(08-07-2019 07:28 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:40 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:38 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting the free market into play for K-12 education for a variety of reasons. Better classroom environments. Potential better pay for the best teachers and less difficulty giving bad teachers the axe. My main concern is I think there are geographical scenarios where the poor families from low population areas will be left with zero affordable opportunities nearby and quite literally be forced to move or homeschool.

That’s just my suspicion and I’m not particularly qualified to make that assumption, but it makes sense to me. If there’s a mass exodus at a local public school, it might shut down because it’s not financially viable, leaving those left with bad & worse options. Home schooling requires someone staying home and not earning income & that’s just not possible for some. I’m not sure what the solution is. If a well-off family doesn’t like their local public school, they will frequently move to put their kids into a better public school. We talked about this re: families being screwed over by geography. It seems like we would just be shifting the moving requirement from wealthier families who want better public options onto poor families who want any public option. Starts feeling a little unethical if that’s how it plays out in that system.

To throw out another thought, there’s ocassionally talk from some about how America is falling behind Country X & Country Y in student achievement in math/science/etc. The majority of the time, these countries are extremely restrictive and government-control is big. It’s just interesting to see folks upset that China’s kids are better-educated while it’s a result of communism or socialist ideals.

Big question: should regulation of K-12 education be completely up to each state with no
Federal guidelines at all? States rights advocates should support this, I would think. I’m not sure where I stand on that idea of true states rights deregulation. Interested to hear if that seems like a viable solution to others.

In the case of "poor families from low population areas," they will be just as able as wealthier families to send their kids to the school of their choice because vouchers levels that playing field, as I see it.

I wouldn't think so, you haven't presented a solution for the fact that public schools pick up and drop off kids who live an hour away. Private schools rarely have any busing and if they do, they go someplace that's central to a lot of students. Often in these rural counties there is a huge mountain between a school and a home. Pubic schools find away to get these kids there.

I "haven't presented a solution" for logistics? Geez. No, I haven't offered a solution for how many snow days kids in Montana should get versus kids in Alabama, either.

That is a local logistics issue. Together, schools and parents will find the solution.

(08-07-2019 08:33 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:40 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:38 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting the free market into play for K-12 education for a variety of reasons. Better classroom environments. Potential better pay for the best teachers and less difficulty giving bad teachers the axe. My main concern is I think there are geographical scenarios where the poor families from low population areas will be left with zero affordable opportunities nearby and quite literally be forced to move or homeschool.

That’s just my suspicion and I’m not particularly qualified to make that assumption, but it makes sense to me. If there’s a mass exodus at a local public school, it might shut down because it’s not financially viable, leaving those left with bad & worse options. Home schooling requires someone staying home and not earning income & that’s just not possible for some. I’m not sure what the solution is. If a well-off family doesn’t like their local public school, they will frequently move to put their kids into a better public school. We talked about this re: families being screwed over by geography. It seems like we would just be shifting the moving requirement from wealthier families who want better public options onto poor families who want any public option. Starts feeling a little unethical if that’s how it plays out in that system.

To throw out another thought, there’s ocassionally talk from some about how America is falling behind Country X & Country Y in student achievement in math/science/etc. The majority of the time, these countries are extremely restrictive and government-control is big. It’s just interesting to see folks upset that China’s kids are better-educated while it’s a result of communism or socialist ideals.

Big question: should regulation of K-12 education be completely up to each state with no
Federal guidelines at all? States rights advocates should support this, I would think. I’m not sure where I stand on that idea of true states rights deregulation. Interested to hear if that seems like a viable solution to others.

In the case of "poor families from low population areas," they will be just as able as wealthier families to send their kids to the school of their choice because vouchers levels that playing field, as I see it.

No. Low population areas that can't support a single Wal Mart aren't going to attract multiple for-profit K-12 schools for there to be a choice. So, in your theory where all publics are removed and replaced by privately run schools and our county has the same amount of education dollars to spend as it does now except now the school is expected to provide a return for it's investors how will my children get a better education? I don't see how that can mean anything other than less money is spent on the student's actual education and without a publicly elected school board to oversee it we as parents and citizens have less input into the educational process.

