking about? At what point did it say that you HAD to take you’re child to a religious school? This is about choices for all kids to all different kinds of schools, not just religious ones!
I never said anything about kids being forced to go to a religious school. I was responding to whawell’s claim that government was intruding on what is taught to children in public schools. And, my response was that the religious schools “intrude” by their one-sided doctrine.
Here is the deal for me. I appreciate there are private schools, both religious and secular. Everyone in my family but me went to a private prep-school. Public school is provided for all. It should be the best possible education but sometimes is not. This needs to be fixed. It is not going to get fixed by giving vouchers to private secular and religious schools. If you want to opt-out of sending your kids to free public school then I think you should pick up the tab. Is this fair? Well, it is as fair as having a childless couple pay property taxes for schools which they never will use. If you want fair, why not charge people for public education based upon the number of kids they have? The more kids, the more cost. Seems reasonable to me. You can bet your last dollar the Catholic church would be against that seeing how they like big families (meaning more in the plate each Sunday).
Funding religious schools with taxpayer dollars rubs me the wrong way. I doubt it would be applied fairly to all religious schools and it is too much mixing of church and state.
What about vouchers for home schooling? Why should they pay? Or, the childless couple?
I have explained this before but got some feedback that I am a socialistic communist or something like that just because I believe everyone in this country should have access to a high-quality free public education. Somehow, that is one of those left-wing radical hippie ideas. You know, like the GI Bill. Or, the University system. Or, the Vocational-Technical Institutes. You see, they have some link to government and since government is evil, especially since it now is headed-up by a Muslim who was not even born in the United States, the idea of a public education therefore is evil.
I do not think public education is “evil” my son attends a very good public school. I am a very active parent (one of very few). I see the how hard these teachers work to help our child, but I also see how much time they have to spend on behavioral issues and ultimately that stalls my son’s learning time. Am I interested in putting my son in a religious school? No not at this point, but I would not want to stop another parent from doing what is best for THEIR own family. Would I love to see something done about all the attention given to these kids with behavioral problems? Yes I would like to see the school call the parent and make them come deal with them or take them home. That’s where choice would be a good option for parents that want their kids to get the most out of their time spent in school.
Again, I have no problem with any type of school. The real question comes down to who is going to pay for it. My view is that if you want to send your kids to a school other than a public school, you should pony-up the costs.
I agree with you that some public schools have problems. I know certainly that private schools often get loaded up with dysfunctional rich kids, dumped there by their parents. While certainly the public schools could stand some improvements with better facilities, teachers, and teacher evaluations, I also would put a fair amount of that blame on the parents, and in some cases, generations of dysfunctional parenting. I am not sure that a voucher system is going to solve that problem. Presumably, vouchers are available to all and perhaps the parents with the dysfunctional kid opted for the vouchers and now that kid will be sitting next to your kid in a private school instead of the public school he just came from.
I think we need to take a step back and define the real problems. Then, fix those problems. We have entirely too much knee-jerking going on with this subject and a bunch of proposed solutions before the problem is very well defined.
When this whole issue reared its head, the Tea Party crowd came out with talons flared for the wicked Teachers’ Unions. Maybe, but that is more ideology talking than facts. In their world, Union = Evil.
I contrast this with my area where the public schools are top-notch. Why are they? Well, it probably is a combination of pretty heavy-duty funding requested by the parents themselves combined with very active parental involvement. Good teachers are sought and hired. Look at the public schools in Southern Maine. Top notch. PTA night is a packed-house. Other areas? Not so much.
So, to sum it up (it’s getting late) – I think we need to define the real problems first, unemotionally and less ideologically, and then the pros/cons of the various options and go from there.
I am all for what works with the exception of religious school funding by government tax vouchers. There, we are crossing over the separation of church and state line.
First off, Parents are more than “partially” to blame, and how do you suppose we fix that? At least in a private school they don’t have all the restrictions to who they have to continue to educate with extreme behavioral problems, so for your comment about those same children sitting beside my child is wrong. I have to say those poor children that can not control themselves are victims of poor parenting or a diagnosis of some sort. I feel sorry for them, but unfortunately my child is paying a price for it as well. Who cares about crossing religion and state lines? What is up with your obsession with that? I’m not a religious person per say although I have my belief’s, but this country is seriously lacking morals! If religion plays a part to help in that then so be it! GO ahead on a banter about religion not having morals as you have already done, because quite frankly I’m done listening to it at this point. Until I am perfect, I will not accuse others! As a few people on this blog have done.
Well, as far as morals go with the church, they should be the last throwing bricks. Their sanctimonious moral superiority vs. their behavior is what bothers most.
To answer your question, I asked a psychologist friend of mine from the Netherlands how she handled this same issue. How do you break that cycle of dysfunctional behavior? She told me that they start very early in the child’s life with pre-pre-school focusing on acceptable behavior, empathy, and caring for others, as well as structure and expected behavior. Apparently, much of a child’s personality is forming by around 24 months and it is important to “set the standards” then. This approach seems to work in the Netherlands and it might here. It does seem reasonable.
With regard to vouchers and private schools – this may or may not work. Once a private school starts accepting vouchers and government money, they may well be subject to the curriculum mandated by the State. I do not know.
As far as caring about crossing state/religion lines, I am referring to the First Amendment issues. We already have too much intrusion of religious restrictions into secular government. We do not need to encourage more of what I consider regressive magical thinking.
No, I am not perfect either, but unlike today’s religious organizations, I do not go around trying to make laws that restrict the rights of all citizens.
Well of course it starts at those informative years up to 5 years old, that is why we need to stop blaming the teachers for these childrens behavior and offer more manadatory parental classes. As far as religion intrusion, what about Gov. intrusion? FAR excedes any Religious group I have ever seen. Your real issue here does not seem to be about the voucher program to religious schools so much as you’re issue with religion itself for not allowing you to marry here in Maine. Please don’t let that polute the possiblities for other’s because you have a personal agenda. Because then YOU would be guilty of what you are accusing other’s of.
I am done bantering with you. Good luck to you! I wish you well.
Thats your opinion….lets not forget the Buddy Franklin’s out there.
and how many Supreme Court and other judges were educated in religious schools and reached their position because of ‘sound reasoning’?
Some of the problems you cite, especially in regards to special ed students, sounds like blinded adherance to Every Child (whoops, nee No Child) left behind.
“head start, no child left behind…someone’s losing f#;kin ground here folks” – George Carlin
In my community the vocational high school and its programming are revered, and our superintendent and principals would never say what you heard. That is just shameful and I’m sure does not reflect most adminstrators. I disagree strongly with this parochial and school choice stuff, but I do like the idea of promoting vocational education. Many of us need to work with our hands, and being a good lobsterman, or chef, or carpenter, or nurse is just WONDERFUL. Want good schools? Insist on order and discipline in the halls and classrooms, train teachers well and support them, insist that kids take responsibility, and also insist that PARENTS get involved and take responsibility. Get an active boosters organization going. Education is a PARTNERSHIP, and ALL parties need to do their part. Teachers can only teach the kids they get. Parents and kids need to do their part too.
I’m glad that in your immediate area priorities are valid. However, the widespread prevelance of dropouts, dissatisfaction expressed by students and teachers, and a dearth of overall satisfaction belies your belief that my points “do not reflect most existing administrations.” I believe that despite your very accurate points, the problem is endemic and beyond remediation, given current standards. Ken
Yet another cop-out excusatory statement from an indoctinated citizen, most likely profiting from the failed system he or she defends. The longer you blame parents and the students for all of the failures of the teachers and educators, the longer our students will not be successful and the worse our education system will become. Thanks for yet another dose of no help at all…now go stick your head back in the sand.
Yet another blunt-minded statement straight out of the FakeNews talking points. Blame the schools, blame the schools, blame the schools, bla bla bla, all as a ploy to attack the teachers unions because right wingers simply love the corporatists and hate workers rights. Like most loud talkers you haven’t got a single clue about all the things that the teachers and schools already do, all the interventions they already have for struggling learners, all the endless reams of “reform” laws they have already had to deal with for decades, all the alternative programming already offered, and on and on. You wouldn’t last five seconds teaching in today’s classrooms. You don’t have a single clue. And then all this pious nonsense about how “school choice” and giving public money to the church schools is going to save everything. What malarkey. The first people to screech about this if it happens are REPUBLICANS who live in poor rural areas whose local schools are the very center of those communities. So go stick YOUR head back in the sand as you spend every waking moment, when not spouting their talking points, stuck in front of FakeNews listening to their cement-headed megalies. And PS: With these nutty proposals, your buddy LeBuffoon is further ensuring that your GOPTeaNutParty will be CRUSHED in the fall. So enjoy your nuttiness while it lasts.
Many classrooms are out of control with disruption and contempt for the education, but it will take more than discipline and more parental acknowledgment of responsibility to fix this mess. The nature of education is the result of the philosophy of a culture. Better ideas are being suppressed by a government/union monopoly that must be broken. School choice is the first step in doing that rather than tying everyone down to the lowest common denominator controlled by a government establishment imposing mediocrity and failure. Giving more money to the bureaucracy would be worse than a waste.
I become frustrated with educators who think every student needs to go to a 4-year college or they are “not successful”. A few years ago The Wall Street Journal came out with an article titled, “What’s Wrong with Vocational Education?” The premise of the article was that students pursuing a trade were more likely to stay in school, make more money sooner, find work, start businesses, and contribute to the economy, than students bound for a 4-year school. I also find it appalling to think that vocational students are considered less academic than college bound students. In a well designed program of study the reading requirements are rigorous and higher-order thinking skills relevant.
I think your statement is totally accurate and shared by those who teachers speak with in most communities. Sadly, the entrenched powers to be have no real accountability and perpetuate the system as it exists. As always, it is the students who sadly pay the price. Ken
Well said.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state.
What else will he have our tax money support. His church? This will only divert
scarce resources from the public schools. Schools will now be able to recruit athletes.
I’ve seen it. Parents may already have a chance to send their sons and daughters to another school through
superintendent agreements.
I don’t know if your 12 years in Maine were
spent in several schools or just one. I taught for nearly 40 years also, and
was part of a very innovative public school. We are a school that has a very
high poverty rate yet get extremely high results. It was and still is “all
about the students” long before LePage became governor sons and daughters to other school through
superintendent agreements. Our school and many others are already hurting from
very steep cuts in funding. This won’t make matters better, only worse. This is
just another example of his social agenda.
