Do we really want the Muslim religion or Chinese Communism taught in our schools?

That could happen if we privatize our schools and sell them to the highest bidder like the Chinese or the Saudi Arabians.

I posted this in response to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7337833

but I think it deserves its own post.

The goal of those who wish to change our public schools to charter schools is to permit private companies to profit from educating our children.

Let's take that to its ultimate logical conclusion. Let's say that charter schools become a fairly attractive investment in time. A multinational company buys up one of them -- and then gets into financial trouble. The multinational is rescued by a large investment from, let's say Saudi Arabia or China or a wealthy Mexican. Now who owns your child's school?

The charter advocates would argue that charter schools have to be approved by state or local government and ultimately the voters. But all it would take to change the laws governing the oversight of charter schools would be a few dollars in the pockets of the right legislators. We have seen the lobbyists for multinationals and national insurance companies at work in Congress in the past few months.

So, government oversight is no guarantee that, at some future date, our children could be proselytized for this or that religion (private companies are not subject to the First Amendment, remember) or propagandized against what is left of our democratic form of government.

Charter schools could easily open the way to Muslim schools or Chinese Communist schools.

Nobody should be supporting charter schools.

My understanding is that Charter Schools are intended to create competition - create a marketplace of schools. You can argue that this is a dubious benefit (I do), but if it did come to pass that way, well, why would parents send their kids to a Muslim school, unless they were Muslim and wanted their kids to have an Islamic education?

This particular line of attack doesn't seem very promising.

Should Catholic schools be shut down?

Bryant

>>>Should Catholic schools be shut down?>>>>>

Charter schools are funded... exclusively, far as I know .... by tax dollars.

competition. The problem is that it would be easy for a private company with a hidden agenda to compete with public schools so as to put the public schools out of business.

My children went to Magnet schools. They had all the advantages of charter schools but were publicly run and had to meet the standards set for public schools. I must say, my children received excellent educations. In particular, my oldest daughter went to a university where she had to compete with a lot of graduates from private schools. She was far better prepared for college than were they -- especially when it came to chemistry. Charter schools are not the only way to provide competition within the public school system, and certainly not the best way. It's just goofy. I think that a lot of the complaints about the schools come from parents who do not know how to raise their children.

I mean they would have to shell out a lot of money initially and then if it became clear that the schools were indoctrinating maoist doctrine or the Koran, well, they would probably fail.

Bryant

That's why well-funded schools set up for the ultimate purpose of proselytizing would be successful. The Catholic Church does not run its schools for a profit. They used to have nuns teaching in their schools -- very low-cost. If the children's parents had been required to pay a normal teacher's salary for the nuns, the parents could not have afforded the Catholic school.

Charter schools are paid for out of tax revenue.

Multinational companies have brilliant strategies for capturing and nearly monopolizing markets. It's called marketing. These companies are psychological predators. They make you want all kinds of things.

That's some damn good advertising.

Bryant

And Lenin persuaded Russians to be Communists.

And Bush persuaded Congress to fund the Iraq War.

Advertising is an amazing force.

Advantage 1: Small Catholic schools meet in the church. Large Catholic schools meet in a building that belongs to the church but can be used for other things. As church property, no property taxes are owed. Further, the Catholic school can ask for "sacrificial donations" from the parishioners to build the facility. Translation: running a school is much cheaper when the building's free.

Advantage 2: If the school needs something--whether it's a new basketball for the school team or a new set of books for the science class--they can take up a collection to at least partially defray the cost.

Advantage 3: Parents willingly volunteer for various jobs at the school. Whereas many public schools must hire and pay teacher's aides and lunchroom monitors, in Catholic schools those people have kids in the school. (Side benefit: if Little Rotten Johnny fucks up, his teacher can just grab LRJ by the ear and escort him to the library where his mom is an assistant.)

I disagree with your xenophobic reasoning.

