Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you think kids in private schools aren't wealthy? How many poor kids whose parents can hardly afford the food and roof over their head are paying $30,000 a year to send their kids to school?

Your sister made a choice, and is more wealthy than many people. She made a choice, that's her choice and should not get money to send kids to a school she chose to pay for.

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

I didn't say it didn't happen. I said it was harder. Firstly it all depends on having those special schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

 

[Coyote]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

All public schools are mainstreamed now - with special needs kids in with regular kids to varying degrees. I think discipline problems usually get kids sent to the specialized schools as well as "parent's choice". My cousin's son had some learning problems, and she had to fight to get him out of the public school into a specialized school. It might depend on the region.

 

[Coyote]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So she should (and did) pay for other people's kids to go to public school and then pay for private school for her kids? Where is the equity in that?

I say that if my sister paid for her kids education, all parents should pay for their kids education as well. That's fair.

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

Doesn't everybody benefit by having an automobile so they can get to work in the morning? Doesn't everybody benefit by having nicely painted homes? Doesn't everybody benefit by having the internet where they can apply for jobs, pay bills, or even learn new things?

There are dozens of things that everybody benefits from, but that doesn't mean we should pay for all those things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

Yes, my former tenant did the same thing. Out of his three months off, he went to class part-time for one month in the summer, and it was only every couple of years it was required.

 

[initforme]

Now raybo, if teaching is that easy why didn't you become one? Conservative mantra says don't be envious. You are losing this debate quickly. Why should we pay for good roads so big trucks can ruin them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

All public schools are mainstreamed now - with special needs kids in with regular kids to varying degrees. I think discipline problems usually get kids sent to the specialized schools as well as "parent's choice". My cousin's son had some learning problems, and she had to fight to get him out of the public school into a specialized school. It might depend on the region.

I don't understand your response because nobody forces you to send your kid to a public school. It's optional just like it is with home schooled children. If you want to take them out, it's a simple signing of a form.

 

[Coyote]

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

Doesn't everybody benefit by having an automobile so they can get to work in the morning? Doesn't everybody benefit by having nicely painted homes? Doesn't everybody benefit by having the internet where they can apply for jobs, pay bills, or even learn new things?

There are dozens of things that everybody benefits from, but that doesn't mean we should pay for all those things.

The better questions would be:

Does society as a whole benefit by everyone having an automobile?
Does society as a whole benefit by everyone having nicely painted house?
Does society as a whole benefit by having a military?
Does society as a whole benefit by having an educated populace?

 

[Coyote]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

Yes, my former tenant did the same thing. Out of his three months off, he went to class part-time for one month in the summer, and it was only every couple of years it was required.

They also don't get paid for those 3 months.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its choice dude. You said you wanted CHOICE. You said the Republicans were all about CHOICE. All of a sudden you seem to have forgotten about choice. You want things to be equal? Then you have every child in the country getting a free education. They can CHOOSE not to take up on this. Adults without kids also have to pay for the education of the masses. Is that fair? Yes. They're living in a semi-civilized society which has reached that point with free mass education that people can CHOOSE not to enter.

How is forcing people without kids to pay for people with kids fair? Should you pay for my new car because everybody deserves a new car? How about lawn care for my home? Should you pay for my vacation home in Hawaii?

Children are not the product of society. Children are the product of their parents who optionally had them. As such, they should be held to the responsibility of educating their own children.

Because it's all about the strength of society, not the strength of the individual. Every individual had the chance to go through free education. So why shouldn't they pay for it when they're adults? Also, they benefit for the impact of this education, regardless of whether they have children or not.

We could go on all day. Why should I pay for the costs of the US military when I don't support what they do? Could I get my taxes back that would otherwise go to the military? I don't use the military.

Because the protection of our nation is the constitutional responsibility of our leaders. Free education isn't.

So what you're saying is that because parents of today had a taxpayer funded education, it's unstoppable? How did I (with no children) become liable for these parents or their kids?

No, that's not a good reason for me to pay for it. Everyone benefits from the military, everyone benefits from mass education. This isn't debatable, this is the case. You can go to countries where kids don't get a free education, or get a much weaker education, and you'll see a country that is weaker.

Doesn't everybody benefit by having an automobile so they can get to work in the morning? Doesn't everybody benefit by having nicely painted homes? Doesn't everybody benefit by having the internet where they can apply for jobs, pay bills, or even learn new things?

There are dozens of things that everybody benefits from, but that doesn't mean we should pay for all those things.

No, I don't benefit from you having a car to get to work in the morning. I benefit if I have a car.

You're taking the wrong way on this argument.

I benefit if your kids get an education. I don't benefit if you have a car. I do benefit if there is a road on which you can drive your car.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now raybo, if teaching is that easy why didn't you become one? Conservative mantra says don't be envious. You are losing this debate quickly. Why should we pay for good roads so big trucks can ruin them?