Please note that I made clear that “That this doesn’t have to be” when discussing the use of religious schools with mandated public monies. Just a sad reminder of the rigidity of most public school systems. In response to your question, I spent years teaching in a psychiatric center, an inner city junior high school, a surburban high school, and a rural high school here in Maine. Rest assured that the consistency of rigidity and lack of results crossed all lines. Ken
You could start by reading summaries of recent U.S. Supreme court decisions:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the challenge to Arizona’s tuition tax credit plan gives needed breathing room to that state’s emerging and innovative school-choice system. It also imposes common-sense requirements on opponents of school choice, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which now must come to court with people who have been actually harmed by the tax credit plan, and have more than just generalized complaints against it based on extreme notions of “separation of church and state.”
Arizona’s tuition tax credit program is just one part of the state’s bold school-choice plan to empower parents with the opportunity to select the best schools for their children. Arizona families can send their children to a vast array of charter schools that specialize in everything from drama to the classics to math and science. Home schooling flourishes with minimal state regulation, and home-school students can participate in extracurricular offerings, such as band or sports, at nearby public schools.”
All this will do is weed even these institutions in larger ones creating power schools. Its happened before. What if there were incentives to send your kids to the school closet to home and required to actively participate in their school life. What we really need to do is raise the taxes on all PROFIT Colleges and Universities and tighten their curriculums to include 5 year masters and skip these core classes and electives, more direct paths. One is much better off with a 5 year masters and some experience than an undergraduate with a liberal arts degree with a 3.0 in how to make a $1 funnel for 40K in debt. Why take from the youngest kids? LePage is already taken from the old and sick. Why not call for some equal tax burden for those that profit during this time when everyone is suffering.
If this pointless rambling is a sample of your literary mastery, parents can be most thankful you were flushed from the public payroll, albeit four decades late.
$30,000 is a success? Please do not insult our intelligence by attempting to take credit for the price of fish or the student’s willingness (unlike most public school teachers) to work hard from dawn ’til dusk.
The sad truth is if a student cannot:
> fill out a license application for his chosen profession without tutoring
>balance his checkbook and perform simple navigational arithmetic unaided by electronic devices
>read and comprehend the boat /auto/home loan agreement he is about to sign
then you and your union brethren HAVE INDEED failed both the student and the taxpayers. For that, you should all be flogged.
Chances are four out of five that your fisherman student was labeled ‘special ed’ because one of your indolent and incompetent colleagues chose to shift the blame for her failure to some invented and imaginary ‘learning disability’ .
I had a long lunch with table of teachers from a Catholic school a few years ago. Several left their public school, took a large pay/benefit cut; but felt it was a wise decision because the learning environment was superior to the public school.
I guess you never listen to the ones who quietly leave and join a private school’s faculty?
Hi there,
I have also met many who have chosen alternative paths to help educate. I think that charter schools, if given appropriate impetus and independence might help fill the large void. Thanks, Ken
Let there be no ambiguity on the intentions of Paul LePage and the national Republican party in general as regards working people. No government assistance for anyone, no equal rights as regards same sex couples for anyone, no freedom of choice for women and their bodies for anyone, no control regards the teaching of our children in our communities for anyone, no say in how much pollution is allowed to spew into our waters and air for anyone. Simply reverse these mantras for corporations, rich people, and the church and you see exactly where priorities and loyalties lie with the present republican establishment. These are not leaders for and by the people by any stretch of the imagination. In Maine we are in for a long drag of (hopefully only) three more years of this individual at the Blaine House. Hopefully this period will be shorter for other states (go Wisconsin on removing Walker!) and the U.S. Congress.
Nice Maine Democrat Party talking points. The fact is Maine needs to change this stupid one size fits all policy that comes from Democrats it hasn’t worked. The consolidation law that was supposed to fix everything more than 1/2 the districts refuses to comply with the law. 75% of our schools are failing now because of awful Maine Democrat policies coming from inept leaders such as Sue Gendron, pathetic Liberal Legislature , and awful Liberal Democrat /Democrat-Independent governors Baldacci, King , Brennan, Curtis, Longley, Clauson etc. for the last 55+ years. Now that we got real reforms coming in the teacher’s union and liberals are balking because they want to protect the failed policies. Gov. LePage and Steve Bowen should put the hammer down on the union and these teachers by giving out pinkslips to those who stand in the way.
Communities do not and should not have control on how kids are educated or where it should be the parents, and I for one do not agree with state funds to religious schools but open enrollment to any school in any community give parents the choice of what school provides best for their child.
Notice that he invokes “freedom of choice” in the same sentence that he demands “control” over education.
If schools being losing students to other schools, I would think that would motivate the school system to do anything they could to retain the students; i.e. more responsive to parents, more accountability for teachers, increased results, etc.
Why is it that we expect excellence from every other area of life, but educators get a pass? Why do we expect other businesses to compete for our patronage, but not our schools?
These are moves that will inevitably lift the overall quality of education across the state, while minimizing the role of government schools and teachers’ unions. Expect a catfight, Governor!
Since when do educators get a pass? Last I checked, we have parents blaming us for jobs we haven’t done; jobs that THEY should be doing (which is why it is called parenting…) We have the public telling us that we are overpaid for the jobs we do; and even when we do things right, we don’t get any credit.
Most schools are doing the best they can given the students that pass through our doors.
Teachers in today’s public schools earn every single red cent they earn. THey deal with parents who have NO idea where their kids are, what they listen to, how much time they spend online, who their friends are, in person or online, and these same parents never have a sit-down meal with their kids, so no manners, courtesy or common sense, and then, when the kids do poorly in school, the VERY FIRST response from all involved is that the TEACHERS must be doing something wrong. Anybody out there considering going into teaching in public schools?? RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. At least, get the heck out of Maine, as the retirement program here is the WORST in the nation.
Educators hardly get a pass, we are attacked in the media constantly. Why do PARENTS get a pass for not getting their kids to school/wanting them to stay home, not being engaged in their child’s education/not caring if the student fails or not or as I heard from a parent last week, “I don’t know the names of my child’s teachers.”……..real nice, mom. Yeah, and it is the school’s fault if a student doesn’t pass. All the parent has to do is have the kid…no further responsibility is required, and that is pathetic.
Educators are “attacked in the media” because they do get a free pass. The better teachers would do much better, both for themselves and the students, if they had a choice not to be subjugated to the government monopoly.
Why is it that we expect excellence from every other area of life, but educators get a pass? Why do we expect other businesses to compete for our patronage, but not our schools?
why don’t you ask the state? They set the standards.
Just as there are good teachers and bad teachers, there are also good parents and bad parents. I am not so sure there is any one particular thing/person that can be blamed; there are a lot of factors that correlate with the success of a student.
There are good and bad teachers, and good and bad parents, but there is nothing good about a government enforced monopoly imposing failure that neither good parents nor good teachers can escape from.
Exactly what government enforced “monopoly”? You seem to think I am supporting something, however, my comment was pretty neutral.
what is the motivation expected from this. What will the results be? Who makes the most money I this happens?
Well schools would lose students base solely that there is a newer school over there and the school there kids will go to is older, worst at sports and lots of other things that have nothing to do with the quality of education.
What an arrogant, elistist comment by someone who wants control over what others do because he thinks they are too stupid to do without his orders.
Yes, we need good teachers and good administrators, but education is not a “business” and it is just plain ignorant to compare education to making widgets in a factory. Should cops be evaluated based on crime rates which go up and down? Should prison guards and wardens be evaluated based on re-arrest rates? Should psychiatrists be evaluated based on mental illness cure rates? Think about it. These kids are not machines that just need to be fixed by the “right mechanics.” Every bit of research out there shows that two thirds of the factors that affect a person’s performance in school is outside the control of the schools. It is about the students’ nature and nurturing which occur outside the classroom. And do you have any idea at all of how much the schools are already doing? They have to meet all manor of special needs plans, there is remedial education of all kinds, there is already diverse programming of all kinds. there are special intervention plans for struggling learners both during and after school, there are all manner of extracurriculars to enhance the school experience, and on and on and on. How about a little credit.
No one said that teaching is like “making widgets in a factory”. Education is a business. “Business” does not mean making things by rote. Every business requires intelligent thought, innovation and creativity. There is no excuse for government control stifling any entire industry at bloated costs for failure, and we see the failure all around us resulting from it in the public school system.
We can have the smartest people in the country. They will still leave because there are no jobs here.
They won’t leave if freedom is restored. Education is only one realm.
Do Bowen and LePage even know what the real motives are? It appears that those spoon-feeding policies to conservatives aren’t even bothering to let them in on the secrets any longer.
Privatizing education has its roots in two facets of ultra-conservative policy. Under the auspices of the “free market”, “school choice” and “freedom of choice”, the base goals are to:
1) Open a vast, untapped market for profit-based education systems;
2) Further depress the mean education level and, in turn, grow the working class.
Straight from Norquist, et al.; it’s not too hard to follow the path back, and it’s hardly the stuff of conspiracy.
This will happen at the expense of accessible public education, one of the greatest achievements of modern society. The public education system needs some help, and could use less union influence, but dismantling it entirely isn’t the correct course of action.
1) Open a vast, untapped market for profit-based education systems;
2) Further depress the mean education level and, in turn, grow the working class.
what is wrong with education being profit based? is profit a bad thing? i guess to the far left, that thinks capitalism is bad.
further depressing the mean education level? really? the current system is failing more students than it helps and costs are rising faster than the welfare roles. and you think that working class people are somehow inferior to ??you??
lets just throw some more oney at it, that will probably help. NOT..
When you make it profit based, you sole goal is to gain a profit, Nothing else. That is not a bad thing but do we want our education being solely based on profit? Please don’t kid yourself thinking they will actually do what is best, No if you make it profit based, all they are going to try and do is make a profit, anyway possible.
How’s those public schools working for us now? It’s all about choice and guess what the teacher’s boss isn’t a political party.
Socialism in education has failed just like it fails everywhere. Progressives like their monopoly because they want the control to tell other people what to think and do and want no accountability for a massive failure they can’t defend.
Look, let’s just put this out there: If your argument contains the hallmarks of a published agenda and it appears that you’re regurgitating talking points, you’re not actively participating in the discussion.
How about taking funds and kids from parents who produce and “raise” the doofuses that do nothing in our schools???
“This proposal pits one school district against the other with serious
consequences. If schools begin losing students to nearby schools, they
will likely face closure,” MEA President Chris Galgay said in a statement
Underperforming schools need to close, or be radically overhauled, just like any underperforming entity, not have more money thrown at them. The Howland school district just voted on a $1.3 million loan to cover the out-of-control spending of the previous superintendent. It was either that or raise property taxes drastically to pay the bills. Many of the teacher’s aides have been laid off because the school district couldn’t afford them for the same reason. To top it off, the educational quality isn’t very great there. I’m sure that many of the parents in that district would love to send their children elsewhere, and I’m sure that isn’t the only school district that’s doing a lousy job.
