Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Cellblock2429]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

The states with strong teachers' unions have the best educational records in the country.

Why fuck with that?

Horse shit. Take a look at New York City. Washington DC, Newark,.....Kansas City. Cleveland.
All have unionized teachers with tenure after three years, all spend more money per student than 99% of other districts, yet their graduation rates pale in comparison to areas where per student expenditure is less than HALF.....
So here we go. Another selfish greedy lib spouts off his belief that all problems can be solved by throwing money at them.
Why should teacher be able to use their union status to tell the taxpayers whom they serve "screw you. If you don;t pay us what we want, your kids aren't going to school"....
The existence of these labor collectives has turned things upside down. Teachers are public servants. They work for the PUBLIC. Not the other way around.
No one saying teachers need a beat down. Not at all. Teachers get the short end of the stick in that even where they are unionized, they get no support from the administration nor the parents. I have friends who are teachers. In the public school system of a nearby city, this one friend of mine who by the way has a law degree, loves teaching but has a I' don't give a shit if I rock the boat" attitude tells me that the teachers for the most part have to walk on egg shells. And they are unionized here as well. State law bars them from collective bargaining rights.
The idea is to strike a balance between the professionals and the taxpayers. Get rid of the "us vs them" mentality which is perpetuated by the union leaderships.

It's obvious that libturds like bad education and poor educated kids! They hate that children actually learn who they really are! It's all about libturdism

Nut they persist in demanding more money "for the chil-ren".....Throwing money at a problem is the liberal's way of saying "we care"...yeah as long as that "we care" money comes from someone else..

The people who want vouchers are demanding money for their children.

maybe if schools provided quality education like they did in the 1950s there would be no need for vouchers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ahh, the old teacher's union fallback position. Test scores. Meaningless pap. It is well regarded that standardized test scores do not measure intelligence. In fact standardized tests measure one thing. The student's ability to take the test.
Urban school districts with struggling schools never show high test scores.
So the article shows no context.

Yet that's the only measure we have, isn't it? The point is, in Milwaukee, test scores when DOWN after they looted the systems and let all the scammers get into play. ANother place where the scores went down was in Michigan, were Betsy Devos got school choice put in and things got measurably worse.

Look, school choice( not vouchers. No one is talking about vouchers) is a cry for help. The system in place is not working for inner city kids. It hasn't in three or more decades. Let them decide where they want to go to school. And BTW, most people who want to choose their child's school, are members of minority communities. Same applies to vouchers.

The problem is, you can't move the problem kids without moving the problems. moving the kid from the problem district to the good district just means you are moving the problem, not fixing it. This isn't complicated.

And your analysis of "poor kids".....I assume you mean minority children not being able to succeed despite the fact that they are given better tools and a better educational environment "won't work" is patently racist.

When did this happen? In fact, the opposite is true. Poor kids in Chicago have a lot less spent on them than rich kids in Evanston...(to use an IL example.)


— Due to the primary reliance on local property tax revenue for school funding, there are massive cumulative gaps in per-pupil spending, particularly in poor or minority communities. The 6,413 students who started elementary school in Evanston [a suburb north of Chicago] in 1994 and graduated from high school in 2007 had about $290 million more spent on their education than the same number of Chicago Public Schools students.— Many of the school districts that spent the most per-student received at least 90 percent of their money from local property taxes. Yet, these districts tended to tax themselves at far lower rates than their poorer counterparts.

Only dishonest Meth head Joe would try to compare Chicago to the richest district in Illinois..


BTW Chicago spends $16,000 per student

Evanston spends $18,000


Washington DC home to one of the worst test scores in the nation they spend $ 29,000 per pupil

Newark, NJ over $20k.....My school district in northern NJ, spends about half that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The SAME parents who send their students to public school with no home-made lunch

You mean those same parents that when they do pack a sack lunch for their kids, to only have the cafeteria police go through it to decide what the kid can eat?

My kids went to a school that had a closed campus, and also didn't allow them to bring a lunch. We tried to protest to the school but was told that it was "policy to protect the students". They never did answer "from what". What other option is there?

Link to that happening all over the place, please.

