Teacher Fired For Fornication

[AchtungBono]

If BinLaden speaks out against Polanski drugging and raping a 13 year old girl anally, it does not pain me to agree with him.

If Jesus Christ speaks out in favor of stoning or slavery, it does not pain me to disagree with him.


So, are you with BinLaden and against Jesus?

Bin Laden speaking against drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is the ultimate hypocrisy by someone who ordered thousands killed because they follow the wrong religion and because they don't prescribe to his twisted idea of god-worshipping and don't deserve to live because of that.

In the old testament, according to ancient Jewish law, a person who couldn't pay his debts was sold into slavery and this was considered common practice in ancient times. Slaves weren't chosen at random and captured like they were when the first slaves came from Africa. Also, slaves were given positions of authority and trust in antiquity and were, for the most part, treated with respect until they were ultimately given their freedom.
Stoning was a means of execution for offences such as adultery (which you would agree is a bad thing) and was also common in those days.

So to answer your question, Bin Laden isn't the one to talk about moral issues and therefore I wouldn't place any credence in what he says.

Jesus is speaking about slavery, which is a form of paying a debt to society, and stoning which is a means of punishment like the electric chair is today. Therefore he is not saying anything wrong because he speaks from knowledge and learning and justice and not hypocrisy like Bin Laden.

That being said, I abhor slavery and stoning and I agree that Polanski should face charges for eluding justice for as long as he did - even though the victim herself forgave him for the crime itself.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

do the ed choice funds that a student gets equal $20,000 per year?

they don't have that same system in new york, so i can only go on what i know about.

the private school that i work at has a tuition of $11,000 per year, and about 600 students from grade 6 to 12. it is a lutheran school, but there is a large number of students who come from many different religious backgrounds. i'm not lutheran myself, i just work here.

the development office raises about $2.5 million dollars in donations per year. the school puts on a large summer camp that raises about another $2 to $3 million dollars per year depending on enrollment. the state aid that is received... which includes costs to cover transportation for kids who's home district is within 20 miles of the school, plus the costs of books (only non-religious books), and some minimal extra funds that are spent 100% on non-religious educational needs of the students.

in the past few years with a dip in the economy the school has had to rip through it's endowment to offer financial aid to keep students. teachers and staff (who get paid, on average, between 5 and 10 thousand dollars less than public school teachers in the area) haven't gotten a raise larger than 1% in 5 years... and despite all this, the school still has to cut every corner to meet it's budget every year, and couldn't function without the minimal aid that it receives from the state... which, again, 80% of it is in books and transportation, and 100% of it is for things that the state would have to pay for anyways if the students went to their public school.

meanwhile, about 5 miles down the road, chaminade high school has a $70 million dollar endowment. the only aid they receive is in transportation for kids within 20 miles of the school, which is state law. this is your priviledged, largely white, foofy poofy private school that gives the majority of private schools a bad rap. heck, bill o'reilly is an alum of the school.

the majority of private schools out there, at least here in new york, deal with low and middle class families, and/or students who would benefit from smaller class sizes because they get lost in the large classes of their public school. these are the schools that would be devestated by an elimination of state funds.

the 600 students who go to my school... the money each gets from the state? the state would be spending that money on them regardless. it's not as if they're getting something extra, and with a few exceptions, it's not as if they're rich, wealthy, privlledged students.

the state is paying about $1.5 million dollars for books and transportation for these kids. if the school were to close it's doors and the 600 kids returned to their public school, the state would be paying $12 million dollars for the same 600 kids they're currently spending $1.5 million on.

the parents of these 600 kids are still paying school taxes even though their kids don't go to the school. so the public school districts would have to budget an additional $10.5 million dollars per year without gaining a single additional dollar in tax revenue.


we can go around in circles forever. what we can all agree on is that this country is in serious need of education reform.

 

[martha]

the state is paying about $1.5 million dollars for books and transportation for these kids.

Just to poke you one more time, what could the public schools do with that million and a half if the private schools really were private and not taking money form the public schools?

 

[martha]

what we can all agree on is that this country is in serious need of education reform.

I don't want education reform if it involves more money being taken from my budget for any reason.

 

[Liesje]

Weird, I went to a private school and got my own transportation and paid for my own textbooks...

 

[maycocksean]

Just to poke you one more time, what could the public schools do with that million and a half if the private schools really were private and not taking money form the public schools?

Seems to me that money--plus the additional costs that the private school was picking up-- would still be spent on the same students who would now be overcrowding your classroom.

I think Headache is arguing that these kids going to private school is SAVING money on your budget, and to me his case seems pretty strong.

I see the argument that if private schools received no government money, and these kids went to a private school anyway, then yes, that would save the public schools some money. But as he accruately pointed out, the kids who take advantage of these programs (at least in my school, and it sounds like, his) would not be able to attend private school without this assistance. So, they'd still be in your system using up the money--and more-that they would have if they were in our schools.

