Funnelling money back to the rich. Trump's policy.

[Jackson]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

And what is that vision?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

And?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

Terrorism was increasing under Bush. Lots of things were increasing under Bush and then OBAMA (you know, that's his name). A president doesn't have the chance to stop this from happening. A president can't change history and make things better by correcting the mistakes of his predecessor.

Bush signed the pull out order from Iraq, not Obama. So don't try with that lame argument.

No, Bush was the best thing for terrorists. Seeing as A) he invaded Iraq. B) disbanded the Iraqi police and army and they had no jobs to go to other than the insurgency. C) continuing with a failed and ridiculous policy in Iraq for his whole time there. D) Signing an order for the next president to carry out.

He gave Iran billions of dollars back. Oh no, giving a country that hates the US because of too much interference back its own money, shock horror. Come off it, the Saudis also put money up for attacking the US and Bush was reaaaaaal friendly with them. Obama was attempting to do something that wouldn't work because the right will always make things worse, by trying to make Islam the common enemy. Obama didn't make that happen, he was just trying to pick up the pieces. Trump will just throw another baseball at it.

Yes, the US is about oil. Why? Because the US say "oh, oil is cheap, so we don't need renewable energy" and then oil shoots up and then you complain because things cost too much but did nothing about it.

I wasn't complaining about the price of oil. In fact I've lived in countries where oil is far, far more expensive and where change can happen for the better.

Over priced alternative energy would put this country in a depression we would never be able to get out of. But even if we could, do you know how many products we use on a daily basis that requires oil? Next time you go out for a ride in your car, think of all the oil it takes to make that asphalt on the roads your drive on. Look at your car tires, what do you think they are made of? That's right, the same product that makes the shingles on the roof of your home and garage.

And don't give me that worn out excuse It's Bush's fault. No President has to honor the will of the previous President. DumBama could have changed that Iraq agreement almost effortlessly. The only reason you on the left bring up Bush is because Iraq was a complete disaster orchestrated by your big-eared bozo. Watch and see if Trump honors our agreement with Iran. That's what a real President does.

How would paying more for energy put the US into a depression?

World petrol prices, gas prices, diesel prices, 21-Nov-2016| MyTravelCost.com

The US is at 0.6 while the UK at 1.33, more than double. The US could easily put money into higher energy prices without having a serious impact.

I don't own a car, actually never have. The problem you have stated is an over reliance on oil. These things don't need to use so much oil, or any at all. It's just that because oil is cheap, people use it. Make it less cheap, and they find better ways of doing it.

No president will honor the will of the previous, unless they have no choice. This was an international treaty. You want the US to have the reputation for a treaty being meaningless? You think he could have changed a treaty based on US troops in another country that was fed up with US troops and US involvement in their country? Seriously? Jeez, you can make anything fit your agenda huh?

A real president goes around bullying other countries? Right, that's what Bush did, and that's why ISIS exists.

Yes, they do exist, especially in Iraq now that DumBama handed it over to them.

Obama is all about politics. It was his agenda from day one, and it will be his agenda until he finally leaves the White House. Other countries don't respect our treaties with them, why should we respect theirs? If our withdrawal from Iraq would have been successful, you would have never known about what Bush signed yet alone give him credit for it instead of Obama.

Obama surrendered Iraq to the terrorists for one reason and one reason only, to get reelected; to stay in the White House for four more years. Forget about the people that were murdered by ISIS. Forget about the people they nailed to a cross and hung them to slowly die. Forget about the people they set afire or the children that were murdered right in front of their parents. DumBama wanted four more years, and that's all that mattered. Send the bill to George Bush.

You're wrong.

You seem to have the same arrogance as most of the right. The arrogance that sees the US confronted by terrorism, that sees the US become weaker every year.

That's not arrogance. That's reality.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Or you who doesn't have much of an argument at all and has to resort to childish insults to try and get their way.

'Doesn't'?

You wouldn't know a good argument if Donna Brazille gave you the question AND answer in advance.

Well, there you go, another childish response.

Very much appropriate. You libs are pissed off because you did not win. You expect things. And that is your problem.

 

[Norman]

We know... we know...

Perhaps if you focused on something else, you could even win!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

And what is that vision?

Well go read the OP and you'll find out.

 

[Spare_change]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

Funneling money BACK to the rich.

That would indicate you've taken it away from them already.

Sounds like theft to me.

 

[Onyx]

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

I don't care about this BS anymore. Just stop playing into their schemes. Plain and simple.