Sure, right away. Post up that evidence of Russia hacking

It's been posted dozens of times. Learn to read.

The Russia hacked the Clinton email server is a theory contrived for political purposes.
Your side has projected that theory into another which suggests the Russian hackers altered the vote tallies....
Both of which are narratives designed to comfort the participation trophy crowd.

 

[Spare_change]

say it aint so! you mean that the states will have their own says in what they teach our children!!!, you are telling us that the government will not be able to force all 57 states to lie to our children about our history and that the pilgrims were all terrorists!!!
this cant be happening !!!

OMG!!! Will wonders never cease!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?

Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.

Then you need to complain to those who pass the laws making property taxes pay for schools. Repeal the laws.

We just want vouchers

IOW you want a handout from the government.

How is using your own tax money to educate your kids a handout?

 

[Spare_change]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Of course, this is nonsense .... funding is done on a per-student basis, thus the relative funding is approximately equal.

But, that doesn't fit the liberal, big government agenda, so you are exposed to nonsense like this.

 

[Spare_change]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

The states with strong teachers' unions have the best educational records in the country.

Why fuck with that?

Perhaps you can prove that to us ... not with their canned data, but with real facts.

 

[Spare_change]

Ahh, the old teacher's union fallback position. Test scores. Meaningless pap. It is well regarded that standardized test scores do not measure intelligence. In fact standardized tests measure one thing. The student's ability to take the test.
Urban school districts with struggling schools never show high test scores.
So the article shows no context.

Yet that's the only measure we have, isn't it? The point is, in Milwaukee, test scores when DOWN after they looted the systems and let all the scammers get into play. ANother place where the scores went down was in Michigan, were Betsy Devos got school choice put in and things got measurably worse.

Look, school choice( not vouchers. No one is talking about vouchers) is a cry for help. The system in place is not working for inner city kids. It hasn't in three or more decades. Let them decide where they want to go to school. And BTW, most people who want to choose their child's school, are members of minority communities. Same applies to vouchers.

The problem is, you can't move the problem kids without moving the problems. moving the kid from the problem district to the good district just means you are moving the problem, not fixing it. This isn't complicated.

And your analysis of "poor kids".....I assume you mean minority children not being able to succeed despite the fact that they are given better tools and a better educational environment "won't work" is patently racist.

When did this happen? In fact, the opposite is true. Poor kids in Chicago have a lot less spent on them than rich kids in Evanston...(to use an IL example.)


— Due to the primary reliance on local property tax revenue for school funding, there are massive cumulative gaps in per-pupil spending, particularly in poor or minority communities. The 6,413 students who started elementary school in Evanston [a suburb north of Chicago] in 1994 and graduated from high school in 2007 had about $290 million more spent on their education than the same number of Chicago Public Schools students.— Many of the school districts that spent the most per-student received at least 90 percent of their money from local property taxes. Yet, these districts tended to tax themselves at far lower rates than their poorer counterparts.

Only dishonest Meth head Joe would try to compare Chicago to the richest district in Illinois..


BTW Chicago spends $16,000 per student

Evanston spends $18,000


Washington DC home to one of the worst test scores in the nation they spend $ 29,000 per pupil

Newark, NJ over $20k.....My school district in northern NJ, spends about half that.

... and how is that money allocated? How much actually goes to the student in each of districts, and how much of that is consumed in overhead (due to the inflated administration structure, high cost of real property, etc)?

In your district, how much to build a school, compared to Newark?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

who knew that Christopher Columbus was a racist! does this mean that he only allowed the KKK members on his Mayflower ship for that historic ride to the United States? I wonder if Columbus eventually hooked up with Abe Lincoln at some local bar with topless white waitresses. { I guess that this is also what they are teaching our kids in grade school?}

 

[oreo]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

What happened after 1952? Democrats held the U.S House and Senate for the next 40 years. So I guess there is something to look forward too in this--LOL.

 

[jc456]

Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?

Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.

Then you need to complain to those who pass the laws making property taxes pay for schools. Repeal the laws.

We just want vouchers

IOW you want a handout from the government.

How is using your own tax money to educate your kids a handout?

