Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[bodecea]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

 

[Flopper]

Jamal? Lol! Racist asshole!

Yawn, guy, you keep avoiding the point. But that's okay. You focus on the fact that I think some people are actually named "Jamal".

That you are a racist? No, you are.

Charter schools give people choice, you want a union and no choice. Even if the charters produce the same results are good. People need to have choose.

We spend more per child than any nation of education and have mediocre results.

I agree we pay more than other nation for education, but our results are only mediocre if you disregard the real goals of American public education which are to provide the best possible education to every child without regard to their abilities, or their chance of success. Unlike other countries that have higher test scores, in the US, there is no application process for public high schools, children are not directed into vocational schools in middle school, children with severe learning disabilities are mainstreamed, and in most of these countries curriculum is standardized at the federal level as is funding.

If you exclude the test scores of the bottom 1% which other countries do by one means or another, then the US compares far better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

 

[initforme]

Ray do youy not want talentless people making a good wage? So then the alternative is welfare, which you despise. Your logic is that of an superior elitist. I don't think that's who you are.

 

[initforme]

Wrong. Public schools are under obligation to accept disruptive students. State laws demand it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray do youy not want talentless people making a good wage? So then the alternative is welfare, which you despise. Your logic is that of an superior elitist. I don't think that's who you are.

I think it would be great if talentless people made a good wage. Would you as a consumer support it? I doubt very much so. And even if you did, your neighbors wouldn't join you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Public schools are under obligation to accept disruptive students. State laws demand it.

Not my state, because when I was a kid in school, they suspended kids all the time, and in a few cases, threw them out of the school.

 

[initforme]

Yes as a consumer I would pay more for american made. My neighbors would join me. Cheap labor is poor business practice.

 

[Flopper]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

A student can be expelled from a public school but the district still must offer the student an education. Private schools are under not such obligation. Not only can private schools expel the students but they can choose the best students, excluding discipline cases, those with learning disability, and children whose parents don't measure up to their standard. In other words, they can pick the cream of crop and leave the hard cases to the district. And what happens when they make a mistake and get a really screwed up kid. They contact the district and request help from Special Ed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

A student can be expelled from a public school but the district still must offer the student an education. Private schools are under not such obligation. Not only can private schools expel the students but they can choose the best students, excluding discipline cases, those with learning disability, and children whose parents don't measure up to their standard. In other words, they can pick the cream of crop and leave the hard cases to the district. And what happens when they make a mistake and get a really screwed up kid. They contact the district and request help from Special Ed.

If a charter or private school takes public education money, we could make the stipulation in order to receive public funds then they are required to take all students.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

A student can be expelled from a public school but the district still must offer the student an education. Private schools are under not such obligation. Not only can private schools expel the students but they can choose the best students, excluding discipline cases, those with learning disability, and children whose parents don't measure up to their standard. In other words, they can pick the cream of crop and leave the hard cases to the district. And what happens when they make a mistake and get a really screwed up kid. They contact the district and request help from Special Ed.

Isn't that what colleges do? Don't they pick and choose who they are going to accept as students?

So if public schools get to do the same as private, then what happens with the kids that are a problem? Well.....we would have to make more schools for those students, wouldn't we?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yeah public schools are awesome!!!! Don't introduce competition, Nah let the unions control everything, they really care about the kids and not about themselves.

I don't want my teacher's union concerned about kids, They are paid to be concerned about teachers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How does Trump propose to break the teachers' unions from the federal level?

National Right to Work legislation. Teachers won't have their wages extorted by union dues.

Next question?

I have never been required to join a teacher's union in either a right-to-work state or a non-right-to-work state,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes as a consumer I would pay more for american made. My neighbors would join me. Cheap labor is poor business practice.

So is that what you do now?

If you get an estimate to rebuild the transmission in your car, and one of them is $800.00, the second one is $1,100, and the third is $1,300, do you choose the $1,300 transmission place because you assume they are paying their employees better?

If you need a lawn care company, and one gives you an estimate for $35.00 a cut, another one for $50.00 a cut, and a third for $75.00 a cut, do you choose the $75.00 company?