:P

OTOH the rules of Communism seem EZ enough: do whatever the man with the gun tells you to do.

The charter schools in my neighborhood have done wonders in areas where public schools are failing to provide a decent education for our young. Their "college ready" scores are way up, and the graduation rate has already increased since the schools started opening around here in 2007.

My former employer, Eli Broad, is a pioneer philanthropist in this area... so I've read a lot of front-end studies and back-end results.

The first schools opened in the area were exactly opposite of that... impoverished areas where the drop out rate was the highest... they started working on the worst cases first around here.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/24/local/me-broad24

"The $6.5-million grant to the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools from Broad's education foundation, along with $3.5 million raised by Alliance board members, clears the way for the group to open 13 middle and high school campuses by 2010 in impoverished neighborhoods where traditional schools are foundering."

My oldest went to Franklin, then USC (full scholarship) and is now a doctor. Her chemistry teacher at Franklin was so excellent that she was better prepared for college chemistry than others in her study group who had attended private schools.

My youngest went to Multnomah, 32nd Street, Eagle Rock, LA County H.S. for the Arts and then CalTech. She is now in graduate school.

Expanding the Magnet concept is the answer, not privatizing with charter schools.

The California Academy of Math and Science... a public school with exceedingly high standards... 100% of his graduating class went on to college; 20% to ivy league schools.

That helps the smartest of the kids, but leaves those who are struggling to their own devices. You can't put a child who can't read at age 14 into a magnet school and expect miracles.

Did that child's parents read to him or her in early childhood? Do the child's parents read? Does everybody have to be able to read?

There are lots of worthwhile things a person can do that don't require reading.

One size does not fit all.

We used to learn physical skills like shop and home economics and music and the arts in the schools. I would never have finished high school had I not been given the opportunity to play musical instruments and sing. Each child is different.

My own children are interested in both the same and completely different things than I am. Children have to find their own way. Reading is not for everyone.

Yes, everyone needs to be able to read! What the hell?

"Reading is not for everyone." This one simple statement shows your ignorance... pathetic.

Benjamin Franklin read a lot on his own and, of course, wrote for and published a newspaper. But he was barely educated. He attended very little school.

Everyone needs to know the basics of reading. Beyond that, it is just a matter of practice.

You cannot make a person like to read. You cannot make a person practice reading enough to read. Some people do not learn well by reading. It is simply reality. We are all different.

Children who are read to by their parents or caregivers are more likely to want to read. I think that children can be encouraged to read by constantly asking them questions about the story as you read to them.

When my children were small, I was sometimes too tired to read to them at night. We played a game involving numbers. We would choose a different number each night and then one of us would start to make up a story about something remotely or closely related to that number. Say -- 45 squirrels in a forest. The first person would start the story, the next person would continue it and the next person would take it further and on and on until we had made up a story. The stories tended to get more and more absurd.

My oldest attended a German-speaking school in Austria. She spoke pretty good German and had been tested as ready for school, but I was a little apprehensive. Her first-grade teacher took me aside and told me that she was an excellent writer. I could not understand how in the world the teacher could determine that she was an excellent writer when she had barely learned to read. (At that time, Austrian schools did not want children under the age of six to learn to read or to study the alphabet.) Then I realized that the teacher was probably writing a story on the board and my daughter was very good at making up stories -- spoken stories.

I would like to add that the German language (in fact most European languages) is much easier to read and much easier to learn to read than English. It is pretty strictly phonetic.

It does not surprise me that so many American children do not enjoy reading. Our language is not phonetic, and comparatively difficult to learn to read. Our children have a disadvantage in school because of our language.

One researcher, Karin Landerl, looked at dyslexia in English and German children. Although German children, like English children, can be dyslexic, it is expressed much less severely. German dyslexic children read more slowly than others, but they are accurate. English dyslexic children are both slow and inaccurate in their reading.