^^this^^^

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ahh, the old teacher's union fallback position. Test scores. Meaningless pap. It is well regarded that standardized test scores do not measure intelligence. In fact standardized tests measure one thing. The student's ability to take the test.
Urban school districts with struggling schools never show high test scores.
So the article shows no context.

Yet that's the only measure we have, isn't it? The point is, in Milwaukee, test scores when DOWN after they looted the systems and let all the scammers get into play. ANother place where the scores went down was in Michigan, were Betsy Devos got school choice put in and things got measurably worse.

Look, school choice( not vouchers. No one is talking about vouchers) is a cry for help. The system in place is not working for inner city kids. It hasn't in three or more decades. Let them decide where they want to go to school. And BTW, most people who want to choose their child's school, are members of minority communities. Same applies to vouchers.

The problem is, you can't move the problem kids without moving the problems. moving the kid from the problem district to the good district just means you are moving the problem, not fixing it. This isn't complicated.

And your analysis of "poor kids".....I assume you mean minority children not being able to succeed despite the fact that they are given better tools and a better educational environment "won't work" is patently racist.

When did this happen? In fact, the opposite is true. Poor kids in Chicago have a lot less spent on them than rich kids in Evanston...(to use an IL example.)


— Due to the primary reliance on local property tax revenue for school funding, there are massive cumulative gaps in per-pupil spending, particularly in poor or minority communities. The 6,413 students who started elementary school in Evanston [a suburb north of Chicago] in 1994 and graduated from high school in 2007 had about $290 million more spent on their education than the same number of Chicago Public Schools students.— Many of the school districts that spent the most per-student received at least 90 percent of their money from local property taxes. Yet, these districts tended to tax themselves at far lower rates than their poorer counterparts.

Only dishonest Meth head Joe would try to compare Chicago to the richest district in Illinois..


BTW Chicago spends $16,000 per student

Evanston spends $18,000


Washington DC home to one of the worst test scores in the nation they spend $ 29,000 per pupil

Newark, NJ over $20k.....My school district in northern NJ, spends about half that.

... and how is that money allocated? How much actually goes to the student in each of districts, and how much of that is consumed in overhead (due to the inflated administration structure, high cost of real property, etc)?

In your district, how much to build a school, compared to Newark?

The breakdown is while most of the funding goes to labor and facilities, the bottom line is student achievement. Spending on actual education is higher because the more the district receives, the more it spends Therefore it would make sense that more is actually spent on education where per student funding is higher.
Wheal leaves me scratching my head, is where the dollars go. One aspect of home rule states such as NJ, the local school boards have greater control and latitude with regard to spending and of course these Home Rule states also allow school boards to have autonomous taxing authority with only a small amount of accountability..

 

[Spare_change]

Ahh, the old teacher's union fallback position. Test scores. Meaningless pap. It is well regarded that standardized test scores do not measure intelligence. In fact standardized tests measure one thing. The student's ability to take the test.
Urban school districts with struggling schools never show high test scores.
So the article shows no context.

Yet that's the only measure we have, isn't it? The point is, in Milwaukee, test scores when DOWN after they looted the systems and let all the scammers get into play. ANother place where the scores went down was in Michigan, were Betsy Devos got school choice put in and things got measurably worse.

Look, school choice( not vouchers. No one is talking about vouchers) is a cry for help. The system in place is not working for inner city kids. It hasn't in three or more decades. Let them decide where they want to go to school. And BTW, most people who want to choose their child's school, are members of minority communities. Same applies to vouchers.

The problem is, you can't move the problem kids without moving the problems. moving the kid from the problem district to the good district just means you are moving the problem, not fixing it. This isn't complicated.

And your analysis of "poor kids".....I assume you mean minority children not being able to succeed despite the fact that they are given better tools and a better educational environment "won't work" is patently racist.

When did this happen? In fact, the opposite is true. Poor kids in Chicago have a lot less spent on them than rich kids in Evanston...(to use an IL example.)


— Due to the primary reliance on local property tax revenue for school funding, there are massive cumulative gaps in per-pupil spending, particularly in poor or minority communities. The 6,413 students who started elementary school in Evanston [a suburb north of Chicago] in 1994 and graduated from high school in 2007 had about $290 million more spent on their education than the same number of Chicago Public Schools students.— Many of the school districts that spent the most per-student received at least 90 percent of their money from local property taxes. Yet, these districts tended to tax themselves at far lower rates than their poorer counterparts.