I'm not saying that charter schools and private/public partnerships can't or don't work. I'm not against it. I am against ideologue thinking that says less government intrusion and deregulation is ALWAYS better. Free markets are the best economic paradigm, until they're not. Less regulation is the most efficient for businesses but not necessarily the best for consumers. To use a football analogy, we have half the country saying we're going to run the ball every down and the other half saying we're going to throw the ball every down before they ever see how the defense is lined up. It's a poor way to govern and the only real purpose it serves is to consolidate political power for the parties and to further special interests. I can point to as many pitfalls and failures of the free market as you can to government intrusion. Neither is without faults.

My first post in forever, and I'm agreeing with the ODU guy. However, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Want to find a great example of a failure transitioning to privatization? Look at the AZ prison system.

Less government is my ideal, but I do agree it always needs a healthy dose of "does it work?". There are definite needs for government for valid reasons.

(08-07-2019 08:33 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:40 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:38 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting the free market into play for K-12 education for a variety of reasons. Better classroom environments. Potential better pay for the best teachers and less difficulty giving bad teachers the axe. My main concern is I think there are geographical scenarios where the poor families from low population areas will be left with zero affordable opportunities nearby and quite literally be forced to move or homeschool.

That’s just my suspicion and I’m not particularly qualified to make that assumption, but it makes sense to me. If there’s a mass exodus at a local public school, it might shut down because it’s not financially viable, leaving those left with bad & worse options. Home schooling requires someone staying home and not earning income & that’s just not possible for some. I’m not sure what the solution is. If a well-off family doesn’t like their local public school, they will frequently move to put their kids into a better public school. We talked about this re: families being screwed over by geography. It seems like we would just be shifting the moving requirement from wealthier families who want better public options onto poor families who want any public option. Starts feeling a little unethical if that’s how it plays out in that system.

To throw out another thought, there’s ocassionally talk from some about how America is falling behind Country X & Country Y in student achievement in math/science/etc. The majority of the time, these countries are extremely restrictive and government-control is big. It’s just interesting to see folks upset that China’s kids are better-educated while it’s a result of communism or socialist ideals.

Big question: should regulation of K-12 education be completely up to each state with no
Federal guidelines at all? States rights advocates should support this, I would think. I’m not sure where I stand on that idea of true states rights deregulation. Interested to hear if that seems like a viable solution to others.

In the case of "poor families from low population areas," they will be just as able as wealthier families to send their kids to the school of their choice because vouchers levels that playing field, as I see it.

No. Low population areas that can't support a single Wal Mart aren't going to attract multiple for-profit K-12 schools for there to be a choice. So, in your theory where all publics are removed and replaced by privately run schools and our county has the same amount of education dollars to spend as it does now except now the school is expected to provide a return for it's investors how will my children get a better education? I don't see how that can mean anything other than less money is spent on the student's actual education and without a publicly elected school board to oversee it we as parents and citizens have less input into the educational process.

I'm not saying that charter schools and private/public partnerships can't or don't work. I'm not against it. I am against ideologue thinking that says less government intrusion and deregulation is ALWAYS better. Free markets are the best economic paradigm, until they're not. Less regulation is the most efficient for businesses but not necessarily the best for consumers. To use a football analogy, we have half the country saying we're going to run the ball every down and the other half saying we're going to throw the ball every down before they ever see how the defense is lined up. It's a poor way to govern and the only real purpose it serves is to consolidate political power for the parties and to further special interests. I can point to as many pitfalls and failures of the free market as you can to government intrusion. Neither is without faults.

It is a community by community issue. Some communities will have little choice but the public option due to population density, logistics, and other factors. Some communities will be perfectly suited for an all-private school voucher system. But, most communities, I imagine, will have mostly private schools with a minority of parents still preferring a public option, a mix that will work itself out community by community.

"Option" is the operative word. That is all I am saying - parents should have an option.

I mean, it is like you are just trying to throw as many spears as you can to invalidate a private option for all parents who want it. That's ridiculous.