The MEA is against it not for the sake of the children, but for the sake of their bank accounts, and the stranglehold they have on education (or lack thereof).
That being said, I’m totally against direct public funding for private schools, whether religious or otherwise; that’s why public schools are in the mess they’re in. The government gets its hands in the mix, and ruin it. I think the the voucher system would work better. Give the parents the vouchers, and let them decide where to send their children.
I work in schools, and I think this attempt at complete school choice is a disaster. It DOES pit schools against one another. However, you have to ask WHY is a school underperforming? I would say the biggest reasons are the socioeconomic status of the students’ parent(s). What about the parents who live in towns/cities with heavier (and in some cases MUCH heavier) tax burdens. Johnny isn’t doing well in his school in town A, but if he could just go to (pick the school…Bangor, Brewer, Hampden, Falmouth, etc), he would do much better. It doesn’t matter if the parents’ tax dollars paid in town A are MUCH less than the tax dollars paid in town B. There are a ton of issues with this type of proposal.
..and I go back to the largest reasons why students do not succeed in certain schools is most likely not because of the school itself (little Johnny misses 80 days of school a year, and mom/dad are fine with that….he will not be successful, regardless of the school where he goes (or is at least enrolled).
This is a huge mess just waiting to happen.
Think of it as teacher evaluation — by the parents.
Of course….. that’s probably why you’re scared to death.
By too many parents who are only too happy to shift the blame for their failures onto teachers?
Not just that. “My kid wanted that teacher for that class and didn’t get it.” THAT teacher wouldn’t allow my kid to turn in work 3 weeks late. They should be fired.
Honestly, if most people on here walked in the shoes of a teacher for 2 hours, they would be running for the doors.
My favorite is when the kid’s cell phone rings during class. Yep, mommy had to call/text to check in…and to those parents, what they do is perfectly reasonable.
Why do you allow a cell phone in your class room?
if allowed into a private school, the grades, behavior, etc would be explained and accepted by the parents before the student was admitted. and failure to follow the requirements would lead to expulsion from the school, allowing the blame to fall where it belongs.
unlike public school where almost anything goes.
I am not scared to death of evaluation, and you embarrass yourself with your implication. Parents should not be doing evaluations. Just because they went to school (well, most of them) doesn’t mean they understand anything about what goes on in schools. You do realize to many parents out there, a “bad teacher” is simply a teacher who won’t give the parent what they want. There are many out there who believe they can contact a school with a list of “wants” and when they don’t get it, they are shocked.
I do believe that the teacher evaluation system in Maine (well, the country) needs vast improvement. It should be taken very seriously by schools, principals, superintendents, etc.
Most parents I’ve seen can ‘evaluate’ the difference between a teacher that can teach his child to read, write, and cypher and one that gives multiple ‘in-class study halls’ because they didn’t bother to prepare a lesson plan, or want to use precious class time to read the newspaper, or catch up on their Xmas card list.
One does not need a PHD in Education to know that a scholar who can’t read a sheet of instructions, can’t tell you how many quarts there are in five gallons, or doesn’t know the difference between ‘there’, ‘they’re’ and ‘their’, has a damn poor teacher.
You may think you can stick your degree on your nose and peddle us this ‘peer evaluation’ twaddle, but we parents know when you ‘professionals’ are just blowing smoke at us. We’re damn tired of you phonies and JUMP at the chance to VOTE WITH OUR FEET. You and your fellow union thug ‘professionals’ are like the Wile E Coyote character who looks up at the sky and sees the anvil of school choice about to fall on your head.
do you realize that many people out there think throwing more money at the problem will solve the problem?
vouchers would at the very least show which schools do not have the support of the community. it would show whether public education can compete both in quality and expense. the broken system we have now cannot be fixed without some change, and vouchers sound like the best option at this point.
Throwing money at the educational establishment has been inversely correlated with the quality, which has declined. Much better than vouchers to break this monopoly would be tax credits for anyone who supports anyone’s education.
You do not want teacher or school evaluation by parents — your
customers. You want elitist control. Do you also want students
assigned to colleges so they can’t choose which to attend? Every dictatorial political philosophy is rationalized by the notion that people are not capable of thinking for themselves.
I certainly agree that it isn’t all the schools’ fault. Parents, ultimately, are responsible for the education of their children, not the state. You’re right, there are plenty of parents who don’t make their children responsible. No question.
Many schools, though, do an awful job of educating students for a variety of different reasons. The entire quality of education has gone down across the board over the last three decades, probably more.
There is a huge mess, and no easy way to fix it.
And it won’t be fixed at all with a monopoly on the failure, prohibiting freedom of choice for something better.
Better than vouchers is tax credits for anyone who pays for his own or
someone elses education until the government monopoly can be phased out.
Can we please stop asking the MEA for their opinions? They are so darned predictable. However, if you are going to ask them, please ask Maine Superintendents Association, Maine Municipal Association and other organizations whose members will be impacted much more quickly than MEA’s will.
Maine
passed the following legislation which might have included a referendum in
2005. The legislation is summarized
below:
In an historic move to implement Maine’s student
learning standards, the “Maine
Learning Results,” the Legislature passed into law the Essential Programs
and Services (EPS) framework for school funding (LD 1623) during the Spring
2003 session.
* The School Finance Act of 1985 required the state to increase it’s
share of education funding to 55%; however, the state never reached this
percentage and, in fact, decreased its share to the current level of 42%.
According to the framework, beginning in 2005-06 and for five years
thereafter, additional State funds will be added each year until the target of
50% State share of school funding is reached in 2009-10 – up from only 42%
state share now. The passage of EPS officially acknowledges that all school
districts in Maine
must have adequate and equitable funding to achieve the learning
standards outlined in state law.
Under this mandate, the State of Maine must pay 50% of school funding which
is a moving target since school districts approve individual budgets. Supposedly, Maine is able to achieve around 42% of share
of local school funding.
The legislature needs to change this law; otherwise, it is not
following its own regulations. If I am
incorrect, please explain my error. I
remember Liz Mitchell campaigning on the grounds that she would reach the 50%
plateau for school funding. Obviously,
changes are needed because educators are able to claim inadequate support to
achieve learning standards as specified in Maine laws.
the voters overwhelming supported the more than 50% requirement. but the legislature quickly changed the mandate to 42% so the budget could be balanced, as required by law. so they are not breaking the law in regards to the 50% requirement as that is no longer in effect. yes we got screwed, again.
We are preparing are kids for college inadequately. Then expect them to spend the cost of a home to get an undergraduate degree that equates to what a high school diploma was valued at 20 years ago. We should be pioneers, and call for more specific and targeted degrees from our colleges and universities. Now thats making a stronger work force. Look what has happened to secondary education in the private sector. Tuition costs are growing exponentially for what reason, quality of study? Inflation? No, simply for the profit and increase in the schools dowry. How does profit and squeezing money out of working families increase the quality of education? It doesnt. It only makes a bigger gap between what is available for the lucky and not so lucky. There is already a sense of Ivy League high schools and kids can go to any school if they make up the right excuse (sports). It happens every year, and it’s not right. This is a bad idea to allow capitalism to control child development.
This is a bad idea to allow capitalism to control child development.
how is child development being controlled? as a parent i alone should be deciding on what is best for my children.
education costs are rising on every level, due to the “required” government mandates that allow every person to demand whatever they deem they need for their fair education. its time that the government back off and allows communities to provide what education they can, and demanding parents can pay for any extras they think their kids need.
It is a bad idea to let the government control child development.
Costs of the tax-supported public schools system have escalated as quality declines. Costs of college tuition have escalated as government pours taxpayer money into it. It isn’t private educational organizations that have caused “working families” to be squeezed.
You are barking up the wrong tree peeps. I want ideas and sense you have none other than retorting at me and I feel compelled to say it again. The private sector for higher education is failing and creating larger gaps between demographics, why start it up in primary and secondary to only see the same thing happen years down the road? The cost of everything is on the rise, wake up!!! As soon as you do, you;’ll learn its about keeping up! As long as we are able to have our kids heading to higher education with them genuinely interested in reading, learning and a good sense of family values (core) there’s not much else you can do. They either get it or don’t. We need to start changing our higher education. Have our state universities and cc offer 4-5 yr masters in specific fields, tighten up curriculums. Offer post higher or doctoral degrees. Kids are taking out mortgages for a bigger party then high school was. Let’s be the first to state to tighten up. That’s how we build a stronger work force. We need to be pioneers and start with better higher education. I cannot foresee any good from allowing tuition to play a role in deciding where a kid goes to 3rd or 10th grade. Only that it will drive up costs at a faster pace than we see today, EXAMPLE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. Preschool is already controlled by capitalism making access and allowing an enhanced start to the better off. I want ideas other than privatizing primary and secondary education because that will never get my vote. Beuller?
“We need a talented work force,” he said.
He does not go on explain how teaching “intelligent design” instead of science translates into a talented work force.
Because it has nothing to do with the topic.
But can the schools choose the students? If there is school choice, it’s going to be complicated. Some students are much more expensive than others to educate, special education students, behavioral problems, vocational students. It’s relatively cheap to teach a math class or a history class to the average student. You just need a textbook. But what about the ones who cost more? Every principal or superintendent will have to become a bean-counter and put a price-tag on the student.
It is much easier for private schools when they pick and choose their clients. Wouldn’t public schools look different if they could do the same.
why should some students cost more? the “public” school system should supply a reasonable class room, desk and teacher. any additional requirements should be paid by the parent.
Sure they can choose. They do now. And they cream skim.
Education in different subjects can cost differently. You pay for what you want. Every institution should be free to choose what it wants to offer, as in any other realm. “Behavioral” problems are outside the realm of education. No one should be forced to subsidize that at all.
Why should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools? This just another example of private businesses getting government welfare to operate. absolute nonsense
and the irony is that while public school teachers are bashed, private school teachers can do pretty much what they want, regardless of certification (which is not required) and teach whatever subject (whether they know the subject or not). YES, take more public money to support THAT set up and praise it as being better simply because it isn’t “public” education.
“I have a certification that’s state’s I’m a good teacher”. A certificate does not make you a good teacher. Most Private and Religious schools follow the state’s curriculum of the State they teach in. The students get a good education and that’s what the parents want and the teachers boss isn’t a Politician.
What is truly ironic is your statement. Private school teachers can do pretty much what they want, do not need certification and they still produce well-educated students.
If public schools would return to being responsive to students’ and parents’ needs, then they would have nothing to fear. They would not be “bashed”….
why should taxpayer money be used to fund any school? why should i be required to pay for public school if i send my kids to private school? my tax money should be used to pay for the school i send my kids to. wheres the problem?