We all look for the lowest price for our goods and services. That's why Walmart is number one today and has been for many years. Americans just flock to lower prices. I've seen gas stations so backed up the line is out in the street because they offer gasoline for 20 cents less per gallon than any other station.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only correct thing you posted is that people who have to pay for their children's education out of their own pocket make sure they are getting their monies worth. And you do know that vouchers (in most cases) don't cover the entire cost of education, don't you? Parents still have to pony up at least some money.

which doesn't help the problem you guys say you want to correct. if you are too poor to afford private school, you are still too poor even with a voucher.

How does that help the poor kids again?

Oh, wait. Helping the poor kids was never the plan, was it?

I said in most cases. When you get a voucher, you can spend it anyway you like. Find a school that you can afford to send your children to.

Do you really believe that parents are too stupid to make the best decision for their children's education? If your public school is loaded with drugs and violence, any school is better for your kid if he or she really wants to learn.

You want me to pay school taxes AND pay you a voucher to put your kids in private school?

It would only be the start. When it becomes more popular, you can take public money out of the public schools and apply it to vouchers. I have a better idea though: I think home school parents should be able to teach other children in the neighborhood as well. Last I looked, the average cost per capita is something like 12K per year per student. Why not give home school parents 8K a year for each student they decide to teach? It would replace that lost second income while at the same time, save the taxpayers 4K per student every year.

That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The charters schools aren't doing any better on average.

That may well be the case, but the Stanford University CREDO study in 2015 shows that urban charter schools are greatly outperforming public schools.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...charter-schools-making-a-difference-in-cities

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/03/16/why-charter-schools-work-or-dont

But, I feel that with Charter Schools and allowing the money to follow the student, competition in the school system is a good thing. It enables parents to choose any school, public, private, or charter, that best meets their children's needs.

As for your assertion that troubled or special needs children are shuttled off to only public schools is patently incorrect. Whether a child is exceptional, troubled, or special needs, there are many private and charter schools that cater to such children, with outstanding results. Especially in urban areas.

So what about the vast numbers of kids with no opportunity for charter or private schools?

Florida has vouchers when I was a teacher there. Do you know how many private high schools accepted vouchers? None. We were the largest school district in Florida and had no high school students choose vouchers.

Where I taught last year, the private Catholic school stops at 8th grade. All of the students go to public high school. Where I teach now has no private or parochial schools inside about a 40 mile radius. Where do those kids go?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

You realize that without unions, the charter schools pay their teachers less and that usually results in lower quality teachers, just like in the urban schools.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong. Public schools are under obligation to accept disruptive students. State laws demand it.

Not my state, because when I was a kid in school, they suspended kids all the time, and in a few cases, threw them out of the school.

In Ohio, permanent expulsion is reserved for conviction of a criminal act if over 16 or conviction as juvenile. In the case of a juvenile, someone either the district, juvenile authorities or the state must provide an education. So no matter how disruptive a student is the district is stuck with them unless convicted of a crime, however they may be placed in as special school for such students. At least that's how I read the law.

In most states, the District Superintendent of Schools is responsible for the education of all children within the district, even those in private schools. This is the basis of services the district must provide to private schools. They vary by state but all public school system must offer services for the the disabled in private schools which includes learning disabilities as well other services. It can even include educational services for bed ridden students registered in privates schools.
Lawriter - ORC - 3313.66 Suspension, expulsion or permanent exclusion - removal from curricular or extracurricular activities.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yeah public schools are awesome!!!! Don't introduce competition, Nah let the unions control everything, they really care about the kids and not about themselves.

You already have school choice. You want your kids to go to private school, send them. You want to homeschool, have at it.

Oh so this is the one time you don't give a fuck about the poor. Why are you so.afraid to make schools compete?

Afraid they might have to.educate kids and not teach liberal bullshit 24 7?

There is that word again - compete! You have no clue as to how that would apply to education, do you?
The deck will always be stacked against public schools so no competition can ever truly exist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who are Republicans fighting for, when they go after unions and union busting? Are they in bed with the Corporations? Certainly not in bed with the citizens who work in Union jobs that pay well....

Republicans are fighting for choice.

I remember years ago when I was out looking for jobs, I'd apply to someplace that had a union. I would be up front and tell them I had no interest in joining a union. They told me either I join the union or they can't hire me.

Do you think that's fair?

If you do not join the union, the company should be able to pay you a lower wage than those who collectively bargained for their pay. Wouldn't that be fair? How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot?