Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

You have a choice in education. Either attend the tax-payer provided public schools or pay your own way at a private school. That is your choice.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Much better to let those kids go hungry, right?

Why would they go hungry? Fix the kids a lunch. They have food stamps and food stamps usually gives people more than they ever need.

You just agreed with the poster you responded to!

I only opened up my first beer, and I can't see that I agreed with him (her) at all.

Put the beer down. You did, without even realizing it.

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would they go hungry? Fix the kids a lunch. They have food stamps and food stamps usually gives people more than they ever need.

You just agreed with the poster you responded to!

I only opened up my first beer, and I can't see that I agreed with him (her) at all.

Put the beer down. You did, without even realizing it.

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

You have a choice in education. Either attend the tax-payer provided public schools or pay your own way at a private school. That is your choice.

Your replies are confusing. In this conversation, we were discussing the presidential election and the electoral college. Are you sure something isn't wrong with your computer?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Have you ever taught a class with 39 kids; I have. In such an environment, kids that need any extra help don't get. There is not enough class time to cover the material and have any interaction with the kids. Most teachers in that environment, hardly even know their students. On parent teacher night, a parent wants to discuss the problem Johnny is having in math and you can't remember which Johnny is their son. Thankfully, I only had to spend two years teaching in the zoo. Frankly, I wish every parent had the opportunity to teach an overloaded class of 3rd graders.

In private schools, larger class sizes may well be tolerable since the school has the opportunity to select their students, no special ed kids, no juvenile delinquents, no kids that can't speak English, no kids that are 3 grade levels behind. Public schools have to take whatever walks in the door.

The whining about private and Charter schools always takes this path. The perception the teacher's unions want to create is "it's the system from which we need protection. That will make for a better system"...
Bullshit.
Union or no union. its all the same everywhere.
Voters keep the school boards stacked with left wing do gooders who in turn keep hiring left wing educrats who care only about their careers, paychecks and platinum plus benefit packages.

If that were the case, I would expect red states to have substantially better educational systems than blue states. Certainly they're are not filling their school boards with Democrats and left wing do gooders.

if your reply had anything remotely related to my post, there would be a discussion here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
Where unions are not prevalent or where collective bargaining is barred, Teachers are compensated based on their qualifications. Not by some arbitrary set of unreasonable demands.

 

[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.

Smaller classes is a union WISHLIST, it's not something they get. And even if it IS a union thing - it still benefits both children and teachers in their ability to do their job.

 

[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

That is because DC has to pay teachers at least close to six figures to dare set foot in their drug-infected, gang dominated schools.

Horseshit.
In my former district in northern NJ, HALF of the teachers are paid six figure salaries. And this is one of the most disciplined, highest achieving absent of crime districts in the state..
And why is it anyone else's problem that DC schools are viewed as drug infected and gang dominated?....The parents of the kids who want their children to receive a good education should absolutely have the choice to attend an alternate( Charter) school. Why not allow them the choice.
One of the most misinformed views of Charter Schools is that they are most Caucasian elitist facilities. Not true. In fact, most Charter Schools are chosen by minorities.

 

[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.

Smaller classes is a union WISHLIST, it's not something they get. And even if it IS a union thing - it still benefits both children and teachers in their ability to do their job.

It may help for them to do their job with a little less effort, but not improve the overall success.

The smaller the class size, the more teachers are needed. The more teachers, the more union dues.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

And that is a lie.....the left creates road blocks to Charter schools that keep them from being successful......so don't even try that lie....

Competition works in every area of life to decrease costs and improve quality.....the only objection the left has to education being private is that they lose their tax payer funded left wing indoctrination centers........the 12 years they get to brain wash our children against their own country....

And besides.......who wants charter schools......we want Vouchers....so that parents can send their kids to any school they want....anywhere they want.....just like college....

If you send your kid to a private school versus a state school for college, don't you have to pay for it?

Let's get off an apples to oranges comparison, shall we?'

Nope. The tax dollars should follow the students.

 

[Flopper]

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?

The Florida Voucher programs is limited to Students with certain disabilities
and students with IEP's. However, in Miami Dade, the largest school district, there are many charter schools. I would estimate at least a hundred. They are tuition free but may have admission requirements.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Senior high Schools Directory
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

 

[frigidweirdo]

You just agreed with the poster you responded to!

I only opened up my first beer, and I can't see that I agreed with him (her) at all.

Put the beer down. You did, without even realizing it.