That is your choice, Why should my tax money go to help fund your private school? You choose to go there. Just pretend your tax dollars are funding the roads you drive on.
It is not his choice with you taking his money to shove down his throat what you want. Your tax money should not go to “fund private schools” any more than his money taken from him by taxation should be spent on what you want. Telling him to “pretend” that the school taxes he pays are for something else is an anti-intellectual demand for evasive self delusion, which is consonant with your demand for government control of thought in education.
I suspect you were educated in a public school that was paid from lots of taxpayer dollars in your community … time to pay back, bud!
How many times, many times over, in how many places do you think we should have to “pay back” to some other system for something we had no choice about because the government monopolized the system? Your argument reeks of the old excuse given by the Soviet Union that it would not let people escape the country because the state had “educated them”. The statist collectivist thinks that once someone is made to take money from the state, the state owns him.
And using your logic, since I have no kids in school, I should pay nothing.
It means you should not be forced to pay for it as forced redistribution, not that it would not be in your interest to support the education of your choice to the extent you choose in accordance with what you can afford.
Our education system does need serious attention. It’s flaws come from many areas not just one. Money has always been an issue. Some students are not motivated to do well. It is not important to them or their parents. You have teachers who have tenure and no longer care about their job performance. You also have teachers who love to teacher but their hands are tied by the school board. School boards decide the curriculum that is to be used, not teachers. School board members in large do not have backgrounds in Child Education. Most of them are your neighbors who rushed home from work to go to the school board meeting.
I believe you should let the teachers (who actually went to college to become teachers) teach the students without their hands tied behind their backs. Let them(the teachers) decide curriculum and how best to teach the student/grades. Give them total support from administration AND parents.
The local education system has become like the government. It is too top heavy. Too many people and too much money goes to the administration.
Hey, I’m all in favor. If private religious schools want to take public tax dollars, they should only be able to do so on a first-come first-serve basis and have to meet all the RIDICULOUS 504 and accommodation plans that are KILLING public schools. I say, let it rip!
i say let them run all the schools without the government interference.
Finally !!! When the school board and its overpaid superintendent serve us up excrement on a shingle, we can send it back to the kitchen!
Samadams,
Thanks so much for your reply. Yes, I believe that a high school student making $30,000 while earning a degree is doing quite well. I’m sure that after graduation when working full time and with additionally allowed traps he is earning far more than as a student. Sorry you find my points “rambling” but I remain glad that 95 individuals “liked” my point of view. Thanks again for YOUR point of view. Ken
This proposal pits one school district against the other with serious consequences. If schools begin losing students to nearby schools, they will likely face closure,” MEA President Chris Galgay said in a statement.
Sound right to me Mr. MEA President, what’s your stale thinking, keep crappy schools open?
I heard on the news tonight that if these bills pass they may get a People’s Veto to all of them they are angry. They are already using scare tactics claiming it will close schools, teachers will be laid off, students will suffer from long bus rides to neighboring towns. They along with the Maine Principals Association are 2 of the biggest roadblocks to any changes to our schools from consolidations, school choice, open enrollments, consolidations to sports programs etc.. Until we put a stop to their power we will never see any major benefits to our education system . We will always be in the bottom half in rankings of school peformance. We will still have 75% of our schools failing while costs in these districts continue to rise.
The only thing that state funded tuition to private religious schools will do is increase the tuition to attend those schools to encompass the present tuition plus the state contribution.
Not all private schools are religious and religion is not taught in the class room.
And with freedom of choice good schools of all kinds would be added, using the better teachers who would also be free to move. Competition lowers costs, it does not increase them with a static supply.
Religious or not the principle is the same. Tuition will increase to meet the extra money available.
If you don’t like the current school situation, take a hard look at Obama and whatever Republican is the front runner right now. ONLY RON PAUL has the courage to say the the US Department of Education HAS to go, which it must.
Why, why does the department of education need to go? and what do you propose the thousands of college students who would have all of their college funding for next year do?
Phase it out, starting with immediate elimination of the Federal controls and subsidies for non-teaching functions. There is no justification for Federal intervention and control in education.
Instant (or at least painfully drawn out) chaos. So you choose a different school. They way Maine’s population is spread out, that would mean severe transportation difficulties and expense. That’s just for openers.
Better decree state run grocery stores with forced assignments to your
neighborhood store to “save transportation costs? Fascist and socialist
central planning is not more “efficient” and has no moral or economic
justification.
Is there an app for climate change?
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0208/NASA-satellites-reveal-colossal-ice-melt-greenhouse-gasses-blamed
NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gasses blamed
Until now, satellite measurements from only selected places were used to extrapolate the overall ice loss outside Greenland and Antarctica.
By Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer / February 8, 2012
Tax funding for private or religious schools should be available only to the extent that the money is used to meet state education standards. No funds should be used for religious education. The schools should be allowed to opt out if they don’t want to comply with state standards.
There is no way that public funds should be used, in any manner, for private or religious schools. That is taking money away from those who don’t have access to either of them. The constitution, in the 1st amendment declares a separation of church and state, case closed.
Look at the big picture. A poor kid lives in a poor rural town with a poorly funded public school. He would like to attend the private school over in the next town that provides an established and esteemed education. The rich guy down the road sends his kid to that school because he can afford the tuiton. But the poor kid can’t. Along comes school choice. Now, the appoximately $8000 per year that is spent for the poor kid at the public school can be used to send him to the better private school. Now that poor kid has the same opportunity to succeed educationally that the rich kid has.
And you would deny the poor kid this opportunity just to keep the entrenched current public school system in place? Who does that serve? The kids? Or the school system?
Well said.
The case is not closed until you stop taking the money from people who don’t want to use the government system and consequently can’t afford what they prefer. As long as government coercion remains in education there will be an inherent, unavoidable clash between freedom of choice and separation of church and state. In the name of freedom of thought the whole mess has to be phased out. Tax credits for anyone supporting anyone’s education is a good first step.
Great… Privatize High School. New and improved High School loans get in debt before your even 18. Then borrow some more for college. Unless of course your born rich…
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Sorry,
but I don’t want my tax dollars funding church sponsored schools that teach
solely based on that particular religion whether it be Christianity, Muslim, or any other religion.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought from state control? Get the government out of education and you won’t have to worry about separation of state and religion. Meanwhile, the government is forcing people to be “educated” on its terms. The statists have no objection to that because they arrogantly want to control other people.
So you’re ok with a Muslim school in your neighborhood teaching only Sharia law or a Christian based school that refuses to teach evolution? The Government run school system should be neutral and allow one to practice his or her religion exactly as it is now. None of the public schools I’ve attended have ever forced me to be educated on their terms, they presented me with facts, not opinions, and allowed me to make my own decisions. That my friend is called freedom.
The Maine constitution is very clear on public funding for teachers in religious schools – “all religious societies in this State, whether incorporate or unincorporate, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.” This ‘right’ was so important to our founders that is was specifically included in Maine’s equivalent of the bill of rights – Article I. The only question is – why has government not been forced to comply with the Constitution in this respect?!
What? You thoroughly miss understand the wording and intent of that passage. It is pretty obvious that it means the state will not interfere with the election/appointment of religious leaders/teachers. I guess, including the appointment of teachers in religion funded schools for children.
Not interfering does not equal providing funding. It is also, purposefully, ambiguous. Not just Christian organizations. Are you comfortable with your tax dollars going to Muslim, Wicken, and Buddhist schools to educate children? What exactly are you arguing the state government should be forced to do to comply with this? What does that have to do with this issue?
Well said. The Maine constitution does not enable public funds to be directed to religious schools, it inhibits it. That particular cite regards that the state will not interfere with religious schools educating their own, not the other way around. And most importantly, the United States constitution, which obviously trumps our state’s specifically states the separation of church and state.
Harvell – you are way off on your interpretation. Section 3 clearly uses the term ‘public’ in reference to funding. Otherwise the drafters would have said religious societies have the right to elect their own teacher, or their own private teacher, or religious teacher. But they did not draft it that way. They purposely stated “all religious societies in this State, whether incorporate or unincorporate, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.”
In fact the drafters were so specific that this comment was not included in Article 8 related to education. It was placed in the article defining ‘religious freedoms’ due to its importance to the understanding of the terminology. The word ‘public’ in this case can only refer to funding – publicly funded!
So by your interpretation it is the states responsibility to fund all religious teaching? or that only religious organizations have the ability to appoint “public” teachers?
Funding who?
I don’t even understand what your saying the states responsibility is here.
The quote refers to “public teachers” and an exclusive right to select them and arrange for their compensation: “exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance”. To understand it in context, at the time there were no state mandates on public education, and all (or almost all) schools were religious. Private schools, which were open to the public, continued to dominate and included religious teachings into the early 1800s. (Even Harvard University was founded as a religious institution in the 1600s and continued that way through the battles between the traditionalist and the Unitarians well into the 1800s).
The political battle over control of the schools leading to state mandates originated as a battle for control between Catholics and Unitarians over what students were taught to believe — there was increasing fear of Catholic immigrants from Europe dominating education. The notion of government control over the schools to mold ‘good citizens’ came from the Prussian system in Germany, which had a great deal of influence in intellectual circles in the 1800s — in contradiction of the Enlightenment values of individualism and to the detriment of the country ever since. There was no justification for state takeover of education from private schools, which were functioning very well, but neither was there any justification for the attempts to maintain religious dominance in general or by any sect in particular.
So you put it in historic context but didn’t answer a single of my questions, and in fact backed up my point. In religious schools or even religiously funded schools the religious leaders get to pick the teachers. Ok…
The state’s responsibility is clearly spelled out in the Maine Constitution. “the Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools; and it shall further be their duty to encourage and suitably endow, from time to time, as the circumstances of the people may authorize, all academies, colleges and seminaries of learning within the State”
To answer your faux question, the teaching of religion is ancillary to teaching the fundamentals of education. To assert that religious schools only teach religion is ridiculous. Tell me what public school doesn’t teach some aspects of past religions – ancient history is full of religious references. Mythology is totally about religion. Should we ban ALL religion from education? There would be little left if we did. Even science in its purist forms is based on a faith, a belief, in certain unprovable fundamentals.
We should not be singling out religious schools simply because they teach some religion. The focus should be on the outcomes – which includes preparedness for college and careers. Private schools are a premium choice for education for those with the resources. Private schools that teach some religion should be a premium choice for those with marginal resources.
My “faux” question? I am asking a solid question. What policy implications do you your statements have for todays problems? I have not implied religious schools only teach religion in any way. However, I have stated that if you run/fund a privet institution of learning the state shall not interfere with your choice or compensation of your teachers.