For example, I never said that a family that moves to Themiddleofnofuckinwhere, Alaska, and doesn't have a neighbor within 30 miles, is going to have a Montessori Academy down the street for their kids. Not only will those folks not have a private option, they won't have a public option, either. Their kids will either be home-schooled or shipped off to a PRIVATE boarding school, most likely.

As far as government being better at as many things as the private sector, keep in mind that our very wise founders envisioned a VERY limited federal government. There are some things that the federal government must do and it would really work no other way, like providing for the national defense and developing and maintaining a national transportation network. When it comes to education, which is the topic we are now discussing, or at least that is what the new cheer coach told me, the federal government is as useful as a football bat.

(08-07-2019 08:53 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Less government is my ideal, but I do agree it always needs a healthy dose of "does it work?". There are definite needs for government for valid reasons.

Pretty much every government regulation made is the result of private sector not being copacetic (for lack of a better term, sometimes malicious and sometimes careless and sometimes just not looking out for the public's interest). The problem is government regulations are terribly inefficient and largely ineffective the most common result of which is that it raises the barrier of entry into markets for smaller companies because the larger ones can afford to meet the guidelines.

(08-07-2019 09:10 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:53 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Less government is my ideal, but I do agree it always needs a healthy dose of "does it work?". There are definite needs for government for valid reasons.

Pretty much every government regulation made is the result of private sector not being copacetic (for lack of a better term, sometimes malicious and sometimes careless and sometimes just not looking out for the public's interest). The problem is government regulations are terribly inefficient and largely ineffective the most common result of which is that it raises the barrier of entry into markets for smaller companies because the larger ones can afford to meet the guidelines.

Yep! Extremely good point.

(08-07-2019 09:09 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:33 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:40 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:38 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting the free market into play for K-12 education for a variety of reasons. Better classroom environments. Potential better pay for the best teachers and less difficulty giving bad teachers the axe. My main concern is I think there are geographical scenarios where the poor families from low population areas will be left with zero affordable opportunities nearby and quite literally be forced to move or homeschool.

That’s just my suspicion and I’m not particularly qualified to make that assumption, but it makes sense to me. If there’s a mass exodus at a local public school, it might shut down because it’s not financially viable, leaving those left with bad & worse options. Home schooling requires someone staying home and not earning income & that’s just not possible for some. I’m not sure what the solution is. If a well-off family doesn’t like their local public school, they will frequently move to put their kids into a better public school. We talked about this re: families being screwed over by geography. It seems like we would just be shifting the moving requirement from wealthier families who want better public options onto poor families who want any public option. Starts feeling a little unethical if that’s how it plays out in that system.

To throw out another thought, there’s ocassionally talk from some about how America is falling behind Country X & Country Y in student achievement in math/science/etc. The majority of the time, these countries are extremely restrictive and government-control is big. It’s just interesting to see folks upset that China’s kids are better-educated while it’s a result of communism or socialist ideals.

Big question: should regulation of K-12 education be completely up to each state with no
Federal guidelines at all? States rights advocates should support this, I would think. I’m not sure where I stand on that idea of true states rights deregulation. Interested to hear if that seems like a viable solution to others.

In the case of "poor families from low population areas," they will be just as able as wealthier families to send their kids to the school of their choice because vouchers levels that playing field, as I see it.

No. Low population areas that can't support a single Wal Mart aren't going to attract multiple for-profit K-12 schools for there to be a choice. So, in your theory where all publics are removed and replaced by privately run schools and our county has the same amount of education dollars to spend as it does now except now the school is expected to provide a return for it's investors how will my children get a better education? I don't see how that can mean anything other than less money is spent on the student's actual education and without a publicly elected school board to oversee it we as parents and citizens have less input into the educational process.

I'm not saying that charter schools and private/public partnerships can't or don't work. I'm not against it. I am against ideologue thinking that says less government intrusion and deregulation is ALWAYS better. Free markets are the best economic paradigm, until they're not. Less regulation is the most efficient for businesses but not necessarily the best for consumers. To use a football analogy, we have half the country saying we're going to run the ball every down and the other half saying we're going to throw the ball every down before they ever see how the defense is lined up. It's a poor way to govern and the only real purpose it serves is to consolidate political power for the parties and to further special interests. I can point to as many pitfalls and failures of the free market as you can to government intrusion. Neither is without faults.

