I am not sure I understand you, but my children went to a private school for several years.
Private schools are not legal persons. The elected school board has no authority over the private schools in its district. My kids’ school had a board that ran it and set policy, but it was not elected by the public as the school board is. It was made up of the pastor (this was a church-based school) and some of the members of the congregation, most or all of whom had children attending the school.
If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize in advance. But what most people think of when they say “the local school board” does not control any of the private schools.
I agree that the local elected school board does not control the private schools. I’ve said so several times in this thread, so there shouldn’t be confusion about this.
But the local elected school board has responsibilities to the kids who attend private schools. I’ve posted a link and a quote to this, so there shouldn’t be any confusion about this either. But there you have it.
In this case, their responsibilities were limited to paying for some buses and providing special education services within their schools. Responsibilities which were met. This whole diversion started because you stated that the public school board might have given a sweetheart deal (to the tune of a 2 million dollar discount) to the private schools in an effort to help the private schools. This extends several light years beyond their responsibilities.
The buses and special ed are things that they are legally responsible to do for the private school students. (There are probably other relatively minor things as well, but let’s leave that aside.) But it’s not all about what their legal responsibilities are.
The point is what their role is as elected officials and what their responsibilities are to the extent that they have discretion. There are a lot of things that they provide to the public schools that they are not legally responsible to provide, but their job and what they were elected for is to run the best public schools that they can under the circumstances, and they are expected to do this, regardless of whether state law requires them to do this or that service.
In that context, the importance of the fact that the state requires the school board to provide certain services to the private schools is in that it shows that the role and responsibility to assist with the education of kids who are in private schools as well, and in contrast to those who attempted to promulgate the ridiculous notion that there exist other comparable “private school boards” who perform a similar role for kids who are in private schools.
Bottom line is that the kids in private schools are human beings just as the kids in public schools are, and just because they’ve decided to forego a certain level of public assistance does not mean that they’re not entitled to have their elected officials looking out for their interests and attempting to further their education, much as they look out for the interests of those who attend public school.
The electorate in this district has a view of how they would allocate their tax dollars between public and private school kids (given legal constraints), and they’ve elected representatives who share that view. And - to tie in to the original point - given the amount that they’re paying and what they’re receiving - what they’re looking to do is not even to level the playing field but only to make it somewhat less imbalanced than it currently is.
Portraying any and all money that flows back to services used by the majority of the people actually paying the taxes as being some sort of diversion of its true and valid use is highly dubious, and of suspect motivation IMO.
I agree that jot is in everyone’s interest to have an educated populace, but how would the idea work counter to that? At the very least it seems like it would prevent actions like the ones in question, which will lead to a less educated populace. How/why, specifically is it a bad idea?
Then how do they hold any assets or sign any contracts if they are not a legal person? Are they not some kind of for profit or not for profit body corporate? That is what legal person is.
Sorry I think there is only a miscommunication around the phrase legal person as of course this school with a Board must then be a legal person. It is then a school board, but not a public school board.
This just makes the use of the phrase the public school board a clearer phrase to understand. It is not understandable, the objection to it. Even elected school board is not a clearer phrase as in all the private schools I know of, although under Code Civil, the Conseil / Board is elected. It is not public elections but they are elections.
No, that is not what a legal person is. People in groups can exercise some of the same rights as they do individually - this is not the same thing as being a legal person.
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
I agree that the local elected school board does not control the private schools. I’ve said so several times in this thread, so there shouldn’t be confusion about this.
But the local elected school board has responsibilities to the kids who attend private schools. I’ve posted a link and a quote to this, so there shouldn’t be any confusion about this either. But there you have it.
[/QUOTE]
AFAICT this is correct as well.
So you have decided in your demarche to make the unilateral definition of school board to mean the public school board and then pretend the others are wrong.
Yes, it is what a legal person is, contre, natural person. Voir your wikipedia in English:
“In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person”
It is perhaps a phrase not so used in your ordinary language, but in civil code it is the usual phrase, even in the English documents.
Perhaps you mean a legal entity, not a legal person.
Private schools do not necessarily have a board that runs them, and no private school is run by the same school board who is elected from the general public.
Not in the US. I never voted for any of the people who administered and ran my childrens’ private school. Nor did anyone else who was not a member of the church (I was not).
If you think there is some kind of overarching authority to run the private schools as there is to run the public ones, in the US there is not.
I think either you or I or both of us are doing what your cite says not to do - confusing Legal Person with Corporate Personhood.
The public school board is, in many or most instances, the only board there is. There is no “private school board” that has authority over all the private schools in a district, at least in the USA.
I’m frankly unsure if you’re following this discussion altogether, but if not then pay attention now.
In this thread, we happen to be discussing the actions of a certain elected school board in East Ramapo. “Jews Take Over East Ramapo School District” means that a majority of the elected school board in East Ramapo now consists of Jews. This board has allocated more funds to the education of private school kids than pleases parents of kids in public schools, hence a lot of fighting about the actions and ethics of this elected school board.