Only dishonest Meth head Joe would try to compare Chicago to the richest district in Illinois..


BTW Chicago spends $16,000 per student

Evanston spends $18,000


Washington DC home to one of the worst test scores in the nation they spend $ 29,000 per pupil

Newark, NJ over $20k.....My school district in northern NJ, spends about half that.

... and how is that money allocated? How much actually goes to the student in each of districts, and how much of that is consumed in overhead (due to the inflated administration structure, high cost of real property, etc)?

In your district, how much to build a school, compared to Newark?

The breakdown is while most of the funding goes to labor and facilities, the bottom line is student achievement. Spending on actual education is higher because the more the district receives, the more it spends Therefore it would make sense that more is actually spent on education where per student funding is higher.
Wheal leaves me scratching my head, is where the dollars go. One aspect of home rule states such as NJ, the local school boards have greater control and latitude with regard to spending and of course these Home Rule states also allow school boards to have autonomous taxing authority with only a small amount of accountability..

... and, therein, lies the fallacy of your argument ... "... they get more money, so they spend more money, ergo, they provide better education". Studies prove that there is very little correlation between $$ and quality of education.

However, your point about local rule is very appropriate. But, since only 10 states DON'T have home rule, it's almost facetious to suggest that home rule (local taxation) has a significant impact on quality of education. You can find Home Rule states at both ends of the spectrum.

The real impact of Home Rule is the acceptability (some would say 'gullibility') by the local community to whatever the school board is doing - a "... we gave you the money you asked for, now make it happen ... and don't bother us any more" sort of laissez faire attitude. This was especially true during the 1960's-1990s, where a request for increased funding by schools went virtually unopposed. Slowly, people began to realize that they weren't getting what they were paying for, and rejection of funding requests today is the norm, rather than the exception. The people recognize that they are not educational experts, but they aren't getting what they want from the schools today.

School board, administrators, teachers, and unions very much portray a "we know best" attitude. They think it is beneath their station to have to ACTUALLY explain what they are doing - better for the minions sit quietly and let them do whatever they want. There is nothing more infuriating than being told "... you wouldn't understand this, so just run along home and let the experts handle it".

As a former school board member, the arrogance of the education elite was a constant irritant. God forbid you should actually ask the question, "Why?" Teachers and administrators take that as a direct insult. How DARE you question their righteousness? And, of course, unions are the bane to constructive change - their interest - their ONLY interest - is to protect the status quo in order to protect their dues paying members. Everything put before the unions is first measured against the "what's good for the union" and then the "what's good for our members" mantra.

So, the people feel alienated by the local educational aristocracy, and they turn to their political representatives for relief. Washington, of course, wants to solve the problem - but they are a single entity, and as such, are experts at the "one size fits all" approach. They can't produce multi-faceted answers that can be changed based on local conditions. So, when a community objects to federal imposition on a particular issue, the wield the ultimate hammer - do it or we'll take away your federal funding. And, of course, local school boards and administrators immediately cave in because to lose that money would threaten their own little kingdom.

In addition, the federal government quickly realized that they can increase their own power base by consuming (or usurping) the power that used to be allotted to local control. Thus, you get the decidedly perverted Common Core - an approach great in concept, but a train wreck in application.

We have gone so far down the government control road that we need, simply, to blow it all up - and start over. Maybe local control of for-profit schools is the answer. Maybe charter schools, private schools, school choice, or locally mandated standards of performance of administrators and teachers (measured by student proficiency).

Two things for sure - 1) the answer won't be easy, and 2) it will piss off about 49.9% of the people (and 90% of the educators).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You got to be drinking a lot of egg nogg today.




.

I'm right you're wrong.

Only in your liberal fantasy land a simple google search is enough remember... I am a graduate of the great Union Chicago schools..

And you know how well I use grammar and spell real sweal.



.

Do you believe that if we pay teachers less we will get better teachers?