It is a fact. Some people learn through non-visual stimuli. It's better to learn to read, but you cannot force a person to learn to read. It's probably never too late to learn to read, but you have to want to learn something. We have to choose to learn to read. We have to want to learn to read. Would it be better if everyone learned to read? Yes. But in our present culture it is not possible for everyone to learn to read.

In our world, yes, reading *is* for everyone. Anyone who cannot read is going to have severe difficulties in daily life. All the evidence is that people who cannot read adequately are much more likely to be unemployed or in very low-paid jobs and to live in poverty. This was true 20 or 30 years ago, and is even more true today, as technology has reduced the demand for unskilled manual labour.

Moreover, reading is important not only for employability, and for basic practical skills like shopping and using transport, but for getting information about the world, and for reducing other people's ability to oppress and deceive you. Why do you think that upper class conservatives in early 19th century England were concerned that educating the working classes would make them dissatisfied with their 'proper stations'? Why were American slaves forbidden to learn to read? Why does the Taliban object so much to the education of girls? Literacy is power.

In the Middle Ages, reading might have been only for the clergy and some of the aristocracy - but we have long passed that time.

Learning requires work on the part of the student. You cannot force a person to learn to read. Some people do not want to do the basic work required to learn to read. Some are taught to read through a method that turns them off to reading -- that discourages them.

Some people prefer working with their hands and learning from spoken or visual communication. Reading is just one way to transmit information. I love to read. But many people do not like to read.

Reading takes practice. If you don't like to read, you won't read much and you will never learn to read well. Is it important to be able to read? Yes. But you can't make people learn to read. Testing them, drilling them, punishing them -- will work to a certain extent but they will not cause a person to really want to learn to read.

there are 10 or more who cherrypick, and whose only selling point is that they can get the job done for cheaper by not using union teachers. What they fail to mention is that the locality is left footing the bill for problem students, ESL students, and disabled students. One company's exception does not a good policy make.

Isn't that the only thing being used these days by gov't to measure success?

Again, not saying that that's how the MA schools you work for operates, but that it's how the vast majority of the new wave of privatized schools work. I'm hearing it everywhere from very creditable sources. You have your own reasons for being deaf to this reality.

Vast majority? Really? Got link?

That would be a vast majority, right?

Hahaha!

No... hahaha!

No I don't find that funny.

edit: meant to say every publicly funded school

Then why would a school that judges success by test scores and college acceptances be worse? These schools have been around long enough to judge success on the long term.

I could form a really kick as school too if I did not take any special needs students, resource, ESL, or other students that would bring down scores. What I do not like about Charter schools is that they take funding needed to improve other schools and divert it to another smaller public school that can cherry pick students and that does not have the same requirements as the other schools in the district.

The charter schools in Los Angeles are largely in impoverished neighborhoods, teaching children who can't read, have no decent clothes and shoes for school, and have no money for lunch.

to learn to read than English. It is very important for immigrants from Spanish-speaking families to learn English. But children who grow up hearing a lot of Spanish might learn to read faster in Spanish.

My daughters attended early school years in Austrian public schools. They learned to read in German, a phonetic language. American children don't learn to read because the English language is very difficult. Kids cannot sound out the words really. We actually think we are sounding out the words but in reality we are figuring out what the letters most likely sound like. If you haven't heard a lot of English or been read to in English, you face a daunting task trying to figure out by guessing or the process of elimination as to what written word associates with what spoken word. Just handing a child a book is probably not a good idea. You need to hand a child a book and some device that allows the child to hear the words as the child looks at them.

My oldest daughter did not read one word when she started first grade at the age of 6 1/2. By Christmas she could read a book of Disney stories by herself. I was flabbergasted. That's how fast a child can learn to read a phonetic language. I still have my children's beginning reading and math books. They are completely different from the readers I learned from. They learn the letters "ma" and then go from there. We learn the alphabet and end up with alphabet soup.

Reading to a child while pointing to the letters and words is the way to go in my opinion.