Maybe it's naive of me, but I feel that ultimately we should be concerned about what's best for the students, not what's best for us. (And no, I do not think private school is automatically "better" for the students).

 

[maycocksean]

Weird, I went to a private school and got my own transportation and paid for my own textbooks...

I did too. I worked all through high school and almost all of it went towards my schooling costs, and I have no complaints about that.

But my family were deeply committed to me being educated within my church's school system (this kind of commitment was very common among Seventh-day Adventists when I was growing up--it's not so common anymore), so we would have probably made any sacrifice to keep in my private school.

 

[deep]

Bin Laden speaking against drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is the ultimate hypocrisy by someone who ordered thousands killed because they follow the wrong religion and because they don't prescribe to his twisted idea of god-worshipping and don't deserve to live because of that.

In the old testament, according to ancient Jewish law, a person who couldn't pay his debts was sold into slavery and this was considered common practice in ancient times. Slaves weren't chosen at random and captured like they were when the first slaves came from Africa. Also, slaves were given positions of authority and trust in antiquity and were, for the most part, treated with respect until they were ultimately given their freedom.
Stoning was a means of execution for offences such as adultery (which you would agree is a bad thing) and was also common in those days.

So to answer your question, Bin Laden isn't the one to talk about moral issues and therefore I wouldn't place any credence in what he says.

Jesus is speaking about slavery, which is a form of paying a debt to society, and stoning which is a means of punishment like the electric chair is today. Therefore he is not saying anything wrong because he speaks from knowledge and learning and justice and not hypocrisy like Bin Laden.

That being said, I abhor slavery and stoning and I agree that Polanski should face charges for eluding justice for as long as he did - even though the victim herself forgave him for the crime itself.

you missed the point

there are 'right and wrong behaviors', 'right and wrong opinions'.

To label a person as always wrong and another as always right in not correct or valid.

If you were given an exam with 200 questions on ethics, morals, opinions and beliefs -
and BinLaden was given the same exam, do you think you would not have any areas of agreement?

You don't think Jesus ever got anything wrong?

Jesus believed he was the Savior of the World, the Messiah.
BinLaden believes Jesus was a man, a prophet, like Abraham.

If I am not mistaken,
You are with BinLaden, not Jesus.

 

[Liesje]

I did too. I worked all through high school and almost all of it went towards my schooling costs, and I have no complaints about that.

But my family were deeply committed to me being educated within my church's school system (this kind of commitment was very common among Seventh-day Adventists when I was growing up--it's not so common anymore), so we would have probably made any sacrifice to keep in my private school.

This was similar to my experience. I did not know private schools received public funding and I guess I would not expect that. If I choose private for my kids it would only be because the quality of the education within walking distance of my home is better there than the public schools, and I'd have no problem sending my kids to a Catholic, Lutheran, or even Jewish school but would not expect public funding. My parents chose private ed also for the quality, not just their religious beliefs. I grew up in a religious family but not the oppressive, sheltered sort, I guess for us it is more about tradition and the community of our family and friends than strict adherence to religious beliefs. The public schools I would have been assigned to are absolutely horrible, I would sell my right lung and both kidneys before I'd send any of my hypothetical children there. And that is NOT a dis on the teachers (Phil taught at the elementary school I would have had to attend K-8), it is the administration here that has fucked up every chance they've had. To get an education, period, the choice was private schools, but that choice meant paying for *everything*.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I don't want education reform if it involves more money being taken from my budget for any reason.

Agreed. The charter school that was just approved by the state will bankrupt my district in 3 years. All in the name of "reform."

 

[martha]

I think Headache is arguing that these kids going to private school is SAVING money on your budget, and to me his case seems pretty strong.

If you buy into the fact that those kids would come back into the public system if tuition reflected the actual cost of educating them without taxpayer subsidies.

California schools are paid based on ADA--average daily attendance. You take the kid out of the school and the money goes away.



eta-- My position on public money for public schools is based on this: Private schools who take public money should take the public--and then see how well they do with student performance. If you want to compare private to public, with public always getting the short stick of public opinion, then let's make the private schools take everyone who wants to attend, just like public has too. Offer them underfunded, federally-required special ed, take the unruly kids and the disinterested parents, same bullshit state requirements. THEN lets compare test scores and performance.

 

[martha]

Agreed. The charter school that was just approved by the state will bankrupt my district in 3 years. All in the name of "reform."

For-profit reform. It's all about the capitalism.

 

[maycocksean]

If you buy into the fact that those kids would come back into the public system if tuition reflected the actual cost of educating them without taxpayer subsidies.