Because big trucks pay most of the road taxes, that's why. My employer pays road taxes in diesel fuel, federal road taxes, and taxes per axle on each truck within our state. That's besides the fact everybody uses the roads.

 

[Coyote]

Class size has a LOT to do with it. In fact, earlier in this thread I quoted an article that listed the 5 main reasons parents chose private schools and smaller class size was at the top of the list. How can one teacher effectively teach a class of 60 fifth graders? You're arguing against exactly what makes private schools successful. We need more teachers.

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

All public schools are mainstreamed now - with special needs kids in with regular kids to varying degrees. I think discipline problems usually get kids sent to the specialized schools as well as "parent's choice". My cousin's son had some learning problems, and she had to fight to get him out of the public school into a specialized school. It might depend on the region.

I don't understand your response because nobody forces you to send your kid to a public school. It's optional just like it is with home schooled children. If you want to take them out, it's a simple signing of a form.

Sort of. But you have to send them to school or homeschool. She couldn't homeschool, and she didn't want and possibly couldn't afford private school. She pays for public school so it's her right to demand they educate her child appropriately. And she is an involved parent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

Yes, my former tenant did the same thing. Out of his three months off, he went to class part-time for one month in the summer, and it was only every couple of years it was required.

They also don't get paid for those 3 months.

Yes they do. It's worked that way so they can't file for unemployment. Their salary is divided out through the year. During the summer, you can make extra money (which some teachers do) working temporary jobs or teaching summer school.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason I argue against that is because I went to a private school. This was during the baby boom era, and we had 39 kids in my class. I'd match that class against any public school that had much smaller class sizes.

Smaller classes is a union thing. They are not looking out for the kids, they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps some parents bought into that as well, I don't know. Smaller classes may help with an out of control room of kids perhaps, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

All public schools are mainstreamed now - with special needs kids in with regular kids to varying degrees. I think discipline problems usually get kids sent to the specialized schools as well as "parent's choice". My cousin's son had some learning problems, and she had to fight to get him out of the public school into a specialized school. It might depend on the region.

I don't understand your response because nobody forces you to send your kid to a public school. It's optional just like it is with home schooled children. If you want to take them out, it's a simple signing of a form.

Sort of. But you have to send them to school or homeschool. She couldn't homeschool, and she didn't want and possibly couldn't afford private school. She pays for public school so it's her right to demand they educate her child appropriately. And she is an involved parent.

Well then she's not fighting to get them out, she's fighting to keep them in.

 

[initforme]

Big trucks cause most of the damage. Why should we pay so they have good roads?

 

[Coyote]

Not necessarily. Firstly it depends on what you're studying. Some subjects can be done with larger class sizes, others are done better with smaller. Languages for example are better done with less kids.
Sometimes you have kids who are out of control, and they need to be taught. In private school you're going to have kids who behave or the school will kick them out. When you get to the bottom it's harder to kick such kids out. Generally kids with learning difficulties need more attention and therefore smaller class sizes.

I disagree with that because our public school kicked some of my classmates out. Those with learning difficulties were sent to specialized schools.

All public schools are mainstreamed now - with special needs kids in with regular kids to varying degrees. I think discipline problems usually get kids sent to the specialized schools as well as "parent's choice". My cousin's son had some learning problems, and she had to fight to get him out of the public school into a specialized school. It might depend on the region.

I don't understand your response because nobody forces you to send your kid to a public school. It's optional just like it is with home schooled children. If you want to take them out, it's a simple signing of a form.

Sort of. But you have to send them to school or homeschool. She couldn't homeschool, and she didn't want and possibly couldn't afford private school. She pays for public school so it's her right to demand they educate her child appropriately. And she is an involved parent.

Well then she's not fighting to get them out, she's fighting to keep them in.

No. She fighting to get them in the appropriate school, which she did.

 

[Coyote]

Rsay if you don't rstand that class size has an effect you should never comment on education. My daughter has been a teacher for 25 years. She only now makes 60 grand, which is peanuts. She will be quick to tell you that two more kiuds can make a huge difference. It has nothing to do with unions. The big problem is republipig governors slashing funding to furnish her classroom.

60K a year isn't bad for a part-time job. The last time I had all summer off was when I was a kid in school.

It depends on where she lives and they aren't really "off" all summer. Teachers are required to do "continuing education" courses - at least in my state.

Yes, my former tenant did the same thing. Out of his three months off, he went to class part-time for one month in the summer, and it was only every couple of years it was required.

They also don't get paid for those 3 months.

Yes they do. It's worked that way so they can't file for unemployment. Their salary is divided out through the year. During the summer, you can make extra money (which some teachers do) working temporary jobs or teaching summer school.

Ok - I didn't realize that, but ya that makes sense. We have some faculty that are 9-month, but choose to spread it out over 12 months. Nothing to do with unemployment, but for budgeting. But they don't actually get paid for those months - it's just the 9 month salary.