Where I live, the charter schools have been a drain from the other public schools. Experience drives perspective. If we want to fix public schools then we need to fix the schools not create more schools. The local school district is considering closing down yet another elementary school, but the 2 charters we have with less than 100 students and almost as big a budget as one regular elementary schools are never touched.

I do not doubt nor do I dismiss your positive experiences with the Charter schools in your area. I am glad that they are addressing the problems there. I expect you to understand that it is not the same experience in other areas. Here the schools have been designed to get some students away from the poor Mexican children that have come to the area in the last 5 or 6 years.

Did Eli Broad support Richard Riordan? Did he support Schwarzenegger?

He supported Clinton and Gore... who came to our offices during those years. He's a Democrat and he's put a lot of money behind Democrats over the years. He "volunteered" me to work the DNC when they were in Los Angeles... and he donated heavily... you should check him out on Open Secrets.

Riordan is a very good friend of his, but they are very opposite in their politics.

You don't know jack shit about me or my "prejudices" and apparently you know even less about Broad. I've worked for many billionaires, and he is the only one I have faith in to do the right thing with his philanthropic activities.

Court -- and then fund parenting education. That is the charity that really needs money. On edit, I meant to say that parenting education needs a lot of investment and charity.

I wish we did not need a Dependency Court, but that Court is, of the courts, the best equipped to do its job. It doesn't need money. Parenting education needs money.

"He "volunteered" me to work the DNC when they were in Los Angeles" to meant you were somehow paid to volunteer for the DNC or to work for them? If so, I'm a dunce. I work for Democrats without pay. How silly of me.

You see, I used to work for a nonprofit. In fact, I researched rich people for placement on our board. I became disillusioned when I caught myself reviewing the list of my personal friends to see who might have enough money to donate.

Boards of non-profits consist of self-satisfied egomaniacs who get a power high from the "satisfaction" of showing poor people how they could live their lives in a better way. In terms of helping the homeless, a wealthy person feels very "satisfied" providing "a hot and a cot" to a poor person. In the 80s, when I was in that field, very rich people made themselves feel good by donating relatively small sums of money to "good causes" while totally undermining the working person's economy by starting the process of outsourcing low-skilled jobs.

This whole thing about people not being well enough educated is just a way to make ordinary people feel guilty about not being able to compete for the few jobs left after the appropriate jobs have been outsourced and performed for slave wages in China and India and other dismal places on the earth.

Rich people who think they can buy anything -- and more and more, very sadly, they can.

If Eli Broad wants to improve education, he needs to educate parents on how to be better parents. That is where he should invest his money.

Most parents do not have good parenting skills. They do not know how to resolve conflicts with their children without using violent communication or, even worse, violent conduct.

Until we have a society in which parents communicate with their children persuasively and intelligently and without violence in words or actions, our schools will not be able to do a good job with our children.

My children did well in school because from the beginning we were open to their communications with us while also encouraging them when they demonstrated self-reliance and self-discipline. We gave them opportunities to discover who they were and what they as individuals were about -- while discouraging selfishness and chaotic or destructive behavior. It worked.

I noticed when my children were home at Christmas how much they like playing board games that involve social interaction and assessing the other players' personalities. My children benefited from Austrian early education.

Austrian education is public education. The teachers are not nearly as well trained or effective as American teachers, but the schools are better managed. After the fourth grade, children were placed on separate tracks according to their academic performance and ability. Of course, their best students did much better than ours. They had high graduation rates in their secondary schools. But most of the students were placed on an apprenticeship track and not on an academic track.

Trying to educate all students in the same English class in the 10th grade may not be realistic. You don't need privatized charter schools to improve ours schools. We just need to teach parenting skills to parents and be more realistic about the interests and abilities of our children.

We have very little influence over the children, let alone the parents.

And again, you need to read up on Broad and the charter schools here before making things up... many have contracts with the parents and their support is encouraged and in some cases insisted upon.