Every leftist from LA to Timbukto wants to put another asshole into power to make the world fair.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

n charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

You don'y know much about vouchers. Vouchers insure the poor have the choice of good schools, something the rich can pay for themselves. Vouchers even the playing field for parents who want better for their disadvantaged children.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

You don't even know what will be in the new Affordable Care Program. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, but we all know Obamacare has been an abject failure.
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

How can a pick be someone without a background in finance???

Actually I know a lot about vouchers.

Vouchers don't ensure the poor have good schools. It's simply not the case.

Your logic is inherently flawed. Like the "everyone can make it in America", yes, everyone can make it, a lottery win can make you make it. However not everyone can make it together, only a few of them can make it, while the rest won't. There's only a small space for people to make it and a large space for people not to make it.

I've come across this argument many times. People act as if suddenly all schools will become good because suddenly they're being given vouchers. That if people can choose to go to another school with a voucher then they'll suddenly have better schools that if kids just have the choice to go to a school. Why does the voucher change anything?

In the UK parents have the choice of which school to send their kids. They don't have vouchers, but they have the SAME CHOICE that parents with vouchers have. The ONLY difference is that in the UK rich parents who send their kids to private schools don't get given money they don't need to make the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Vouchers have been in place nationwide in Chile. What's the result?

Rethinking Schools Online

"the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest."

"The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package."

"What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts."

"The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families."

"Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students."

"By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools."

"The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively."

So, the voucher scheme was a failure, except for the rich who got given money to go to school. The poor stayed in lower standard education for the most part because private schools STILL CHARGED money to exclude the poor, they still put in place screening, able to pick and choose whoever they liked and reject those who they didn't like. The poor lost out, standards DROPPED.

No, I don't know what will be in it exactly, but I can take a good guess. Besides, I'm talking about the guy who Trump wants in the post and what he has done.

Obamacare has been a failure? Well, I'd say the US health system is a failure. Too costly, not enough results for the people.

How can someone be picked without a background in finance? Well, what a great argument for always keeping things the same. However there are those who are pro-status quo and those who are against this. This guy seems to have gotten the job because he's friends with Trump, nothing more.

I'll tell you the brutal truth about vouchers that few want to acknowledge. It allows disadvantaged youth go to better schools without having the personal funds to go. However, the private schools don't have to keep them. If they fail, they go. If they cannot follow the rules of the school, they are out.

So, basically what happens is the students who cannot conform to the standards of the private schools, they have to return to the public schools. Teacher unions hate this because they do not have enough students to keep their school scores up. It works well for the disadvantaged students who can perform to their standards and codes, but not all students can conform to these standards.

So what is the ultimate answer? Vouchers, yes. But we need the best teachers in the public schools where teaching methods and the most talented teachers can reach the others as well. Pay those teachers who can perform in the public schools successfully significantly higher.

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

n charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

You don'y know much about vouchers. Vouchers insure the poor have the choice of good schools, something the rich can pay for themselves. Vouchers even the playing field for parents who want better for their disadvantaged children.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

You don't even know what will be in the new Affordable Care Program. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, but we all know Obamacare has been an abject failure.
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

How can a pick be someone without a background in finance???

Actually I know a lot about vouchers.

Vouchers don't ensure the poor have good schools. It's simply not the case.

Your logic is inherently flawed. Like the "everyone can make it in America", yes, everyone can make it, a lottery win can make you make it. However not everyone can make it together, only a few of them can make it, while the rest won't. There's only a small space for people to make it and a large space for people not to make it.

I've come across this argument many times. People act as if suddenly all schools will become good because suddenly they're being given vouchers. That if people can choose to go to another school with a voucher then they'll suddenly have better schools that if kids just have the choice to go to a school. Why does the voucher change anything?

In the UK parents have the choice of which school to send their kids. They don't have vouchers, but they have the SAME CHOICE that parents with vouchers have. The ONLY difference is that in the UK rich parents who send their kids to private schools don't get given money they don't need to make the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Vouchers have been in place nationwide in Chile. What's the result?

Rethinking Schools Online

"the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest."

"The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package."

"What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts."

"The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families."

"Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students."

"By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools."

"The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively."

So, the voucher scheme was a failure, except for the rich who got given money to go to school. The poor stayed in lower standard education for the most part because private schools STILL CHARGED money to exclude the poor, they still put in place screening, able to pick and choose whoever they liked and reject those who they didn't like. The poor lost out, standards DROPPED.

