so youre for destroying the eco system? got it

So these institutions should just take our kids pro bono? That's just not how it works. It's ultimately a business transaction between the public and private sector that is mutually beneficial for everyone. The school gets a larger student body to work with, and therefore more opportunities for advanced learning, extracurricular activities and clubs, additional curricula that aren't feasible with smaller student bodies; the public gets access to some of the best secondary education in the country without having to deal with the hassle of running its own school district, funding its own building and grounds maintenance, hiring and oversight, etc. The money the towns are spending on their education is the same money that they'd be spending otherwise to send them to some regional high school that they'd have to continually assess repairs and improvements for, and wouldn't even be guaranteed to provide a better education or growth outcomes for its students than the current model. It's just not a risk worth taking.

It's definitely not you! There is no coherent point made anywhere in that piece.

Oh man I felt stupid because I got tipsy once and wrote a post kind of like this hahaha

But then I looked at OP's history and.... oh boy.

At least literal arson would support his conclusion that they have too much power.

Dude is a teacher too or was at one of those four private schools.

This is what I was looking for. I really didn't understand if it was me or if i stopped understanding things.

Those communities are still burning to this day.

Kinda cringe, mind yours. We are all animals, and we all live wildly different lives from each other, for any number of reasons that you apparently haven’t even bothered to consider.

This is exceptionally poorly written. After reading the whole thing, I'm not even 100% sure what the argument is, honestly. I get that he disagrees with the current proposals, and he has problems with the alliance, but there's really not a consistent line of reasoning.

The first four paragraphs are entirely in the passive voice (e.g. "action has been taken"), but they're also the only coherent part of the commentary, because each paragraph acknowledges and builds on the preceding one. As soon as he moves on from giving background to making his point, he just doesn't ever actually make an argument.

From the structure, after the introductory paragraphs, in which he lays out the background, he starts his argument with this paragraph:

>From my vantage point, the alliance seems to be having a meandering negotiation with themselves that has ignited nearly 100 communities offering public tuition in some or all grades.

Ignited what? Discussion? What is the meandering negotiation? How does a meandering negotiation ignite towns? I genuinely have no clue what that paragraph is supposed to mean, but it's also clearly intended to be a thesis statement. I was hoping he'd explain later, but he does not, because every single paragraph from now on is independent of every other one. He never develops a single argument.

He also asks questions he clearly intends to be rhetorical, but which really aren't. Example:

>Independent schools educate about 4,000 publicly tuitioned students and generally report that they are doing well. Public schools educate 81,000 students and often report that they are struggling to emerge out of the pandemic. Why is a group that represents schools that educate 81,000 students focused on schools they don’t represent that educate 4,000 students?

... because those are private schools refusing public funds, and that's what we're discussing. I think he's trying to point out it's absurd, but it's not at all obvious to me why this would be absurd. Is it supposed to be absurd because of the numbers? Anybody who has ever made rules, or done anything really, knows that edge cases are often the bulk of the work, i.e. the last 10% is 90% of the work.

If you think he'll explain in the next paragraph, you are of course mistaken. The next paragraph, like every other paragraph, just starts a new, also instantly aborted argument:

> On principle, the alliance and its supporters share their perspective as a humble request to follow a few simple rules which independent schools are already following or soon will be, while simultaneously proposing to restrict public tuition to all but four independent schools, if they are designated.

Why? At least link me to something. As written, it's just an unsupported statement. It's maybe the beginning of an argument, but he offers no supporting points, nor does it do anything to support the previous paragraph, which talks about the 81000 students vs the 4000 students. It's totally unrelated. What are the rules? Even the structure doesn't work. He sets up "a humble request to follow a few simple rules" as being in tension with "proposing to restrict public tuition." Those seem like they're not in tension at all to me. It seems perfectly normal that the people who make the rules also get to decide the funding. If they are in tension, explain it!

Here's the conclusion (typo and all):

>To prevent a handful of religious schools in towns that don’t even offer public tuitioning from receiving public tuition, the alliance is pursuing a sledgehammer approach instead of searching for a credible surgical solution. It is concerning that theaAlliance has a considerable amount of power over Vermont schools and students, yet seemingly no capacity or understanding to recommend solutions that help all Vermont students.

Whatever, I make typos all the time. But also, what is the sledge hammer approach? The proposed bills? He also mixes metaphors -- are they pursuing a meandering negotiation, or are they sledge hammering? Those seem pretty different. He never explains why the alliance has too much power, nor does he really develop any arguments about how it doesn't understand the needs of students.