I honestly don't think you know much about this.

At 93, she is one of the best educated people I know. And her children and grandchildren -- all but three have advanced degrees in one field or another.

My mother is what she is because that is her nature. She always loved to learn. Her father and mother were farmers who loved to learn. The education that counts is received in the home. The school, whether charter or public can only do so much. The culture of the home is what really matters. Private boarding schools work when they create a culture of learning. Public schools can create a culture of learning if the children attending them come from homes in which there is a culture of learning.

I'm afraid that popular TV and many movies distract children from a culture of learning.

I repeat, the culture of learning can be created in any place in which the cultural leaders love learning and encourage a love of learning in others.

The problem with privatized charter schools is that the culture of big business, of selling and making a profit, conflicts with the culture of learning which is the culture of curiosity and inquiry. The culture of big business wants the customer to buy its answers. The culture of learning wants the student to continually, throughout life (as with my 93-year-old mother), continue to question and inquire.

And, by the way, high school drop-out rates are meaningless. Many very brilliant, inventive people did not finish high school. Benjamin Franklin was not well educated, not at all. It isn't the degrees but rather curiosity and love of learning that make an educated person.

You're preaching to the choir on that note... but a HS diploma is absolutely needed... I took the GED six months into my senior year, and started city college... and I regret not finishing with my class... it would have shown a lot of personal intestinal fortitude had I done that.

Why should a person have a HS diploma? Because it is an advantage in applying for a job and getting into a college. But, really, it is just a piece of paper. You obviously wanted to learn. That should be the goal of education -- to prepare children to want to learn and to help them acquire the skills they want to help them learn. You cannot force a child to learn. You can communicate with a child in many ways that help the child understand what the child wants and needs to learn and how to learn it. Then it is up to the child.

Seems to me that their form of Communism is more like the predatory capitalism of the 19th century. The only thing 'Communist' about China is the color of their flag and that's about it.

There has never been a successful democratic movement in China. If you liked slavery, you'll love China.

Communism, as an official doctrine, is not necessary for these elements to exist in a society. In fact all these existed in China millenia before Communism was even thought of, and they all existed in *this* country that had a 'successful' democratic movement.

Just sayin'

The most precious heritage we have is the lack of repression, slavery and authoritarianism in our country. We fought a bitter war to end slavery. And before that, we fought a war to end repression and authoritarianism. In my lifetime we fought WWII to end slavery, repression and authoritarianism. These are fragile gifts. I am always aware that they can be so easily lost. We cannot take them for granted. That is why we need to protect our Bill of Rights and our public schools and many of the other institutions that safeguard our precious heritage.

Hurricane Katrina was used by disaster capitalists to dismantle the New Orleans school district by replacing public schools with charter schools. Teacher salaries dropped. The school district lost control of the curriculum.

Charter schools are just another way to privatize a legitimate function of government--insuring a standard level of education to all. If there are problems with public education, and there are, we should be solving those problems.

The reason people should not support charter schools is because they use public funding for schools that are somehow separate from public schools. All private schools and charter schools must have state approved curricula in addition to that of the private or charter school.

Whenever I see arguments based on arguments such as "foreigners will take over" that loses me completely. It is one thing to argue that Charter schools should not be supported by public funding. It is an entirely different thing to say that the reason they should not is because they will foment a take over of the education system by some "other" some scary bogeyman that will enslave us all. If our democratic form of government is weak enough that learning about Islam or Chinese culture is a threat, then we have bigger issues to worry about than charter schools.

and you will see. Wherever you make kids march in lock, stock and barrel formation, you've got trouble.

related to religion. All forms of government should be taught, but not necessarily be taught as a solution, just as an educational tool

You need to post this on a conservative website where your argument would hold some weight because of the mindset of the conservatives on it. It would be a great way to pit the Rush listener's love of privatization of government services against their knee-jerk fear of communists and "islamofacists".