California schools are paid based on ADA--average daily attendance. You take the kid out of the school and the money goes away.



eta-- My position on public money for public schools is based on this: Private schools who take public money should take the public--and then see how well they do with student performance. If you want to compare private to public, with public always getting the short stick of public opinion, then let's make the private schools take everyone who wants to attend, just like public has too. Offer them underfunded, federally-required special ed, take the unruly kids and the disinterested parents, same bullshit state requirements. THEN lets compare test scores and performance.

I hear where you're coming from. As a private school teacher, I'm not demanding any of the public pie. I was simply sharing what I know, not making a case for it. (If I were an administrator it'd be a different story, I'm sure). I should point out though that we have to meet all the state requirements for all our EdChoice students.

To be frank, I feel that the public schools start at a disadvantage for the very reason you stated. They have to take everyone. It's the beauty and curse of our system that every child in America has a right to an education. The result of that right is the challenge you describe.

Then again, I had to have a student in my class that was the worst I've ever seen in my profession--flat out refused to do any work, was a constant source of trouble, stole from kids, got suspended at least sevent times--at points he was out a couple days on suspsension for several weeks in a row--mostly for violence against other students. But the principal wanted to "save" him. When they finally expelled him, he went to a public school and they kicked him out within two weeks of his arrival. I digress, but my point is that even in private schools we can get "stuck" with difficult students. anywhere

Nevertheless, I'd still rather teach in the private schools than the public schools (despite the substantial paycut) if only because of the smaller class sizes. I like that working in a school with a total enrollment of 75 students in grades K-8, I know all of my students personally and can work with them individually than if I were in a public middle school and had 100 kids a day passing through my class.

 

[Liesje]

California schools are paid based on ADA--average daily attendance. You take the kid out of the school and the money goes away.

I do not know much about this but Michigan has "count" days so I think we must have a similar system, they call it "per pupil" allowance or something like that. If there are less kids enrolling, why would the schools need that money? Or are they just not getting enough per kid to begin with? Or is the money not being used efficiently? I'm trying to understand since it's a decision we'll have to make one day for our kids, where to go to school. I looked at the private school association info where I attended K-12 and it does not appear their transportation is funded by state money. They have their own bus fleet and charge a $550 yearly fee to families using their transportation. Apparently Michigan allocates $7100 "per pupil" allowance for the public schools, which is greater than the tuition charged by some of the private schools. One article I read said in 2008 the per pupil allowance came out to be over $12K per student (I guess because there are additional grants and funding beyond the base number, but I didn't really understand the formula). I think the private schools are able to get money above and beyond tuition from churches and donors and endowment. In west Michigan we are lucky to have two of the wealthiest families in the country who put their kids through the private association I grew up in and when the association needs a new auditorium, athletic facility, etc guess who pays for it? I would bet my salary that at least this specific private school association receives more from these donors than it does from the state if that's anything at all (I'm not sure how to find out and haven't been able to find any information on Michigan private schools receiving public funding).

 

[maycocksean]

I do not know much about this but Michigan has "count" days so I think we must have a similar system, they call it "per pupil" allowance or something like that. If there are less kids enrolling, why would the schools need that money? Or are they just not getting enough per kid to begin with? Or is the money not being used efficiently?

It does kind of beg the question of how the money's being spent. It definitely seems that the money per student is not merely covering the costs of educating the student otherwise the school shouldn't hurt if they lose a student. They lose a student, they also lose the cost associated with a student. Then again, private schools also suffer when enrollment drops, so clearly it's not as simple as amount of money recevied=amount spent on each student.

In west Michigan we are lucky to have two of the wealthiest families in the country

Is that the Amway guys?

 

[Liesje]

Mmm yes, lol. And a few others (Prince, Gainey, Meijer, etc). I may not always agree with them politically but it has been nice, benefiting from their continuous philanthropic endeavors basically my entire life (I now work for a private college).

 

[martha]

so clearly it's not as simple as amount of money recevied=amount spent on each student.

Exactly.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i think the #1 problem with this debate is that it is clearly obvious that each state has it's own rules re: this situation, so we really are arguing apples and oranges, as what applies in new york doesn't necceserily apply in california or ohio.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

For-profit reform. It's all about the capitalism.

Absolutely. The person starting the charter school is the superintendent for one of our feeder districts. The charter school will be housed in one of their schools that's half empty. They are in the red and my district is financially solvent. My district is currently filing motion to stop the school from opening. The whole thing is a nightmare. The potential for job loss is high.

Approving the charter school was a ploy get get Race to the Top funds. Prior to this approval, my state had only approved 2 or 3 charters schools when the home district voted down the initial proposal.

 

[martha]

A
Approving the charter school was a ploy get get Race to the Top funds.

My district told the feds to take their Race to the Top funds and take a hike.