This is alarming shit from a legislator, whose literal job is to write words enforced by armed agents of the state. Especially when you consider he is writing about education policy, of all things.

edit: Holy shit I just learned he's a legislator and a teacher at St. Johnsbury academy, which will presumably be affected by this. That should be disclosed at the top. That's very important context in evaluating this. But also, this guy teaches kids to write?! I really hope this was an aberration, and not representative of his ability to write and communicate effectively.

>St Johnsbury is largely funded by private benefactors.

Great then they dont need the funding from the public coffers!

How so? I mean ig if you are a member of a religion then it may seem that way given how those world views are at least (edit: at the ) fundamental level incompatible with modern life and require a salad bar pick an choose approach as to what rules of the club can be bent or broken.

Well, regardless of the busing thing (I graduated in 2015) St Johnsbury is largely funded by private benefactors. Even though the towns are paying a tuition to send their children there, it's not much more than they'd otherwise spend on a public regional high school (supposing one were to spontaneously appear at no cost) and the education received and opportunities to explore different subjects, the arts (performing and visual), career and technical training, extracurricular activities are miles ahead of what a public school can provide. The majority of tuition funding for St J comes from the Dorm students. On top of that, encouraging benefactors from all over the country to donate only adds to the institution's resource pool, which it then uses to improve the student experience.

Yelling absolutes like "public dollars belong in public schools" means nothing if you can't back it up with a good reason to change the current status quo. Yes on principle it's an easy logical conclusion to come to, but in practice it might not be the best solution for a lot of rural areas in our state. A large part of why young families even move to the NEK is because they have access to schools like STJ and LI that they otherwise wouldn't find anywhere else in the country. It's part of what makes our state unique and, if I'm gonna be brutally honest, it's one of few things keeping our state afloat in its undying quest to attract and keep young people and families. You abolish public funding to STJ tomorrow and all of a sudden an entire county has to recreate that with a fraction of the funds? People will leave in droves. I get that a lot of people in this part of the state are willing to cut their nose off to spite their face in the name of "sticking it to the flatlanders" but not me.

Ironic that the public schools ARE indoctrination centers paid for by taxes.

They stopped busing the students between when i went and my kid was there..idk when exactly. That was a helluva burden on a single factory worker and threw my life into chaos. Public dollars belong in public schools period full stop. The patrons of these private schools want them to remain in business then they can pay out of pocket for them, and the parish's can pay for the religious ones from tithes.

Voids are the best 🖤

Except St J provided busing for several of my friends and classmates who lived as far away as Peacham and Sheffield. As to it being private vs. public, what specifically about it being private makes it bad? If it comes down to cost and you live in a sender town, that's what your property taxes effectively go towards. If it comes down to oversight issues then what specifically are they doing in the education of our children that you think is so wrong?

worry about yourself.

The fuck does anybody buy a two thousand dollar purse for

Responding to the idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.

St. Mike's is a very welcoming school for the LGBTQ. If you are on instagram, I would advise that you follow the @ knightlife account.

Come back. Vet here as well. Live your life on instinct more than logic

When I saw a down-voted comment I knew it'd be this. Seriously, keep your cats indoors for their safety and other animals safety. There are more than enough psychos out there that enjoy running over cats and cats can have an impact on local wildlife. I say this as a lifetime cat owner, I love them to death but keep them inside.

EDIT: Things that can kill your cat outside: Cars, Dogs, Coyotes,Fox, Fishers, Owls, Hawks, Eagles, anti freeze and other poisons.

Your cat also kills things and not just mice or rats. Song birds and humming birds also are prey. If your cat is indoors it also can't help transmit the many cat carried illnesses. Also far less likely to get lyme disease.

I went to St. Mike's. Graduated a long time ago. Went back and coached there. I found it very accepting and LBGT+ friendly. I'm a non-practicing catholic. It was my truly some of the best years of my life and made life-long friendships even with the faculty and staff. Good luck to you.

Doug at ski rack is a pro. I had instaprint insoles done for my lupos a few years ago and it's completely changed my skiing for the better. Highly recommend!

You can probably either have land or be in a walkable town, but you'll be hard pressed to find that size property in walking distance to anything. I suggest looking at the neighboring towns to the places with the activity, it may only be a short drive or bike ride. Ex, Berlin town line is only a couple minutes from downtown Montpelier. Good luck!

It’s pedestal

If that’s an advertisement for the religious education you’re promoting then whoops