The first rule of argumentation: know your audience.

Any religion at all?

attending john birch society meetings. The enjoy painting pictures of "commies" infiltrating and being a part of every sector of society.

You can be a Muslim, "I testify that there is no God but Allah. I testify that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah." Much more simple than having to figure whether Jesus is God, The Son of God, Vishnu & The Holy Toast, or why Saul was schlepping that road to Damascus or some combination, etc, etc

By teaching 'chinese communism' kids will learn just how fucking stupid it is to kill all the birds in their town just cause pigeons keep shitting on their bike seats - and how stupid it is to think they can start a steel consortium by smelting ore on their dad's propane grill in the backyard, and why Chinese Oligarchs still care so little for their own multitudes they pour lead-based-paint and poison baby formula down their throats - I don't have a problem with any of that

So long as they teach kids just where The Boys From Brazil & Paraguay *really are* from http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/neil-bush-the-rev-moon-paraguay-and-the-us-dept-of-education

Chinese "caring about learning" to be taught in our schools.

knowledge is power.

but I don't know what prompted this thread.

Once a public institution is privatized, it gets more and more acceptable to limit government regulation (or "interference") in it. So, yes, I was being a little facetious in my OP. But I can see that it got some people asking questions. If you really think about it though, just as foreign interests have bought into our military apparatus, they could buy into our educational apparatus. I'm sure that Eli Broad is not intending to inculcate our children with religious theology of one sort or another. But what is to prevent some even more generous benefactor 20 years down the road in a very impoverished America from shoving some weird religion or political ideas down the throats of our children?

Once you privatize a public institution, you set out on a road never traveled. You don't know what kinds of dangers you might encounter.

Keep public schools public. Educate parents and children will learn.

They should not be indoctrinated into any one belief system, but they (all children) need to learn about the political and religious beliefs that are influential in this world.

I'm not being bigoted. I respect people of all religions. I just don't want any religion taught in schools with public money. Some fairly recent Supreme Court decisions have broadened the scope religion-related activities that can be funded out of public money. It irks me greatly. I am a Unitarian. I absolutely support tolerance. As for Chinese Communism, the political system is pretty brutal in my opinion.

or Chinese communists.

Education is power.

I just don't want proselytizing and propagandizing with public money -- and we are inching toward it. Private companies are not subject to the First Amendment except in certain situations.

We have witnessed the privatization of our military. And now we have right-wing Christian fundamentalists sending mercenaries to Muslims countries -- on our dime. We cannot stop them from attempting to proselytize on our dime while they are in those countries.

Now the schools are being privatized. No way Jose. That is what I say.

I have no problem with Muslims, and if the Chinese are happy with their authoritarian government, that is their business. But I don't want proselytizing in the schools or Chinese authoritarianism in my schools.

My answer is I don't mind. In fact I think that would be a good thing. It's called diversity.

Prostleytizing - no. But that's not what your OP says.

and propagandizing. I believe I referred to both of those activities in my post.

I took the possibilities to extremes. And don't think that those extremes are that far-fetched. They certainly are not as likely as torture or massive eavesdropping without a warrant or invading a country without adequate cause -- and yet all of those things happened under the Bush administration.

Don't let optimism about human nature blind you.

Yet there was no attempted conversion involved.

Once you get private enterprise involved in the schools, you cannot necessarily impose the kinds of rules that you can impose on public schools.

Of course, a more likely scenario would be that a company like Blackwater or Xe would have a subsidiary that ran a couple of schools that instructed students with the goal of getting them into a military career or to use certain products that Blackwater or Xe sold. Then there are companies like McDonalds. There are so many possibilities for private enterprise to use the schools for purposes that one or the other of us would not like. Public schools have to answer to the public at large. They generally don't sell specific products. At most a corporation sponsors the football team and gets the corporate logo on the sweatshirts. That's inappropriate enough. Imagine that such a corporation actually operates the entire school. Horrible thought, isn't it, but it could happen. In fact it is the logical end of the path that we choose when we choose charter schools and sell or hand over our public land and buildings to them.