Public schools must be secular by nature based on the simple fact we are not of all one religion. Teaching about all cultures and religions is fine but teaching that one is correct over the others in a institution that is provided by the collective tax would violate: “State, shall be equally under the protection of the laws, and no subordination nor preference of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
To simplify my question for you. What policy changes are you arguing for?
Wow, state-funded admission to religious schools…when we can’t even maintain our public schools. Ouch!!
There’s no way public money should be going to private, religious schools. It seems to me that all this guy wants to do is pick a fight with the federal government, a fight that he will lose.
He mentions that he wants to strengthen evaluations of teachers, however, he doesn’t mention that charter school instructors are not required to adhere to the same standards as public schools.
He wants to privatize our education system; don’t think for a second that there will not be inequalities as it regards the quality of education. In other words, if the parents can afford it, their child will get a better education than those that cannot. Paul LePage, of all people, should know this. Read Matt Gagnon’s Pine Tree Politics, he feels that his son doesn’t get what he thinks he deserves, and is going to move to get to the school of his choice. What happens to those people who have an equally capable child, and is relegated to the less desireable school because of mom and dad’s paycheck.
Gagnon has the option, and the money to relocate; his column typically reflects that of a conservative. For some reason, his kid is better than the poor folks children.
For “some reason” his “kid” is his child, not yours and not the state’s. You want to control everyone to hold everyone down to a lowest common denominator. Don’t try to tell us that is a concern for education.
This guy was elected to bring jobs to Maine. He’s got his fingers into everything but! How do you figure? More important what do you figure?
Oh Good!! State funded madrassas just like in Pakistan and Afganistan. Here we could teach our own right wing religeous zealots with taxpayer money. State Sponsored Stupitity!! Goes with ALEC’s and MHPC’s stamp of approval, of course.
You are such a great example of tolerance and open-mindedness.
To say nothing of state sponsored stupidity. One of the problems now is
leftist control of the educational system. The worst of them distort
everything just as he misrepresents individual freedom as “state funded
madrassas just like in Pakistan”.
Paulie is a living contradiction to both Evolution and Intelligent design.
He was upfront about his support for Intelligent design being taught in all schools and also about privatizing many publicly funded services prior to becoming gov…… sadly many weren’t listening, agreed with him or didn’t care.
If folks want to send their children to religious schools (that is very open to interpretation) they ought to be able to do that, but I don’t feel obliged to pay the inefficiencies of it or transportation costs, etc.
The other suggestions seem reasonable.
Yet someone like me, who wants to send their child to a religious school, still has to pay taxes that support the public schools PLUS pay out of pocket for the religious school. Your reasoning doesn’t add up. If we use your reasoning, then if you shouldn’t have to pay for my child to attend private school, then why should I have to pay for other kids attend a school that my child will never set foot in? Most private schools do not provide transportation, which means parents transport. So that argument is also invalid. Again, I, as a taxpayer, pay for other kids to be transported while I will end up transporting my own child in my own vehicle (additional cost to me). I don’t begrudge paying taxes and supporting the school system, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable that some of my own tax dollars go to support the school that I choose to send my child to.
Pray before and after school. Can’ t have it both ways or home school.
Sorry, Mama. We live in a democratic society that provides a free public education for every child. The key word in that sentence is public. Since it has a great value to all of our society, we support it equally no matter how much we use it or do not use it- similar to roads, snowplowing, public safety, etc. You don’t pay a different tax rate based on the number of kids you have, and you don’t get to reduce your property tax bill if you don’t have any children at all. It’s called a public infrastructure, and we want to exist for the good of all.
Your desire to send your child to a private school instead of the public one is your choice and you’re free to do so. But the rest of us taxpayers have no say in the governance of your private school, or in its finances or management, or whether we even want it to exist, unlike public schools. And as for religion, that separation is a fundamental value of our country.
I’ve heard your argument from other parents who choose private schools, and I understand that it feels unfair to you. It’s not. No more than me pointing out that I choose to pay a private vendor to pick up my garbage rather than haul it to the dump myself. No tax break for that, nor will the town pay my monthly fees because I don’t want to use the landfill. I live on a private road and have to pay for it to be plowed out. No tax break. I don’t have children and I’ve paid property taxes for 35 years. I can think of no better investment for my money than an educated populace, and I’m very grateful for all of the people before me who funded my great education in public schools. I also attended some religious programming after school, that my parents paid for.
If you are truly a “Wellness” mama, I hope you’ll think about letting go of some of your resentment towards others and maybe be a little bit thankful that you have the choice of how and where to educate your kids. You might feel better. I don’t know what your religion is, but most of them teach about things like generosity, compassion, and being a good neighbor.
We do not “exist for the good of all”. You are a collectivist arrogantly forcing your views down the throats of others. Freedom of thought, not sacrifice to the collective, is fundamental to this country. You have no business forcing people to pay for an educational system you want in the name of the collective, then disingenuously claiming that those who disagree with you are “free” to do something else they can no longer afford because you took their money. Stop forcing people to subsidize what you want and they won’t need a “tax break” to get their own money back from you.
I am not resentful nor bitter about paying taxes and supporting education. I have been to countries where there is basically no infrastructure and no public education (free) and therefore it has very negative effects on that country’s children and future. I am glad we do have choices here, and I will certainly pay for my child to attend a school that I feel fits our beliefs if I choose to. My only point was that the reasoning of the OP was off – his or her reasoning was that they did not feel “feel obliged to pay the inefficiencies of it or transportation costs.” (referring to a private school) I was simply pointing out that this reasoning does not go both ways, because even if I choose to pay to send my child to a private school, I am still obliged to pay for the other schools, transportation, etc. Again, I am okay with that, but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to open up some options for parents in my situation.
thats your choice but i aint giving a dime to a school that wants to teach religion. all religion is a continuing sales job for nothing. Look at all the jackoff tv preachers and you can tell that.
Then don’t expect those forced to pay school taxes not to revolt against your imposition against them. Separation of church and state, i.e., freedom of thought including religion, prohibits you from exploiting government power to discriminate against religion. You are otherwise free to believe what you do about religion and free to argue for your position.
Religious schools are extensions of and funded by the congregations that sponsor them and others who “choose” to send their kids there through tuition. Each school is guided by the doctrine of whatever religion/denomination is sponsoring it. No matter what religion a school is guided by, when public funds are used, people will be forced to support something they may not follow. And these schools should follow mandates, laws and standards that public schools are mandated to follow …..
Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It’s like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won’t fatten the dog.
-Mark Twain- Speech, 11/23/1900
No one has proposed stopping education.
This a bold-faced attempt by the fascist Tea Party to undermine public education, one of their priorities.
“Fascist tea party” is a contradiction in terms. Private choice is not “fascism”.
This is not a perfect world. Take money from public schools lower enrolement and the cost will go up. Some religious schools do a great job But I do not want my tax dollars to fund them.
People who don’t want to use government controlled public schools don’t want their tax money going to them. Tax credits for education would allow you to fund the kind of education you want.
[Add: The tax credits would allow anyone to support anyone’s education he wants until government control is phased out and they would no longer be necessary.]
Single people who don’t have children and the elderly will get tax credits too? Or will they be exempt from taxes that go to education? Or will they continue to pay full price for something they don’t use?
…..
Why should children of poor families who cannot afford a better school be stuck in a poorly performing public school just because they happen to live in that district? Why should the wealthy kids get all the choices and opportunities just because their parents have money? Isn’t it time to level the playing field by allowing poor kids the same educational opportunity that rich kids have?
They want to stop the children of wealthier families from having choice, too.
“Wealthier” families have always had the ways and means to choose…… this proposal does not give the less wealthy families a means of making the same choices. In rural areas where the “choices” are not available, paying room and board or transportation costs out of pocket is not an option.
So, nobody should have a choice (unless they are rich), just because some people will not be able to choose? That doesn’t make sense to me.
It doesn’t level the field unless it provides transportation and/or room and board for those who can not afford to transport or house their children outside the district. The “wealthy” already have the ability to send their kids out of their district. If a kid in (ex) Calais chooses a school in Bangor or Portland but the parents cannot afford the other costs, then their choices are still limited.
Okay, so it isn’t perfect. But at least it opens more opportunity for students, regardless of their income level. The logistics of how a student gets to the school of his or her choice can be sorted out once they decide which school they wish to attend. But to use the issue of how will a kid get to a school as an argument against even offering the opportunity to choose a school other than the one in your district is…creating the proverbial straw man.
You may call it the ” the proverbial straw man” …… unfortunately for a very large number of families it is a reality. The “wealthy” will have the choice they have always had and those who cannot will still be unable.
The wealthy already have the choice, as you stated. So why not offer the not-so-wealthy a bit more choice for their children’s education?
Should we continue to suffer under the same broken system because Liberals want to continue to find new excuses like transportation issues. That is for the parents to figure out. As Steve Bowen stated that will all be solved when the bill is passed and the system is put into place. I trust Steve Bowen who has studied education issues nationwide most of his adult life to get these issues solved. If it also takes him putting those buffoons at the Teacher’s Union , MPA , Maine Democrats in their places because their ideas have been colossal failures while also nearly bankrupting taxpayers.
….
This new Governor is just too much!
Why don’t we support our children – every child can be sucessful, just sometimes we need to adjust what we see as sucsessful, and apprciate what our children do with their lives. Not every child is going to be a Dr nor will all children be a logger – but lets celebrate what each child does become!
Reasons why private religious schools will not take public runs fir tuition;
Sex education will be required, class offerings will be effected by Federal guidelines public schools must adhere too, staff training to include LBGT training to be inclusive to the needs of those students who identify as LBGT, not mention they would not be able to not higher LBGT teachers staff, is just the tip of the iceberg of changing the current autonomy these schools now enjoy. Star could also lose Federal school funds if these rules and guidelines are not strictly adhere too?
They will demand exemptions because these things (among many others) are against their religious doctrine and beliefs…… and of course they will be given the exemptions or holler that their freedom of religion is being attacked and sue.
The timing of this proposal, well into the short term of the legislature with fireworks raging around the attempt to cut so many people off the state rolls, makes me wonder if Big Paulie and the educational pimple are trying to sneak it through or detract from the other issues. I think I would have a problem with my tax dollars going to religious schools, especially Islamist ones. Some people might say the same thing towards what were once called “Papist” schools. Perhaps the current ban on this part needs to stay in place. Some won’t be happy until all public schools are closed and only for-profit educational centers are the schools for all.
The good news is that these boilerplate ideological proclamations sound an alarm to anyone who might be left of , say Joe McCarthy. Paulie will get neutered in November.
Protection of freedom of choice is fundamental to the nature of this country, not “boilerplate ideological proclamations”. Typically, we see progressive power seekers denouncing our freedom as irrelevant “boilerplate”. That is why there is a revolt on behalf of reform against them.
