Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Cecilie1200]

our are kids being taught that Christopher Columbus was worse than Hitler ??

Well, they definitely aren't being taught that Muslim depredations and violence were the primary reason Columbus made his voyage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Technically, they can do that now, assuming they live in a state that's amenable to homeschooling in the first place. Arizona, for example. Nothing says that THE PARENT has to be the one to do the schooling. My adult daughter was homeschooled, and at the time, our church operated a small school in their annex that actually put the kids through the homeschool curriculum they used. By the time my adult son came along, the church was no longer doing that, but they facilitated us continuing to get the curriculum materials, and we taught him at home.

Now that I'm homeschooling our "surprise" third child, we use a different curriculum, and I've had a few friends ask about the possibility of me including their kids, as well, so that they can get the benefits of homeschooling without having to slash their income in half. If Arizona was willing to provide vouchers to homeschoolers, I would be more than happy to quit my job and teach homeschoolers full-time. I guarantee you, they would graduate with skills FAR surpassing those of public school kids.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Technically, they can do that now, assuming they live in a state that's amenable to homeschooling in the first place. Arizona, for example. Nothing says that THE PARENT has to be the one to do the schooling. My adult daughter was homeschooled, and at the time, our church operated a small school in their annex that actually put the kids through the homeschool curriculum they used. By the time my adult son came along, the church was no longer doing that, but they facilitated us continuing to get the curriculum materials, and we taught him at home.

Now that I'm homeschooling our "surprise" third child, we use a different curriculum, and I've had a few friends ask about the possibility of me including their kids, as well, so that they can get the benefits of homeschooling without having to slash their income in half. If Arizona was willing to provide vouchers to homeschoolers, I would be more than happy to quit my job and teach homeschoolers full-time. I guarantee you, they would graduate with skills FAR surpassing those of public school kids.

I think that would be the greatest thing in the world. But there is one reason why you'll never see that--Unions.

Taking money and students out of the public school system would be a huge threat to the NEA. That's because it would probably become so popular they would lose a considerable share.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, they definitely aren't being taught that Muslim depredations and violence were the primary reason Columbus made his voyage.

Probably because that isn't true... but never mind.

 

[danielpalos]

not the popular vote.

I didn't say the popular vote, everyone knows he didn't win the popular vote. I said the people chose Trump through the Electoral College. I'm not sure how you missed what I said.

The way we elect our Presidents is through the electoral college, if you don't like the system, work through your Congressmen to change the process. I had no say in the process, I was not alive then. I thought you claimed to be smart?

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

As long as I get a refund on all the property taxes I paid despite doing that.

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say the popular vote, everyone knows he didn't win the popular vote. I said the people chose Trump through the Electoral College. I'm not sure how you missed what I said.

The way we elect our Presidents is through the electoral college, if you don't like the system, work through your Congressmen to change the process. I had no say in the process, I was not alive then. I thought you claimed to be smart?

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Conservative65]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

Correct, you want private school, you pay for it. You want home school, do it on a single income. In the meantime, no possible way of getting out of paying for pubic school. Can you do it? Sure. You just have to pay twice as much as everybody else.

Hey, let's go full out. YOu sholdn't have to pay for schools at all if you don't have kids.

That works for me.

Works for me, too. I sent my kids to private school which means I had to pay in addition to paying the taxes for public schools. In the end, my kids would have received the same thing they did and I wouldn't have had to pay for something they didn't use.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Technically, they can do that now, assuming they live in a state that's amenable to homeschooling in the first place. Arizona, for example. Nothing says that THE PARENT has to be the one to do the schooling. My adult daughter was homeschooled, and at the time, our church operated a small school in their annex that actually put the kids through the homeschool curriculum they used. By the time my adult son came along, the church was no longer doing that, but they facilitated us continuing to get the curriculum materials, and we taught him at home.

Now that I'm homeschooling our "surprise" third child, we use a different curriculum, and I've had a few friends ask about the possibility of me including their kids, as well, so that they can get the benefits of homeschooling without having to slash their income in half. If Arizona was willing to provide vouchers to homeschoolers, I would be more than happy to quit my job and teach homeschoolers full-time. I guarantee you, they would graduate with skills FAR surpassing those of public school kids.

I think that would be the greatest thing in the world. But there is one reason why you'll never see that--Unions.

Taking money and students out of the public school system would be a huge threat to the NEA. That's because it would probably become so popular they would lose a considerable share.