Shouldn't most everything be taught in school?

Public schools then stays with those kids who have problems, either because they have learning disabilities that charter schools are not forced to accommodate or because they have behavioral issues.

But I disagree with your reasons to worry.

I don't support charter schools either, but this argument is not a good one.

If not, why not? And if the answer's yes, then I have to say there's a fair level of bigotry displayed in yr post in the way you focus on Muslims and not Jews and Christians or any other religion. Why couldn't you have just said you don't want religion taught in private schools?

Madison and Jefferson opposed using tax money to advocate for a particular religion, and I am with them.

I am a Unitarian -- a minority religion. In the Unitarian religion, we teach our children about all religions and encourage them to respect all religions, but we do not subject them to religious indoctrination rather in a belief that each person has the right to their own belief system. So, no. I do not want children indoctrinated with religion in schools supported by public funds.

The way it's worded does come across as rather bigoted sounding...

I've got no problems with public schools or private schools that get government funding teaching students about other religions and if they don't teach about other political systems, then they're a pretty low quality school that I wouldn't want to send my kid to. I think more Americans need to be taught about Communism, as from what I've seen on internet discussion forums, there's a lot of ignorance about what it is...

and propagandizing for something. I do not want anyone selling my children, grandchildren or greatgrandchildren a specific religion or an authoritarian view on government. I want my children to understand and learn about various religions and "isms." Corporations make money through sales and propaganda.

The function of education is to encourage inquiry and questioning. Children should learn empirical facts and about various theories in school, but they should always be permitted to question. Corporations are in the business of selling. They should not be teaching. Teaching is a totally different mindset.

and chartering schools could lead.

Did I ever think that the Supreme Court's appointment of Bush and our suffering a terrorist attack during his administration could lead to our torturing prisoners or enacting the Patriot Act or wideranging surveillance on the personal correspondence of Americans? No. But it did.

We need to think both best and worst case scenario when we embark on an adventure like charter schools. Privatization of essential services is a very dangerous development, and public schools are essential services.

We should not be falling for the idea of privatizing our schools. Fanatics can take over -- and there is no reason why they wouldn't try and possibly succeed.

things like the Worlds' Religions and Political Science. Seriously, Charter Schools are a way to make the middle and lower socio-economic classes pay for private schools for the wealthy.

Maybe it was my American Judeo-Christian Capitalist School education that's leaving me totally confused as to where this argument even came from.

"The goal of those who wish to change our public schools to charter schools is to permit private companies to profit from educating our children."

It's not to teach Islam, a faith, or Communism, a political ideology, in public schools, though.

It's to be the gatekeepers of education, ensuring that we maintain the socio-economic class structures and produce large populations of cheap labor and cannon fodder. It's to destroy teacher's unions and rigidly control curriculum and instruction.

Personally, I have no problem with any faith being taught in public schools as long as it's in the context of a comparative religion class.

I also think that we ought to be teaching comparative politics and economics. That way, when someone fears the onslaught of communism, they'll at least have some idea of what they are talking about.

I already know of one Charter school run by Muslims; I was recruited to teach there 8 or 9 years ago, although I declined.

Here's a link:

http://www.thegcs.org/

or political theories. But I have a problem with teaching or proselytizing for a religion with public money.

It is possible that charter schools can be run by religious organizations, and that religious instruction would be part of the school.

It's more likely to be Christians doing so than Muslims or Buddhists, though.

:tinfoilhat:

:popcorn:

public ones. that goes for *all* religions.

but charter pushers & privatizers have sown the wind, & will reap the whirlwind.

hope you all (not the op) like your future yugoslavia, fools.

Neither Muslim nor Christian charters should be funded with tax money.