It is a community by community issue. Some communities will have little choice but the public option due to population density, logistics, and other factors. Some communities will be perfectly suited for an all-private school voucher system. But, most communities, I imagine, will have mostly private schools with a minority of parents still preferring a public option, a mix that will work itself out community by community.

"Option" is the operative word. That is all I am saying - parents should have an option.

I mean, it is like you are just trying to throw as many spears as you can to invalidate a private option for all parents who want it. That's ridiculous.

For example, I never said that a family that moves to Themiddleofnofuckinwhere, Alaska, and doesn't have a neighbor within 30 miles, is going to have a Montessori Academy down the street for their kids. Not only will those folks not have a private option, they won't have a public option, either. Their kids will either be home-schooled or shipped off to a PRIVATE boarding school, most likely.

As far as government being better at as many things as the private sector, keep in mind that our very wise founders envisioned a VERY limited federal government. There are some things that the federal government must do and it would really work no other way, like providing for the national defense and developing and maintaining a national transportation network. When it comes to education, which is the topic we are now discussing, or at least that is what the new cheer coach told me, the federal government is as useful as a football bat.

Sounds idealistic to me. Without a more egalitarian view of who gets the best education it will either widen the gap that already exists between income classes or else cost the taxpayers a lot more. The best schools would be in the highest demand, they would of course charge more than the government voucher would provide. Upper and middle upper class families would fork out the additional pay (basically a private education subsidized by the government). Let's think about what happens to the rest. There would be plenty of schools that could provide good learning environments for kids on the vouchers amount I'm sure, there's lots of models. It might not have the reputation of the top tier but still good. Now let's get into the poorest neighborhoods. Without busing these kids are going to have to go to the closest school, typically that's been public. But what has happened to those already underfunded public schools? Is each voucher used coming out of their budget or are we forking out more as taxpayers? I don't see how this results in anything much different than we have now unless you provide opportunity for the lowest income families to get a better education (with the caveat that now the government will subsidize your kids private Christian school). And guess what? If we didn't tie school funding to property values of the areas they reside in we could provide better opportunities for those kids within a public structure.

The first political party of the US was the Federalist party. You can quote Jefferson and Madison and ignore Hamilton and Adams all you want but the fact of the matter is the strength of a centralized federal government has been debated since our countries birth with founders falling on both sides. What we agreed on was to protect against tyranny and to separate the powers of the government.

(08-07-2019 10:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:09 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:33 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 07:40 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:38 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, I actually like the idea of getting the free market into play for K-12 education for a variety of reasons. Better classroom environments. Potential better pay for the best teachers and less difficulty giving bad teachers the axe. My main concern is I think there are geographical scenarios where the poor families from low population areas will be left with zero affordable opportunities nearby and quite literally be forced to move or homeschool.

That’s just my suspicion and I’m not particularly qualified to make that assumption, but it makes sense to me. If there’s a mass exodus at a local public school, it might shut down because it’s not financially viable, leaving those left with bad & worse options. Home schooling requires someone staying home and not earning income & that’s just not possible for some. I’m not sure what the solution is. If a well-off family doesn’t like their local public school, they will frequently move to put their kids into a better public school. We talked about this re: families being screwed over by geography. It seems like we would just be shifting the moving requirement from wealthier families who want better public options onto poor families who want any public option. Starts feeling a little unethical if that’s how it plays out in that system.

To throw out another thought, there’s ocassionally talk from some about how America is falling behind Country X & Country Y in student achievement in math/science/etc. The majority of the time, these countries are extremely restrictive and government-control is big. It’s just interesting to see folks upset that China’s kids are better-educated while it’s a result of communism or socialist ideals.

Big question: should regulation of K-12 education be completely up to each state with no
Federal guidelines at all? States rights advocates should support this, I would think. I’m not sure where I stand on that idea of true states rights deregulation. Interested to hear if that seems like a viable solution to others.

In the case of "poor families from low population areas," they will be just as able as wealthier families to send their kids to the school of their choice because vouchers levels that playing field, as I see it.

