Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

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.

Which is awesome if you can afford them. what if you can't?

WTF, does that even mean?

 

[bodecea]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

They only like choice to kill babies

English grammar is hard, isn't it?

 

[owebo]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

They only like choice to kill babies

It's insane, isn't it.....

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I'm sure there's a lot you don't get. SO how does diverting money from public schools to private corporations improve education, exactly?

Also, I'm curious how you expect better performance out of teachers if you pay them less money and they have less protections at work?

The real problem isn't that teachers are too protected, it's that they aren't protected enough. 50% of new teachers quit the profession after five years.

How is paying them less and making them fear for their jobs every time little Johnny's mom complains that you yelled at him going to improve their performance, exactly?

 

[jc456]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

They only like choice to kill babies

English grammar is hard, isn't it?

You should go back to school then!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Much like people using PP isn't my problem....see how this works yet, dunce?

sure it is... they control the spread of unwanted pregnancies and STD's... dunce.

You mean by controlling unwanted pregnancies murdering the innocent....no thanks.

And you still haven't grasped it.....dunce. You really are not awfully bright

Well, yes....priests and altar boys don't reproduce, do they?

There are far more pedos in education than the Church....why don't you get informed and then comment?

 

[jc456]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

They only like choice to kill babies

It's insane, isn't it.....

Libturds again hate humans. The fewer new ones the better for them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm sure there's a lot you don't get. SO how does diverting money from public schools to private corporations improve education, exactly?

Also, I'm curious how you expect better performance out of teachers if you pay them less money and they have less protections at work?

The real problem isn't that teachers are too protected, it's that they aren't protected enough. 50% of new teachers quit the profession after five years.

How is paying them less and making them fear for their jobs every time little Johnny's mom complains that you yelled at him going to improve their performance, exactly?

It's the same problems with all union jobs. As long as you're moving and breathing, that's all it takes for you to have job protection.

Without a union, you have to perform to the best of your ability to keep your job.

 

[jc456]

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.

I'm sure there's a lot you don't get. SO how does diverting money from public schools to private corporations improve education, exactly?

Also, I'm curious how you expect better performance out of teachers if you pay them less money and they have less protections at work?

The real problem isn't that teachers are too protected, it's that they aren't protected enough. 50% of new teachers quit the profession after five years.

How is paying them less and making them fear for their jobs every time little Johnny's mom complains that you yelled at him going to improve their performance, exactly?

It's all about administrative costs stupid. Unions create administrative nightmares and keep poor teachers .

 

[JoeB131]

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

But you have to ask WHY do the Democrats get that money?

Oh, that's right, because they actually protect workers rights.

Here's the REAL problem with our public schools.

 

[owebo]

Much like people using PP isn't my problem....see how this works yet, dunce?

sure it is... they control the spread of unwanted pregnancies and STD's... dunce.

You mean by controlling unwanted pregnancies murdering the innocent....no thanks.

And you still haven't grasped it.....dunce. You really are not awfully bright

Well, yes....priests and altar boys don't reproduce, do they?

There are far more pedos in education than the Church....why don't you get informed and then comment?

The liberal unions protect and foster them.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

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

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

Why fuck with that?

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

 

[JoeB131]

It's the same problems with all union jobs. As long as you're moving and breathing, that's all it takes for you to have job protection.

Without a union, you have to perform to the best of your ability to keep your job.

I seem to remember it differently. I seem to remember growing up, everyone in the neighborhood was in one union or another, they went to work,t hey worked hard and they brought home a good paycheck.

What I see today is everyone works two jobs and are constantly afraid of being downsized, and you think this is an improvement.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

He can't..The story has embellishments.
In fact, I'd like to see the US Dept of Education eliminated. End all federal funding of public schools. End all federal scrutiny of the same.
The federal government has NO BUSINESS interfering in matters of public education. That is a state and local matter.

 

[owebo]

It's the same problems with all union jobs. As long as you're moving and breathing, that's all it takes for you to have job protection.

Without a union, you have to perform to the best of your ability to keep your job.

I seem to remember it differently. I seem to remember growing up, everyone in the neighborhood was in one union or another, they went to work,t hey worked hard and they brought home a good paycheck.

What I see today is everyone works two jobs and are constantly afraid of being downsized, and you think this is an improvement.

The age of Obama destroyed the middle class....

 

[JoeB131]

It's all about administrative costs stupid. Unions create administrative nightmares and keep poor teachers .

and you base that on what, exactly? I went to private schools. My Mom taught at one,and most of her friends were catholic school teachers.

And you know what I saw. The same level of mediocrity that goes on in any other workplace. You have people who are really committed who burn out eventually, you have people who don't give a fuck and still manage to keep their jobs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

i wonder if many grade schools are hanging posters of polar bears living on sheets of ice with a caption reading that its the fault of our white parents driving too many SUV's

You "wonder"? You mean you don't help out at your children's school? You don't actively participate in their education? So you mooch off our education system, doing nothing but complaining?

You assume the OP has children in school.
Mooch...You prick. What the fuck do you call that check we have to write to the municipality or county every 12 months?....Mooch.. What an asshole

 

[owebo]

It's all about administrative costs stupid. Unions create administrative nightmares and keep poor teachers .

and you base that on what, exactly? I went to private schools. My Mom taught at one,and most of her friends were catholic school teachers.

And you know what I saw. The same level of mediocrity that goes on in any other workplace. You have people who are really committed who burn out eventually, you have people who don't give a fuck and still manage to keep their jobs.

Liberal fail hides in all corners of society....you are living proof of that....