For the most part, these elected school boards are known colloquially as the “school board”. But in post #138, FiveYearLurker began referring to them as the “public school board”, hoping to slip in the connotation that these school boards had no responsibilities to private school kids. His first sentence in that post was “The public school board is not supposed to be trying to help the private schools”, and more along those lines followed in that post, and when I called him on it he responded (#147) that “They are the public school board. They are not the private school board. The private schools have their own board who have the rights, responsibilities and power over ensuring that the private school kids get an education. The public school board has the rights, responsibilities and power over ensuring that the public school kids get an education.”
But in actual fact there is no comparable “private school board” parallel to the “public school board” as FYL said or implied, and in fact elected school boards - such as the one we’re discussing in East Ramapo - do in fact have responsibilities to the kids in private schools, as has been documented, and attempts to maintain otherwise are stupid and/or dishonest, as above.
Voir encore: “In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person”
The americans seem to have prefered the phrase corporate person but legal person - personne juridique - in civil law is the body corporate that is in distinction with the natural person. Whatever the form of the body corporate, as the corporation or the company or any other form of the body corporate that has a legal personality, it is the legal person.
I can not see anyone who has said there is a single private school board, it is only the case that a private school will have a board, if there is a private school. To give the phrase the school board the sole meaning of the public school board is not a precise usage. the public school board however makes this clear.
Wow. So, in your world private schools have no governing body. They are nebulous conglomerations of students and teachers with no board to oversee them.
And, in your world, public school boards are elected to govern private schools within their borders, over which they have no authority. [By the way, I checked the National School Board’s Association website, and they seem to forget to mention this anywhere in there about.
*"What school boards Do?
Local school boards (also known as boards of education, school committees, school directors, or trustees) are elected—or occasionally appointed—to be leaders and champions for public education in their states and communities."*
And, in this case, somehow the school board elected for the public school (consisting of seven people who sent their kids to the private schools), sold a public school for 2 million dollars less than they could have, as evidenced by the price they got after the deal was unwound due to using an appraisal obtained by bribery, in order to create an additional private school to somehow benefit the school system as a whole.
I didn’t say that they have “no governing body” and certainly didn’t say - and have repeatedly pointed this out - that public school boards are elected “to govern” private schools.
The fact that you keep repeating these things does not speak much of you or your honesty.
In 99.9% of school districts, running the public schools is almost all of what the school boards do. Ramapo is an outlier because of its unique demographics.
So, for some reason in this specific case due to demographics, the public school board is tasked with some sort of ephemeral responsibilities to the private schools (but falling short of “governing”) despite having no oversight over the private schools. I’ve posted my cite that public school boards are tasked with the role of beings “champions for public education in their states and communities”, and the national association makes no mention of having a role in the lives of those who have opted out of that system.
So, yours is a rather extraordinary claim as you are attempting to use it justify the 2 million dollar gift to the private schools within their borders. A point that you keep ignoring. So, the public schools have some unnamed, secret responsibility to private schools that would encompass this largesse?
You’re trying to pretend that having some responsibilities without governing is some sort of unique situation. It’s not. Happens all the time.
I’ve explained why that source might not mention it. And I’ve also posted a cite which clarifies that despite your attempts to prove from omission, the school district has legal responsibilities to kids in private schools.
Problem that this is just another example of you making things up. I’ve nowhere in this thread attempted to justify the 2 million dollar gift to the private schools.
What I did say was that it’s unclear if the school board knowingly went along with the scheme or was merely negligent about it (I also asked if they were indicted, and I assume from your silence that they were not, which would suggest the latter). But you said that well, they ended up selling it to the same group that tried to buy it at the lower price, and in response to that I noted that the board probably didn’t regard it as such a terrible fraud for reasons given. But that’s not the same thing as saying that this type of deal is included in the board’s responsibilities, and I think I’ve been pretty clear about this. Of course, being clear about things hasn’t helped for much else here …
I already provided this cite. So, my “silence” is more that you weren’t paying attention.
There is an ongoing investigation of an apparent direct link between the board and the appraiser, but for now, the buyer bribed the appraiser, and the board went along with it.
The didn’t consider it a terrible fraud because they were the ones who wanted the sale to go through in the first place. The seller (the low appraisal accepting public school board) and buyer (the appraiser bribing private school) were colluding so that the buyer could get the lowest possible price. They were caught and the deal was unwound. Fine, best possible spin, despite all evidence to the contrary is that the school board members are just the worst negotiators in the world.
That’s some omission! The National Board fails to mention anywhere on their extensive website that they have this role in the lives of private school kids that you claim. You posted a cite that they are supposed to provide money for buses, which they were. You’re trying to extend that into something that no one else is claiming it is. Public school boards exist, as stated to be “champions for public education in their states and communities”.