No. Low population areas that can't support a single Wal Mart aren't going to attract multiple for-profit K-12 schools for there to be a choice. So, in your theory where all publics are removed and replaced by privately run schools and our county has the same amount of education dollars to spend as it does now except now the school is expected to provide a return for it's investors how will my children get a better education? I don't see how that can mean anything other than less money is spent on the student's actual education and without a publicly elected school board to oversee it we as parents and citizens have less input into the educational process.

I'm not saying that charter schools and private/public partnerships can't or don't work. I'm not against it. I am against ideologue thinking that says less government intrusion and deregulation is ALWAYS better. Free markets are the best economic paradigm, until they're not. Less regulation is the most efficient for businesses but not necessarily the best for consumers. To use a football analogy, we have half the country saying we're going to run the ball every down and the other half saying we're going to throw the ball every down before they ever see how the defense is lined up. It's a poor way to govern and the only real purpose it serves is to consolidate political power for the parties and to further special interests. I can point to as many pitfalls and failures of the free market as you can to government intrusion. Neither is without faults.

It is a community by community issue. Some communities will have little choice but the public option due to population density, logistics, and other factors. Some communities will be perfectly suited for an all-private school voucher system. But, most communities, I imagine, will have mostly private schools with a minority of parents still preferring a public option, a mix that will work itself out community by community.

"Option" is the operative word. That is all I am saying - parents should have an option.

I mean, it is like you are just trying to throw as many spears as you can to invalidate a private option for all parents who want it. That's ridiculous.

For example, I never said that a family that moves to Themiddleofnofuckinwhere, Alaska, and doesn't have a neighbor within 30 miles, is going to have a Montessori Academy down the street for their kids. Not only will those folks not have a private option, they won't have a public option, either. Their kids will either be home-schooled or shipped off to a PRIVATE boarding school, most likely.

As far as government being better at as many things as the private sector, keep in mind that our very wise founders envisioned a VERY limited federal government. There are some things that the federal government must do and it would really work no other way, like providing for the national defense and developing and maintaining a national transportation network. When it comes to education, which is the topic we are now discussing, or at least that is what the new cheer coach told me, the federal government is as useful as a football bat.

Sounds idealistic to me. Without a more egalitarian view of who gets the best education it will either widen the gap that already exists between income classes or else cost the taxpayers a lot more. The best schools would be in the highest demand, they would of course charge more than the government voucher would provide. Upper and middle upper class families would fork out the additional pay (basically a private education subsidized by the government). Let's think about what happens to the rest. There would be plenty of schools that could provide good learning environments for kids on the vouchers amount I'm sure, there's lots of models. It might not have the reputation of the top tier but still good. Now let's get into the poorest neighborhoods. Without busing these kids are going to have to go to the closest school, typically that's been public. But what has happened to those already underfunded public schools? Is each voucher used coming out of their budget or are we forking out more as taxpayers? I don't see how this results in anything much different than we have now unless you provide opportunity for the lowest income families to get a better education (with the caveat that now the government will subsidize your kids private Christian school). And guess what? If we didn't tie school funding to property values of the areas they reside in we could provide better opportunities for those kids within a public structure.

The first political party of the US was the Federalist party. You can quote Jefferson and Madison and ignore Hamilton and Adams all you want but the fact of the matter is the strength of a centralized federal government has been debated since our countries birth with founders falling on both sides. What we agreed on was to protect against tyranny and to separate the powers of the government.

It is not all about money as in my home state we have certain districts that get plenty of funding as Abbott districts and many are abject failures for a host of other reasons.

Other states may be different, but here the poorest districts spend huge amounts per student and they don't compare to other more self funded districts from an academic record perspective.

How much of the money actually goes to teaching is another question as the stories of waste are numerous.

Hopefully this won't ruin everyone's Wednesday but I've just been made aware, by a confidential source, that our new cheer coach (Tony Morris) still has Iowa listed as his place of residence on Facebook! If we freaked out about Brady in Crozet imagine the outrage about this guy traveling from Iowa every day! And in equally shocking news he may have a cousin who is either an over/under paid teacher in a public school!