Did I ever say that? This discussion we are having right now is your claim that Union teachers are better and we both know that to be false.


Everyone against charter schools is against competition... Wrapped up in the facade that they take money away from the public schools. If you bother to look up the stats something over 50% of teachers don't even send their own kids to public schools..


So a question, if teachers are paid so little how can they afford it?

And what do they really know?



.

You want to break the teachers' unions to drive good teachers out of the public school system.

Why would it drive anybody out of the school system if they did their job proficiently? The only teachers that need to be upset would be those who are not performing to expectations.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm right you're wrong.

Only in your liberal fantasy land a simple google search is enough remember... I am a graduate of the great Union Chicago schools..

And you know how well I use grammar and spell real sweal.



.

Do you believe that if we pay teachers less we will get better teachers?

Did I ever say that? This discussion we are having right now is your claim that Union teachers are better and we both know that to be false.


Everyone against charter schools is against competition... Wrapped up in the facade that they take money away from the public schools. If you bother to look up the stats something over 50% of teachers don't even send their own kids to public schools..


So a question, if teachers are paid so little how can they afford it?

And what do they really know?



.

You want to break the teachers' unions to drive good teachers out of the public school system.

Why would it drive anybody out of the school system if they did their job proficiently? The only teachers that need to be upset would be those who are not performing to expectations.

I missed this one by NY,

NY in case you missed it Scott Walker busted the Union and like half the teachers quit the Union and remained teachers..


The other half that stayed in the Union? My only guess is they are to incompetent and lazy to get a real job and need the Union to protect them.... Just a wild hunch.



.

 

[RealDave]

say it aint so! you mean that the states will have their own says in what they teach our children!!!, you are telling us that the government will not be able to force all 57 states to lie to our children about our history and that the pilgrims were all terrorists!!!
this cant be happening !!!

So, you are going to teach that the native Americans welcomed the Europeans & gladly gave them all their land so they could live on reservations.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

What happened after 1952? Democrats held the U.S House and Senate for the next 40 years. So I guess there is something to look forward too in this--LOL.

Stupid people want a strong national defense and energetic economy with solid border security. What do you "smart" people want?

 

[jon_berzerk]

say it aint so! you mean that the states will have their own says in what they teach our children!!!, you are telling us that the government will not be able to force all 57 states to lie to our children about our history and that the pilgrims were all terrorists!!!
this cant be happening !!!

So, you are going to teach that the native Americans welcomed the Europeans & gladly gave them all their land so they could live on reservations.

indeed

like the story of the slaughter at horseshoe bend in 1814 led by Andrew Jackson (D) democrat

 

[Wyatt earp]

say it aint so! you mean that the states will have their own says in what they teach our children!!!, you are telling us that the government will not be able to force all 57 states to lie to our children about our history and that the pilgrims were all terrorists!!!
this cant be happening !!!

So, you are going to teach that the native Americans welcomed the Europeans & gladly gave them all their land so they could live on reservations.

No teach the real history, we made deals with the Indians and they had a real bad liberal negotiator...


Not our fault they got the raw end of the deal..


.

 

[Granny]

I haven't read all the pages of posts on this thread but I am clearly against unions. Yes, there was a time when they were necessary to get some kind of relief from "sweatshop" environments in the workplace. But that is not the case today. Given that CWA union reps came into my home and roughed up my mother in an attempt to get me to join the union, I vowed it would never happen ... and I have never joined any union. Many decades later I was working for labor lawyers and had a real good inside look at unions. There was one lawyer in particular who busted the chops of NLRB lawyers to the point that we staffers were laughing so loud we had to close his office door. It was just pitiful ... he could quote labor laws chapter and verse and tell them exactly how wrong they were.

Teacher's union? One year damned near every teacher in the Richmond, VA school system deserted their classrooms en masse because the VCU Rams were in the finals of March Madness and it was far more important to go out of town for the game than it was to do what they were being paid to do: educate their students.

Nobody should have to pay for the right to work in this country - which is exactly what union people do: no union membership, no job. Could the right-to-work states make some changes? Absolutely - probably the most important change being that an employee should not be fired "with or without cause." The employer should have to give a valid reason for someone to be fired.