No, I don't know what will be in it exactly, but I can take a good guess. Besides, I'm talking about the guy who Trump wants in the post and what he has done.

Obamacare has been a failure? Well, I'd say the US health system is a failure. Too costly, not enough results for the people.

How can someone be picked without a background in finance? Well, what a great argument for always keeping things the same. However there are those who are pro-status quo and those who are against this. This guy seems to have gotten the job because he's friends with Trump, nothing more.

I'll tell you the brutal truth about vouchers that few want to acknowledge. It allows disadvantaged youth go to better schools without having the personal funds to go. However, the private schools don't have to keep them. If they fail, they go. If they cannot follow the rules of the school, they are out.

So, basically what happens is the students who cannot conform to the standards of the private schools, they have to return to the public schools. Teacher unions hate this because they do not have enough students to keep their school scores up. It works well for the disadvantaged students who can perform to their standards and codes, but not all students can conform to these standards.

So what is the ultimate answer? Vouchers, yes. But we need the best teachers in the public schools where teaching methods and the most talented teachers can reach the others as well. Pay those teachers who can perform in the public schools successfully significantly higher.

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

 

[easyt65]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

And what is that vision?

Well go read the OP and you'll find out.

The OP is an ignorant, bitter, butthurt snowflake OPINION. That has been established.

Wow, insults.

No - FACT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don'y know much about vouchers. Vouchers insure the poor have the choice of good schools, something the rich can pay for themselves. Vouchers even the playing field for parents who want better for their disadvantaged children.

You don't even know what will be in the new Affordable Care Program. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, but we all know Obamacare has been an abject failure.
Four Years of Obamacare Failures Is Long Enough

How can a pick be someone without a background in finance???

Actually I know a lot about vouchers.

Vouchers don't ensure the poor have good schools. It's simply not the case.

Your logic is inherently flawed. Like the "everyone can make it in America", yes, everyone can make it, a lottery win can make you make it. However not everyone can make it together, only a few of them can make it, while the rest won't. There's only a small space for people to make it and a large space for people not to make it.

I've come across this argument many times. People act as if suddenly all schools will become good because suddenly they're being given vouchers. That if people can choose to go to another school with a voucher then they'll suddenly have better schools that if kids just have the choice to go to a school. Why does the voucher change anything?

In the UK parents have the choice of which school to send their kids. They don't have vouchers, but they have the SAME CHOICE that parents with vouchers have. The ONLY difference is that in the UK rich parents who send their kids to private schools don't get given money they don't need to make the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Vouchers have been in place nationwide in Chile. What's the result?

Rethinking Schools Online

"the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest."

"The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package."

"What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts."

"The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families."

"Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students."

"By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools."

"The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively."

So, the voucher scheme was a failure, except for the rich who got given money to go to school. The poor stayed in lower standard education for the most part because private schools STILL CHARGED money to exclude the poor, they still put in place screening, able to pick and choose whoever they liked and reject those who they didn't like. The poor lost out, standards DROPPED.

No, I don't know what will be in it exactly, but I can take a good guess. Besides, I'm talking about the guy who Trump wants in the post and what he has done.

Obamacare has been a failure? Well, I'd say the US health system is a failure. Too costly, not enough results for the people.

How can someone be picked without a background in finance? Well, what a great argument for always keeping things the same. However there are those who are pro-status quo and those who are against this. This guy seems to have gotten the job because he's friends with Trump, nothing more.

I'll tell you the brutal truth about vouchers that few want to acknowledge. It allows disadvantaged youth go to better schools without having the personal funds to go. However, the private schools don't have to keep them. If they fail, they go. If they cannot follow the rules of the school, they are out.

So, basically what happens is the students who cannot conform to the standards of the private schools, they have to return to the public schools. Teacher unions hate this because they do not have enough students to keep their school scores up. It works well for the disadvantaged students who can perform to their standards and codes, but not all students can conform to these standards.

So what is the ultimate answer? Vouchers, yes. But we need the best teachers in the public schools where teaching methods and the most talented teachers can reach the others as well. Pay those teachers who can perform in the public schools successfully significantly higher.

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

Which studies?

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

And what is that vision?

Well go read the OP and you'll find out.

The OP is an ignorant, bitter, butthurt snowflake OPINION. That has been established.

Wow, insults.

No - FACT.

Pathetic shit. You're on the ignore list.