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

I'd prefer to do away with food stamps and give kids who need food good healthy food at school, rather than rely on the parents.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I only opened up my first beer, and I can't see that I agreed with him (her) at all.

Put the beer down. You did, without even realizing it.

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

I'd prefer to do away with food stamps and give kids who need food good healthy food at school, rather than rely on the parents.

Well you're in luck, because we do both. You can live on food stamps plus get free lunch at school.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Put the beer down. You did, without even realizing it.

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

I'd prefer to do away with food stamps and give kids who need food good healthy food at school, rather than rely on the parents.

Well you're in luck, because we do both. You can live on food stamps plus get free lunch at school.

Yeah, well, as you can see the partisan politics of the US isn't exactly getting much right these days.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe you didn't understand. What I said is that the parent(s) of poor kids get enough food stamps to buy enough food to make their kids lunch instead of free lunch the school offers that costs more money.

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

I'd prefer to do away with food stamps and give kids who need food good healthy food at school, rather than rely on the parents.

Well you're in luck, because we do both. You can live on food stamps plus get free lunch at school.

Yeah, well, as you can see the partisan politics of the US isn't exactly getting much right these days.

It sure didn't for the left. They lost the White House, Congress, the Senate and most of the Governorships across the country. Partisan politics didn't do so well for them the last eight years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. I have it. You just didn't read what the other poster was saying. Another poster complained about the quality of lunches and she said "Fix your own!" or words to that effect.

No, the discussion was school lunch and I complained about us having to pay for it. Bodecea said "Do you want kids to starve?" To that I replied that with food stamps, the mother can purchase enough food to make her kids lunch herself instead of having school lunches.

I'd prefer to do away with food stamps and give kids who need food good healthy food at school, rather than rely on the parents.

Well you're in luck, because we do both. You can live on food stamps plus get free lunch at school.

Yeah, well, as you can see the partisan politics of the US isn't exactly getting much right these days.

It sure didn't for the left. They lost the White House, Congress, the Senate and most of the Governorships across the country. Partisan politics didn't do so well for them the last eight years.

And wham, you go and be all partisan, welllllll done.

 

[JoeB131]

I have no issues with unions. If you want to get a union job, thats fine. Collective bargaining in private sector unions is also fine.

I find it amusing that those that claim they care about unions, don't belong to a union and wouldn't belong to one.

I would love to belong to a union and get union health care and union wages...

But that's not the point, Dummy. The fact is, Unions benefit those who don't belong to them by keeping the standards higher. Union membership never exceeded 33% of workers, but when it was at that high point, we enjoyed the greatest prosperity for the working class in our history.

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.

The problem is that the Charter Schools choose their kids. They aren't taking the special needs or disciplinary problem kids, they are taking the kids that beef up their stats. And even with that, they do only as well as the Public schools.

Now, I'd have no problem with Charter Schools if Trump and the Koch Brothers and all the other rich assholes riding their dressage ponies put together a fund to finance them. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that these SCAMS are tapping into funds meant for public education and depleting it. so the Special Needs kids and the disciplinary problem kids still end up in the school with the leaky roof and the outdated textbooks.

That said, I'd have no problem changing some Union Rules that would make it easier to fire inept teachers. The real problem is, of course, that 50% of new teachers quit within 5 years. We don't have enough teachers to go around now.

 

[JoeB131]

It sure didn't for the left. They lost the White House, Congress, the Senate and most of the Governorships across the country. Partisan politics didn't do so well for them the last eight years.

Don't worry, in two years, most of those things will be back in the hands of the Democrats.
You see, we've seen this before. In 2006, in 1994, in 1982, in 1974... when one party gets control, people realize what a mistake that was and shifts over to the other party.

So you have two years to do a lot of damage. Make the most of it.

 

[JoeB131]

Or we can just fix the schools we have... that works, too.


The only way to do that is outlaw public unions.

Put down the bottle, buddy. It's too early to be drinking.

 

[JoeB131]

When unions strike in a private company, the company owners sit down with the unions and each side is represented. How many taxpayers can sit at the table and debate with the public unions whether they are deserving of more money or benefits? They sit down with politicians who get their paycheck from the same place union workers do--the taxpayers.

And the politicians know they are constrained by tax revenues and budgets... so that argument doesn't fly.

the reality is, when the teachers strike, they rarely get more than half of what they went in asking for.

The real problem is, the politicians don't live up to their agreements when they make them.