(08-07-2019 09:10 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:53 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Less government is my ideal, but I do agree it always needs a healthy dose of "does it work?". There are definite needs for government for valid reasons.

Pretty much every government regulation made is the result of private sector not being copacetic (for lack of a better term, sometimes malicious and sometimes careless and sometimes just not looking out for the public's interest). The problem is government regulations are terribly inefficient and largely ineffective the most common result of which is that it raises the barrier of entry into markets for smaller companies because the larger ones can afford to meet the guidelines.

I don't like agreeing with you. :)

Now that we're talking about this off-topic topic, this is my favorite thread & every complaint about it makes me love it even more.

DUKES SUCK!!!!!

(08-07-2019 12:29 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Now that we're talking about this off-topic topic, this is my favorite thread & every complaint about it makes me love it even more.

Yeah my favorite part is the occasional complaint as if it hasn’t been clear that this thread is what it is for a long time and should just be ignored by anyone that isn’t interested.

So I've been travelling for a month (after working at my charter school until 3am on July 3rd)....what did I miss?

Interesting....a new cheer coach....and there are 150 replies....what's so interesting about this coach?

(08-07-2019 01:38 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  So I've been travelling for a month (after working at my charter school until 3am on July 3rd)....what did I miss?

Coach was hired June 27th, it just took a month for someone to care enough to create a thread. Odd delay though as some of these 'stay on topic' posters seem to care a lot about it.

(08-06-2019 09:43 AM)jmu98 Wrote:  A couple of points:

1) As far as other countries and private education I am unaware of any country that has fully private schools. There are many countries, France being one, that highly subsidize private education and roughly 20% of students go to private school. There are still many public credentials that teachers and schools must have even if private if they take funds.

2) In many of the countries that have the best free education it is still subject to wealth and means as many of the schools are very difficult to get into and are in wealthier areas. Certainly true in a country like Sweden.

3) As far as public school teachers and pay. My wife is a 21 year veteran of public school teaching who makes a decent living, but works very hard. As far as time commitment, she is at school from 8:30 to 4:15 and normally does another 15-20 hours of work a week depending on the time of year. I would say many of her fellow teachers are very similar in the amount of work they do, etc. There are certainly some that are essentially stealing a paycheck, but that is true in any profession. She has 11 weeks off in the summer and is lucky enough to not have to work so she does have a good bit of spare time to travel, etc. After accounting for total school days, in service, and personal days and sick time the average teacher in our state works roughly 180-185 days a year and 4-5 of those are half days. That is roughly 80% of the normal working person who has 10 holidays and 25 PTO days. My wife does not make 80% of what someone with her education would make in the private sector, but there are a lot of perks that others don't have. My wife will retire at 55 most likely and will collect a nice pension which will hopefully help me retire earlier than most as well.

4) As far as indoctrination, I will say that at least where I live the vast majority of teachers lean to the left, but for the most part at least at the middle school level I am not sure that it seeps into the actual teaching very much. I will say that many of the program coordinators for things such as Social Studies do try to push a certain agenda. I can only speak for what I know, but it is certainly true of the school my wife teaches at. At the grade school level I see no indoctrination whatsoever from the teachers that my son has had.

Very well stated.....and agree with everything you said based on my experiences and observations of family members and friends that are teachers.

(08-06-2019 03:47 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Do kids still stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, or is that not allowed anymore?

Thankfully it does at my kid's school in Central, Rural VA.

(08-07-2019 05:30 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 03:47 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  Do kids still stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, or is that not allowed anymore?

Thankfully it does at my kid's school in Central, Rural VA.

My daughter's elementary and middle school stands and says the pledge and has the Star Spangled Banner played. Not sure what would happen should someone not stand or place their hand over their heart. Though it was a charter school, they were held to the exact same standards as the Charlotte/Mecklenburg schools. The high school was too spread out to get everyone together.

(08-07-2019 01:17 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 12:29 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Now that we're talking about this off-topic topic, this is my favorite thread & every complaint about it makes me love it even more.

Yeah my favorite part is the occasional complaint as if it hasn’t been clear that this thread is what it is for a long time and should just be ignored by anyone that isn’t interested.

That's what we need, another Ignre thread.