The Department of Education — state and federal — deeply endowed with our tax dollars is the next gold mine that corporate America plans to strip mine — we all saw what they could charge the Department of Defense for a toilet seat — imagine what they can squeeze out us for an education
For those of you who complain about the lack of control over RSUs and SADs — just imagine how much control you will have with corporate and their bean counters
And you can bet they will cherry pick their students — leaving those with learning disabilities and the troubled kids in what is left of the public schools who lack adequate funds to give them any kind of education
I have raised two children who received a good education in public school — and although I no longer have school aged children I do not mind my property and income taxes supporting public schools because I believe in educating the young for the future for the good of the public — however I will not support those same dollars supporting corporate America and the religious schools — no doubt most of them would provide a good education — sometimes better then some public schools — but if you wish to send your child to private or religious school do not ask for tax dollars to support them
The biggest problem I saw in schools when my childen were that age is that parents were not involved — so my advise — public or private school if you want your child to succeed get involved — my children were honor students and I went to every teacher/parent meeting there was in K through 12, I monitored their homework, they attend school every day and I expected them to do the best they could do — my daughter received all A s and one B in undergraduate college — she felt that she could have done better — she had learned to expect the best
You make people pay for what you want, then balk when they want their
tax money used to pay for the kind of education they want but cannot
afford because their money has been taken.
You are free to support any kind of education you choose, but not to force others to subsidize what you want for the same reason that you don’t want to be forced to subsidize private or religious-oriented schools.
These financial matters and the freedom associated with them are very important, but at least as significant is that education is too important to be controlled by the government as a socialized enterprise. Freedom of thought in education goes together with freedom of what ideas you can choose to support with your money.
The Department of Education should be abolished, not “mined” by anyone — including the current educational establishment.
If religious schools are going to be funded with tax payer money then maybe the churches should be taxed……as well what about separation of church and state?
There is no separation of church and state. There is a constitutional requirement that the state not prefer one religion over another.
The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”, not that government can support religion as long as it is not preferential. It concerns religion as such.
There should be separation of state and education for the same reasons as separation of state and church. For the sake of freedom of thought and belief the use of government force must be banned from the realm of ideas, whether religious belief or anything else.
My personal opinion is that it would be better for churches and their affiliated organizations to remain free from government dollars–these dollars subject them to government demands that can change with each new administration. But the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that as long as the government does not show preferential treatment to one faith over another, there is no establishment of religion and thus giving government funds to religious organizations for ostensibly secular purposes is allowed.
Why do you care where someone’s child goes to school? It’s their tax dollars not your’s.
The head of the Teachers union does not like open enrollment (I do not agree with religious schools) shocking… Lets make schools like a business, competing for students and money to pay for the teachers and staff. It is time to pay for performance in education as the product that schools produce are the students and when your product is bad or over priced you go out of business. I also believe that schools at all levels need to accept special needs students if there is room and that a percentage of all spots need to be for students with special needs. The teachers don’t want to change anything because they are not held to the standards the rest of the business world gets held too and it is time they are. We need to treat students as a commodity like they are and produce the highest quality we can in any way possible, this current system does not work and is only hurting our kids.
Yes, provided that “commodity” is properly understood in the context of providing an educational service.
There must be some way to get this obnoxious gasbag to shut his pie hole. “His” ideas are spoon-fed to him by his Tea Party handlers who have no interest in improving this state, its education system or its people, only in exploiting it and us for their own gain. RECALL before it’s too late. He campaigned as a republican (read as conservative), he is in reality a regressive right-wing extremist.
Leave it to the left to decree freedom of choice, out from under state control, to mean “regressive right-wing extremist”.
The Left in this state is taking some time to figure out what it means to be in the minority, and they don’t like it!
I am loving the knee-jerk reactions of the liberal establishment contingent. It makes me chuckle. Honestly, what does the educational system have to fear from tailoring an education to an individual student’s needs and desires?
School choice will reward those students and parents who care enough to pursue the best education they can find.
As for religious schools receiving funds, as long as the state is not favoring one religion over another, there is no conflict.
Teachers are always saying that parents should be more involved in their kids education and that they wish students cared more about learning. These 4 proposals will support and encourage more parental and student participation. The winds of change can be so refreshing!
Of course the teachers union would fight this. They are trying to make us dead last of all industrialized countries.
..
..
..
..
…
…
..
And how will they make a profit….. by being the best at educating our children. Other wise (word choice intended) we will send our children to another, better place.
Wow! Now our tax dollars will pay for kids to learn about talking snakes (Genesis 3:1) and donkeys (Numbers 22:30) as well as family values such as King Solomon’s 700 wives (1 Kings 11:1-3) and Jesus suggesting that men make themselves eunuchs for heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:12)! Oh, and don’t forget the stoning of non-virgin brides on their father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13)! And, to be completely ecumenical, our tax dollars can maybe fund haredi schools like the ones in Israel where instead of studying English, math and science, they focus on religious subjects. 60% of the graduates of the haredi schools don’t work but the State supports them as they devote their lives to the study of Torah. To be consistent, Govenor LePage would go for this idea, too? It’s heartwarming to see the Governor finally focusing on real, Bible-based family values instead of jobs, for a change.
So you’d rather have the government decide what education is best for your kids? Why not provide parents with the choice that works best for their situation, and allow their taxes to be used to support that choice?
How about this for a headline instead, “LePage Unveils Education Reforms Which Put the Student First?” How about for a headline BDN? Of course, it does not have the BDN liberal spin, but it does more accurately reflects LePage’s proposal.
I was thinking the same thing!
It sounds as if Alfond thinks that the government’s ideology should replace parents’ beliefs in determining the type of education that children should receive? What is this–the Soviet Union? I can’t believe it has taken this long for this option to be proposed in this state.
Many Christians have strong beliefs that they would like to pass along to their children, and the government-run schools offer teachings that directly contradict these beliefs. Teacher’s unions and weak-minded politicians have for the most part buried their heads in the sand by denying the right of these parents to have their taxes support an education for their kids that is in agreement with their religious beliefs. Why? Because the teacher’s union is more interested in protecting their own financial interests than in doing what is best for the children of this state. Hopefully Maine’s new Republican majority will support this legislation and finally correct this discriminatory practice that violates each Mainer’s religious freedom!
How about a new school for Muslims or Islam? You Christians OK paying for it? Maybe the Wiccan’s will be able to form a school as well with new found monies. Possibly a school for athiest’s and sane people.
I think your vision of what school choice could mean is inspiring. Yes, if a parent wants to incorporate their world view and beliefs into their child’s education, I say go for it, and education dollars can certainly be spent to further those educational goals. As long as there is not a preference shown to one particular religion over another, the Supreme Court has deemed it does not violate First Amendment prohibitions against government establishing a religion.
The first thing the Gov. should do is repeal the consolidation plan. It’s already cost us more money in the Sherman area. Lots of administrative salaries, and added positions – NOTHING beneficial to the students which it was designed to do. Now they have cut the SAVE program, so any student wanting to take these classes will have to travel to Houlton. Not very bright on RSU 50 administrations part, but a great way for them to save their high paying jobs. Time for SAD 25 to pull out of RSU 50 and get on the right path for our students!
I beleieve that it is every parents constitutional right to send their child to any school of their choosing. If parents CHOOSE to have religion in their childs curriculum so that they can teach them values that are important to their choice of religion, then they should be allowed to. That is their constitutional right. For instance, we are Catholic/Christian, and we find that public high schools often promote an environment which exposes our children to beliefs against our religion. Take science in public high school-students are taught that humans come from apes…christians/catholic religion teach us that humans were created by God. Why do us catholics/christians have to be forced to send our children to public school if its against our religion what is being taught there? Also, public school made my child 4 years behind in math. (NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IS A JOKE) After placing my child in a private religious school, she caught up and graduated with honors, and is now on Deans list at college. She is also a much happier person than when she was in public school. I pay taxes, and should have the right to have my education tax dollars spent at whatever school my children would best benefit from. Its unconstitutional for the state to tell me that they will let me use my tax dollars to send my child to private (If I reside in a school choice area) or a public school, but will not allow me to send my child to a religious private school which is fully accredited by the state. Basically I had paid taxes, and a portion of that went to public schools on top of paying $4000 a year for my child to attend private religious school. Sound fair to you? I think NOT. I hope this plan passes.
I believe if a parent wants to send a child to a religous school it’s a choice. Should not be paid for by tax dollars. I don’t think the State should be involved in teaching and paying for religion in my tax dollars. Religion should be taught in the home, and at church. If you had problems with you’re public school why not home school? You had other options. Everyone wants to blame someone for when a student falls behind. The teacher blames the student/parents and the parents blame the teacher. It’s always someone fault. and who gets hurt in this process? The student. It does take a village to educate kids. Everyone has to be involved for a child to suceed. You see your child falling behind in the elementary school you start there! parents need to be involved spend quality time with your child , reading. math. science ect.
So, if I live in a school choice area, and the sending town will pay tuition to a public school or a private school , dont you think I have that right to have them pay tuition at a religious private school? What does it matter what school the sending district pays tuition too? For instance, I live in an area that does not have a public high school. This area gave me the option of sending my child to 3 public schools or a private (non-religious) school. However, they would not pay for a state accredited religious school. Funny thing is, the religious school tuition is 1/2 the annual cost of the private school ofered to send my child to. So what I am saying, is if they are already paying, what does it matter who they pay it to? It would have saved this school district money. Would not have cost them extra. For your information, because of todays economy, both parents have to work. we are living meagerly-home school is not an option. I did work with my child. I struggled to get answers-private school had her tested. We found out in high school that she had learning disability. We did catch her up-we payed $4000 for tutoring, and $16,000.00 in private school tuition. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND is leaving kids behind. Ask any teacher-they will agree. Teachers are so bogged down in time lines and paper work, kids are getting left behind.By the way, we started trying to get our child help in second grade. You obviously have NO CLUE how the education system works-I doubt you have ever experienced it. It is not as easy as you think. Bottom line, NO EXTRA TAX MONEY WILL BE COMING OUT OF YOUR POCKET WITH THIS PLAN-THEY ARE MERELY SHIFTING FUNDS FROM ONE SCHOOL TO ANOTHER.
If you are living in a town that does not have a public highschool yes you have that right. Students that live a district that have a high school, should attend that high school if they choose not to then pay the tuition to go someplace else. I do not want any of my tax dollars going to a religous school. First Amendment says Seperation of Church and State.
For your information I do KNOW how it works. You think you have problems with schools here. go to the big inner cities, then you have the right to complain. These schools here are small teachers do know the childs name and they care. Inner city has in the elementary school 50 kids in each class. High schools way over crowded. If a fire ever broke out in those big high schools those kids would never make it out alive.