True, and I frankly think that's as it should be. It would do NEA members - and society - a world of good if they learned how to operate in a competitive, results-oriented environment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Technically, they can do that now, assuming they live in a state that's amenable to homeschooling in the first place. Arizona, for example. Nothing says that THE PARENT has to be the one to do the schooling. My adult daughter was homeschooled, and at the time, our church operated a small school in their annex that actually put the kids through the homeschool curriculum they used. By the time my adult son came along, the church was no longer doing that, but they facilitated us continuing to get the curriculum materials, and we taught him at home.

Now that I'm homeschooling our "surprise" third child, we use a different curriculum, and I've had a few friends ask about the possibility of me including their kids, as well, so that they can get the benefits of homeschooling without having to slash their income in half. If Arizona was willing to provide vouchers to homeschoolers, I would be more than happy to quit my job and teach homeschoolers full-time. I guarantee you, they would graduate with skills FAR surpassing those of public school kids.

I think that would be the greatest thing in the world. But there is one reason why you'll never see that--Unions.

Taking money and students out of the public school system would be a huge threat to the NEA. That's because it would probably become so popular they would lose a considerable share.

True, and I frankly think that's as it should be. It would do NEA members - and society - a world of good if they learned how to operate in a competitive, results-oriented environment.

That's what happened with private and charter schools. When they came into town, public schools actually performed much better. Prior to that, the fix was in and they didn't have to prove anything to anybody. With a little competition, it put a fire to their asses to do a better job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Very true. Liberals never understand that the market DOES respond to consumer needs, if it's allowed to. If there is a niche that people want filled, someone somewhere IS going to step in and do so . . . unless the government prevents it.

 

[Papageorgio]

I did the right thing and voted for a third party candidate. I said early on had you dumb shits nominated a candidate with character, I would have voted for them, but you got the girl that rigged the nomination. I don't vote party, I vote for the best person, if you idiots would have done that, you wouldn't have screwed yourselves over.

Had you assholes had any character you would have let Clinton cheat to get the nomination, you sold out the country, dumb shit.

Well, first, I didn't have anything to do with the nominating process... I voted for Kasich in the IL Primary.

Second, Hillary didn't "Cheat". she got three million more primary votes than Commie Bernie.

Third, no one is going to believe a right wing racist asshole like you was going to vote for Commie Bernie.

But all that said, you allowed a Nazi to win because you just hated the woman so much.

So what is your problem with women, anyway?

I'm not a Republican, and Kasich was my man, I would have voted Sanders over Trump, I don't care if you believe me or not. I love how you knuckle dragging idiots have to bring up race when it has nothing to do with the subject. You are a dumb SOB.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't say the popular vote, everyone knows he didn't win the popular vote. I said the people chose Trump through the Electoral College. I'm not sure how you missed what I said.

The way we elect our Presidents is through the electoral college, if you don't like the system, work through your Congressmen to change the process. I had no say in the process, I was not alive then. I thought you claimed to be smart?

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

 

[Papageorgio]

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, like that other fellow, you seem to forget the law of supply and demand. if you give everyone a voucher, the costs of htose private schools will go up. There's only a finite number of available teachers and a finite number of schools. Right now, private, religious and charter schools only serve 9% of school age kids. Who is going to take care of the other 91% if you start diverting public monies to these schools?

Private schools still have to compete with public schools, so their fees won't increase like we've seen with college.

Thing is, again, if we turned education into a free market, the market would correct. If private school tuitions went up too high, the market's response would be for someone to see the opportunity to undercut them and provide solid education for a much lower price. Let the actual consumers of the product (in this instance, education) do the shopping, and you will see the providers dropping prices and offering incentives to gain business, just like any other industry.

And yes, I know the leftists in the audience are OUTRAGED by me referring to education as a "product" and "industry", because they believe it's some holy, mystical, arcane sacrament that can only be provided by duly initiated high priests (ie. liberal unionized teachers), but the truth is, it's a commodity. That's why we pay people to produce it. And like any commodity, when it is produced by the government instead of the free market, it tends to be substandard.

 

[danielpalos]

isn't the will of the People a more popular mandate than the will of the electoral college?

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

nothing but diversion as that form of fallacy? the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Apparently you haven't. The Constitution says electoral votes determine the President. It says nothing about popular votes playing a role in the process. That states use the popular vote to determine how their electoral votes are decided is a choice of the STATES not a mandate by the Constitution.

The People is not the same as the Electoral College. That is the Only point I make.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Very true. Liberals never understand that the market DOES respond to consumer needs, if it's allowed to. If there is a niche that people want filled, someone somewhere IS going to step in and do so . . . unless the government prevents it.

FDR had to bring water and electricity to the South.