You know what it takes for no child left behind? It takes team work. Teachers can’t do it all. Florida has the FCAT takes a lot of patience to work with those kids to pass that test. It involves a lot of one on one one hour a day working with the kids in the halls . When you have parents involved now it does take two incomes I agree with you. You need to get grandparents involved. this will give them something to do. Help these kids with basic skills.
No Child left behind everyone has a job to do. Kids, parents and teacher . Only way this works.
If you truly believe, the lord will provide. If that doesn’t work get the tax payers to fund your church.
I beleieve that it is every parents constitutional right to send their child to any school of their choosing. If parents CHOOSE to have religion in their childs curriculum so that they can teach them values that are important to their choice of religion, then they should be allowed to. That is their constitutional right. For instance, we are Catholic/Christian, and we find that public high schools… often promote an environment which exposes our children to beliefs against our religion. Take science in public high school-students are taught that humans come from apes…christians/catholic religion teach us that humans were created by God. Why do us catholics/christians have to be forced to send our children to public school if its against our religion what is being taught there? Also, public school made my child 4 years behind in math. (NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IS A JOKE) After placing my child in a private religious school, she caught up and graduated with honors, and is now on Deans list at college. She is also a much happier person than when she was in public school. I pay taxes, and should have the right to have my education tax dollars spent at whatever school my children would best benefit from. Its unconstitutional for the state to tell me that they will let me use my tax dollars to send my child to private (If I reside in a school choice area) or a public school, but will not allow me to send my child to a religious private school which is fully accredited by the state. Basically I had paid taxes, and a portion of that went to public schools on top of paying $4000 a year for my child to attend private religious school. Sound fair to you? I think NOT. I hope this plan passes.
I feel bad that Sen. Alfond thinks that taking religious schools out of the original bill, authorizing payment of public funds to private schools is wrong. If you are going to pay one private school that meets the States requirement you should pay them all. Besides I bet his party (the Democrates) was the one that passed it in the first place.
I am beginning to think Gov. LePage wants to change the spelling of his name to GOD!
I see some serious issues with this proposal. First this guy is a republicican a friend of LePage looking to get into politics. This man was a teacher.2nd we are talking cutting programs where is this money coming from? Why should our tax dollars pay for a program that’s not going to work. Why? Parents that want to send their students to private religious schools it’s a choice. What if you’re NOT Christian? Republicians are very pro choice, Sending Children to private religous schools is this so you can minipulate them into your way of thinking?
Bowen was a teacher, from Va. he comes up here and comes up with this plan. If he was a good teacher he would know what it takes to make education work. Nothing is wrong with the neighborhood school. All kids learn different ways some its more difficult than others. The top 10 students will thrive on your program. What about the one’s that don’t? Wake up these kids are your future generation. Since you have “state” funding why not get a tutor to help these students one on one? All Kids want to learn. And this is a win win for everyone.
I think politics and Church is a bad mix and I would not want my child converted into your Christian republician ways.
You can watch the entire press conference where LePage and Bowen roll out the three bills here:
http://youtu.be/Vpyo2tG_x9k
“This proposal pits one school district against the other with serious consequences. If schools begin losing students to nearby schools, they will likely face closure,” Galgay said in a statement.
If you can’t keep students there you probably shouldn’t have a school.
How are we to believe anything this administration proposes when it is all too clear that the actual intent has been to defund public education?
How completely insane is it to have the Republican Party cite the success of other countries’ school
systems when Republicans have been the first to point out how un-American it is to suggest other countries can do something better than us.
Let’s not forget it was the Republicans who brought us No Child Left Behind.
Let’s not forget that this is the same crew that wants to fix our voting rights, which aren’t broken; and it is the same ideologically-driven bunch who insists that lowering taxes and more deregulation will bring prosperity.
After ten years of Bush what success can the Republicans point to demonstrating their ideas have any credibility?
Don’t trust these clowns. Their interests are not our interests and they continue to con and sucker us into believing that their salary is somehow commensurate with their skills and achievements.
By Nov. 2012 LePage will be a lame duck and many of the 2010 Republicans will be just a bad
mistake of history. If we can hold off their ALEC/KOCH agenda till then we will stand a better chance of improving our American condition.
I agree this plan smells so bad. What happend to our constitutional right freedom of choice? LePage wants to give it to you so they can convert you’re child into their way of thinking? I know a lot of students that go to Christian schools and are very minipulated by what fox news is saying. This idea is a win win for republicans many of these students will graduate and will become republicians, they won’t be thinking for themselves (lose the freedom of choice ) and they will believe everything the republican party stands for.
I believe you hit the nail on the head. There are so-called Christian sects who have incorporated their faith, the Mitt Romney form of capitalism and Republican doctrine into a “Unifying Theory” so to speak. It allows “free thinking” within the context of their Unified Theory of thought. Call it anything you like, I call it truly frightening.
I don’t care if it is Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, or Hindu — if *you* want your kids to have a religious education, *you* pay for it. Catholics are griping about being forced to pay for something they consider immoral, birth control for employees. Well, why should they have to pay for education they consider immoral?
As far as schools competing for students goes, that’s a race to the bottom. Cannibals. Entire districts will go into a death spiral as the brightest and wealthiest kids transfer to the next town over . . . and take tuition payments with them.
That’s interesting: Why do you assume the wealthiest and brightest will flee to the next town over, but not the poorest and those struggling in the school they are in? It seems to me the wealthiest kids already have school choice. The brightest are those who are doing well in the school they are in. School choice is really about the poor, disadvantaged, and struggling kids having a choice to get to a school that better meets their needs and allows them greater success in life.
We’ve already seen a school district refuse to provide transportation to a distant school. How many families can afford to deliver and pick up students on their own, even with a car pool?
And how long do you think it will take for a good school to start screening the students that apply, for academic performance and behavior? Brewer tried to start that, a few years back, for the districts that feed the high school. How long for a private school, an Academy, to start jacking up tuition for out-of-district students?
It’s “free market” . . .
Transportation to the school would be decided by each district–they may offer transportation to the chosen school, but would not be required to. This is no different from how it is now. As a parent, part of the decision on where you live must involve your child’s access to education. This is a parental responsibility.
Schools would not be allowed to cherry pick students. If they have more students apply than they have openings, they would award slots based on a lottery.
The amount of money the state would send to the private school is simply the amount paid per student to the original school district. The private schools could not receive more money from the state than the state already is paying per student.
“I” do not want to pay for standardized, hohum, run of the mill education for my child.”I” am forced to pay for an educations system where mediocracy is the norm and excellence is shunned.
My child, my choice.
Feifan Chang
Some parents are doing it hard to send their kids to private schools on the assumption that private school education gives the child an advantage in life.They may actually welcome changes that would make them feel less guilty if they felt funding changes resulted in improvements to public education.
Hey folks, you want to know why our state is going broke? Our country for that matter?
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915
It is the SAME EVERYWHERE. Is LePage the only one in office that ‘Gets It’??
First off, your taxes pay for schools, not for your child to go to a particular school, so don’t confuse the two. It matters not if you even have a child in school, education is a public responsibility.
The problem in this state is that we have superintendents who run school districts like kingdoms. They are the elephants in the room and the system is corrupt to the core. They have recently succeeded in consolidating their power and further removing local control.
Please do not blame the teachers who for the most part just want to teach kids. If a teacher makes even one wave, they’ll never work in this state again. I have seen many good teachers gone from this problem. The teachers who are left after these incidents will put their heads down, close the door of their classrooms, shut their mouths, and survive.
Schools haven’t really failed in the traditional sense. This downward trend has been a planned controlled demolition of the educational system to establish something new.
Local taxes pay for local schools. The downward trend that has been established is so schools for profit can step in and save the day. Just like in Pennsylvania. I think the management fee is a little excessive. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/education/pennsylvania-schools-funding-fight-pits-district-against-charter.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pennsylvania%20school&st=cse
If my tax payer dollars are going to religious schools, religious organizations will be make sure birth control is available on insurance plans.
Personally, I have a BIG problem with any of my tax dollars going to a private religious school. I do not think that I should have to pay for education, that includes teachings I find discriminatory. Something tells me, if a Jewish, Mormon, Jehovah’s witness, Muslim, or LGBT child tried to join one of these religious schools, it wouldn’t be allowed, so they should not receive one single dime of my tax dollars. I agree that changes need to be made to our education system, but it is completely outrageous to force non-religious people to pay for the biased education taught at private religious schools.
I doubt religious schools would be allowed to discriminate based on the criteria you cited if they wanted to accept state dollars. Schools would not be forced to participate in the school choice program. So students would not have the true choice of any school they wanted, but would be able to choose among schools that offer the open enrollment. Schools offering open enrollment would need to adhere to state requirements set for them.
People who are very religious are forced to pay tax dollars to support education in public schools that they don’t agree with so I don’t think you can justifiably argue the case that you don’t want your tax dollars going to a school that teaches something you don’t agree with. As long as the parents have the free choice to send their kid to the school, and the school meets the rules set by the state to receive funds for the student, then there is not a conflict legally with the money going to a religious private school.
Great ideas here! Just what our public schools need: competition! I love how Gov. LePage continues to make good on his campaign promises!! “People (even students) before Politics!! Keep on keepin on Gov LePage!!
Maine’s public schools are rooted in private religious schools who until 1983 were publicly subsidized.
This created both competition and a diverse educational marketplace, where innovation flourished and there was plenty of choice for parents in many Maine towns. School Choice fairs in large sending towns featured both public and private schools; and the competition improved education to the point where Bangor had five of the best high schools in the State.
Restoring the best of this system may be impossible; but the private schools are resilient and results driven. Turning public schools into legal prisons for our children and denying parents options is neither wise—-just take a look at how states like Ohio, Florida, Arizona have used choice options to uplift the quality of their schools; nor fruitful—which state’s public schools have stagnant scores and rank last in New England?
Maine created school vouchers; time to restore what once made Maine’s schools great and make parents happy…..or if you want to really gray out Maine; just keep denying parents real choice so they migrate to other states for BOTH jobs and a better education for their children.
The choice is yours.
Maybe you should read the recent US SUPREME COURT decisions which allowed vouchers and public monies to go to religious schools and decided they weren’t a violation of the Sep. clause.?
I have a bigger problem with money flowing directly to the schools.
It should go to the parents who can then decide which of the approved schools is best for their child.
The fact is that Public education has not failed and our society is the most highly educated in our history.
Reasons why School Choice is a good idea
1.
It will allow parents to choose where their
children go, rather than the public school system having a monopoly on
education. I am an educator and a
parent. Many parents are forced to send
them to their children to public school out of necessity not because they want
to.
2.
The public school system is constantly whining
about funding. It would be nice for once
if they actually utilized the money to the fullest extent. I think it is great for teachers to get paid
a good salary for the important work that they do. But I also think having 15 sick days a year
and other such benefits may be excessive.
Private schools are constantly making due with significantly less per
student because they have to watch cost, not depend upon the state to
constantly funnel money when times get tough.
3.
This will be a way of holding teachers
accountable for poor teaching. I
remember doing my student teaching under a teacher who did absolutely nothing
for those students. Yet he had seniority
and had no chance of being reprimanded (oh and by the way he was the union
representative for his school).
4.
It is the right thing to do. If you pay taxes and they go towards the
funding of education, why shouldn’t you be able to decide where your money goes? I thought we live in a democracy. I know most of the time we engage in
representative politics but this would be one way in which the people could
make a direct decision on their taxpayer dollars.
5.
Lastly this will create diversity in education. I believe in having high standards of
education and we must be careful not to lower standards. However having diversity in the material
taught I think is a good think and may give us the much needed creativity that
our state needs.
Rebuttals
1.
This is a violation of the separation of church
and state
a.
Well
actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
2.
This will hinder the current public schools
a.
The public schools are not the only answer to
educating students. Initially there may
be some difficulties. But schools that
perform well will have no problem with enrollment.
b.
This will only be a shift in where people are
educated. Current Public school teachers
may have to get a job in a private school.
There will be a greater need for teachers in private school if this
happens. After the initial difficulties
these problems will adjust and balance out.
Some schools may fail…but do we want schools that cannot perform well
anyways.
3.
There is less accountability and no standards for
teachers
a.
Well that is determined by the legislation. There
are definitely different approaches to school choice. This will be an important piece to writing
the legislation. I do not think that this should be a rush to get it done approach,
but definitely done with care.
4.
The students who actually need the money to choose
their school still will have transportation issues
a.
Well, again I believe this is an issue that can be
resolved. Also schools that get a higher
enrollment because of the choice may extend bus routes or establish them for
the first time. I think we have a
tendency to try to throw hurdles at something when it is a new idea. However this is a definite issue, but can be
resolved.
5.
Students with disabilities will be hurt.
a.
Once again this is a fallacy. Schools that are private will have more
funding now and be able to establish better programs to suit students with
disabilities. Public schools will have
fewer students in need because they will transfer to other schools. The funds will be shifted and spent more
wisely.
Lastly I would like to state that regardless of which system
is implemented there are going to be some difficulties. We have had a current system for years and I
do not feel that it has been as effective as it should be. I think it is wise to try something new and
not just throw up your hands because there are some serious issues to be ironed
out.
I understand what you are saying. The parent has to take responsibilty making sure your child is getting a good education. Teachers can not do it all. We all bring kids in the world and its our job to make sure they suceed in life. What about the parents that have paid thousands of dollars to send there kids to christian schools. For a good Christian education. How are they going to feel now knowing the out of control non disiplined students arrived?
Reasons why School Choice is a good idea
1.
It will allow parents to choose where their
children go, rather than the public school system having a monopoly on
education. I am an educator and a
parent. Many parents are forced to send
them to their children to public school out of necessity not because they want
to.
2.
The public school system is constantly whining
about funding. It would be nice for once
if they actually utilized the money to the fullest extent. I think it is great for teachers to get paid
a good salary for the important work that they do. But I also think having 15 sick days a year
and other such benefits may be excessive.
Private schools are constantly making due with significantly less per
student because they have to watch cost, not depend upon the state to
constantly funnel money when times get tough.
3.
This will be a way of holding teachers
accountable for poor teaching. I
remember doing my student teaching under a teacher who did absolutely nothing
for those students. Yet he had seniority
and had no chance of being reprimanded (oh and by the way he was the union
representative for his school).
4.
It is the right thing to do. If you pay taxes and they go towards the
funding of education, why shouldn’t you be able to decide where your money goes? I thought we live in a democracy. I know most of the time we engage in
representative politics but this would be one way in which the people could
make a direct decision on their taxpayer dollars.
5.
Lastly this will create diversity in education. I believe in having high standards of
education and we must be careful not to lower standards. However having diversity in the material
taught I think is a good think and may give us the much needed creativity that
our state needs.
Rebuttals
1.
This is a violation of the separation of church
and state
a.
Well
actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
2.
This will hinder the current public schools
a.
The public schools are not the only answer to
educating students. Initially there may
be some difficulties. But schools that
perform well will have no problem with enrollment.
b.
This will only be a shift in where people are
educated. Current Public school teachers
may have to get a job in a private school.
There will be a greater need for teachers in private school if this
happens. After the initial difficulties
these problems will adjust and balance out.
Some schools may fail…but do we want schools that cannot perform well
anyways.
3.
There is less accountability and no standards for
teachers
a.
Well that is determined by the legislation. There
are definitely different approaches to school choice. This will be an important piece to writing
the legislation. I do not think that this should be a rush to get it done approach,
but definitely done with care.
4.
The students who actually need the money to choose
their school still will have transportation issues
a.
Well, again I believe this is an issue that can be
resolved. Also schools that get a higher
enrollment because of the choice may extend bus routes or establish them for
the first time. I think we have a
tendency to try to throw hurdles at something when it is a new idea. However this is a definite issue, but can be
resolved.
5.
Students with disabilities will be hurt.
a.
Once again this is a fallacy. Schools that are private will have more
funding now and be able to establish better programs to suit students with
disabilities. Public schools will have
fewer students in need because they will transfer to other schools. The funds will be shifted and spent more
wisely.
Lastly I would like to state that regardless of which system
is implemented there are going to be some difficulties. We have had a current system for years and I
do not feel that it has been as effective as it should be. I think it is wise to try something new and
not just throw up your hands because there are some serious issues to be ironed
out.
Reasons why School Choice is a good idea
1.
It will allow parents to choose where their
children go, rather than the public school system having a monopoly on
education. I am an educator and a
parent. Many parents are forced to send
them to their children to public school out of necessity not because they want
to.
2.
The public school system is constantly whining
about funding. It would be nice for once
if they actually utilized the money to the fullest extent. I think it is great for teachers to get paid
a good salary for the important work that they do. But I also think having 15 sick days a year
and other such benefits may be excessive.
Private schools are constantly making due with significantly less per
student because they have to watch cost, not depend upon the state to
constantly funnel money when times get tough.
3.
This will be a way of holding teachers
accountable for poor teaching. I
remember doing my student teaching under a teacher who did absolutely nothing
for those students. Yet he had seniority
and had no chance of being reprimanded (oh and by the way he was the union
representative for his school).
4.
It is the right thing to do. If you pay taxes and they go towards the
funding of education, why shouldn’t you be able to decide where your money goes? I thought we live in a democracy. I know most of the time we engage in
representative politics but this would be one way in which the people could
make a direct decision on their taxpayer dollars.
5.
Lastly this will create diversity in education. I believe in having high standards of
education and we must be careful not to lower standards. However having diversity in the material
taught I think is a good think and may give us the much needed creativity that
our state needs.
Rebuttals
1.
This is a violation of the separation of church
and state
a.
Well
actually the Supreme Court ruled on this in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
2.
This will hinder the current public schools
a.
The public schools are not the only answer to
educating students. Initially there may
be some difficulties. But schools that
perform well will have no problem with enrollment.
b.
This will only be a shift in where people are
educated. Current Public school teachers
may have to get a job in a private school.
There will be a greater need for teachers in private school if this
happens. After the initial difficulties
these problems will adjust and balance out.
Some schools may fail…but do we want schools that cannot perform well
anyways.
3.
There is less accountability and no standards for
teachers
a.
Well that is determined by the legislation. There
are definitely different approaches to school choice. This will be an important piece to writing
the legislation. I do not think that this should be a rush to get it done approach,
but definitely done with care.
4.
The students who actually need the money to choose
their school still will have transportation issues
a.
Well, again I believe this is an issue that can be
resolved. Also schools that get a higher
enrollment because of the choice may extend bus routes or establish them for
the first time. I think we have a
tendency to try to throw hurdles at something when it is a new idea. However this is a definite issue, but can be
resolved.
5.
Students with disabilities will be hurt.
a.
Once again this is a fallacy. Schools that are private will have more
funding now and be able to establish better programs to suit students with
disabilities. Public schools will have
fewer students in need because they will transfer to other schools. The funds will be shifted and spent more
wisely.
Lastly I would like to state that regardless of which system
is implemented there are going to be some difficulties. We have had a current system for years and I
do not feel that it has been as effective as it should be. I think it is wise to try something new and
not just throw up your hands because there are some serious issues to be ironed
out.
To be honest as a person who has gone through both private catholic institutions and public schools, the difference in the quality of education is night and day: I was already doing alebra 1 when I was in 5th grade and when I came to maine and went to public schools I did pre algebra math class for 2 years and was unable to do any sort of higher math. When my parents enrolled me again to a private catholic school they were able to get me into accelerated math and science programs that the private schools couldn’t. Though I don’t have the greatest faith in the catholic church there is something to be said about private schools and the flexibility they have to help push students along at their own pace rather than at the pace of the slower students…not to bash them either everyone has their own pace at which they learn at.
Personaly I don’t think math needs Islamic or christion view point’s in order to teach it. nor does history/civics and science is contradictory to both.I really would like to see Apprenticeships become big again, and educate around them in a way that fits the knowlege with the jobs needs.Yet how many people know what they want to do in life at first grade. Although my daughter is 6 and says she wants to be a vetanarian pretty often lol.
“Separate but equal” under a new name. But another attempt to gentrify the schools. Move along people…
[duplicate post]
Not one penny of tax dollars should go to any religious or non-public school. If religious groups, organizations or cults wish to educate their children outside the public school system, let them do it on their own dime.
This is just typical Lepage pandering to special interests at the expense of taxpayers.
If parents have school choice, they should be a refendum on these bills.
Public School aka Daycare
Who pays for these students who choose a school outside of the community where they live? Those of us who chose to live in communities that have more attractive schools also pay more money in real estate and property taxes. It is unfair for someone who chooses to live in a less expensive community to reap the benefits of the property taxes we pay that fund our schools. This is a very socialist proposal, especially from someone who has condemned others for proposing socialist ideas.
Please ask people to read… http://commercial-investor.com/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/
LePage’s proposals for funding of charter and religious schools will kill our public schools and his proposals for cuts in DHHS will kill our people.
LePage’s proposals on education will kill our public schools and his proposals for cuts to DHHS will kill our people.
Again, this is driven down by politics. Why are the Democrats against this? Can’t they come up with one idea of their own?