 

[easyt65]

Pathetic shit. You're on the ignore list.

Thank goodness - I was beginning to wonder what it would take for you to leave me alone!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually I know a lot about vouchers.

Vouchers don't ensure the poor have good schools. It's simply not the case.

Your logic is inherently flawed. Like the "everyone can make it in America", yes, everyone can make it, a lottery win can make you make it. However not everyone can make it together, only a few of them can make it, while the rest won't. There's only a small space for people to make it and a large space for people not to make it.

I've come across this argument many times. People act as if suddenly all schools will become good because suddenly they're being given vouchers. That if people can choose to go to another school with a voucher then they'll suddenly have better schools that if kids just have the choice to go to a school. Why does the voucher change anything?

In the UK parents have the choice of which school to send their kids. They don't have vouchers, but they have the SAME CHOICE that parents with vouchers have. The ONLY difference is that in the UK rich parents who send their kids to private schools don't get given money they don't need to make the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Vouchers have been in place nationwide in Chile. What's the result?

Rethinking Schools Online

"the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest."

"The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package."

"What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts."

"The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families."

"Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students."

"By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools."

"The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively."

So, the voucher scheme was a failure, except for the rich who got given money to go to school. The poor stayed in lower standard education for the most part because private schools STILL CHARGED money to exclude the poor, they still put in place screening, able to pick and choose whoever they liked and reject those who they didn't like. The poor lost out, standards DROPPED.

No, I don't know what will be in it exactly, but I can take a good guess. Besides, I'm talking about the guy who Trump wants in the post and what he has done.

Obamacare has been a failure? Well, I'd say the US health system is a failure. Too costly, not enough results for the people.

How can someone be picked without a background in finance? Well, what a great argument for always keeping things the same. However there are those who are pro-status quo and those who are against this. This guy seems to have gotten the job because he's friends with Trump, nothing more.

I'll tell you the brutal truth about vouchers that few want to acknowledge. It allows disadvantaged youth go to better schools without having the personal funds to go. However, the private schools don't have to keep them. If they fail, they go. If they cannot follow the rules of the school, they are out.

So, basically what happens is the students who cannot conform to the standards of the private schools, they have to return to the public schools. Teacher unions hate this because they do not have enough students to keep their school scores up. It works well for the disadvantaged students who can perform to their standards and codes, but not all students can conform to these standards.

So what is the ultimate answer? Vouchers, yes. But we need the best teachers in the public schools where teaching methods and the most talented teachers can reach the others as well. Pay those teachers who can perform in the public schools successfully significantly higher.

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

Which studies?

There are several of them. This is one I found in my folder from Florida:

For every 1.1 miles closer to the nearest private school, public school math and reading performance increases by 1.5 percent of a standard deviation in the first year following the announcement of the scholarship program. Likewise, having 12 additional private schools nearby boosts public school test scores by almost 3 percent of a standard deviation. The presence of two additional types of private schools nearby raises test scores by about 2 percent of a standard deviation. Finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the concentration of private schools nearby is associated with an increase of about 1 percent of a standard deviation in test scores.

Although these effects are relatively small, they consistently indicate a positive relationship between private school competition and student performance in the public schools, even before any students leave for the private sector. That is, these results provide evidence that public schools responded to the increased threat of losing students to the private schools. The fact that we obtain quite similar results regardless of the specific measure used makes us confident that the findings are not driven by other factors that might distinguish public schools facing more or less competition based on a given measure. Indeed, in ongoing work we have also considered measures of competition based on the number of available slots in nearby private schools and on the number of nearby churches, and again find very similar results.

Does Competition Improve Public Schools? - Education Next

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'll tell you the brutal truth about vouchers that few want to acknowledge. It allows disadvantaged youth go to better schools without having the personal funds to go. However, the private schools don't have to keep them. If they fail, they go. If they cannot follow the rules of the school, they are out.

So, basically what happens is the students who cannot conform to the standards of the private schools, they have to return to the public schools. Teacher unions hate this because they do not have enough students to keep their school scores up. It works well for the disadvantaged students who can perform to their standards and codes, but not all students can conform to these standards.

So what is the ultimate answer? Vouchers, yes. But we need the best teachers in the public schools where teaching methods and the most talented teachers can reach the others as well. Pay those teachers who can perform in the public schools successfully significantly higher.

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

Which studies?

There are several of them. This is one I found in my folder from Florida:

For every 1.1 miles closer to the nearest private school, public school math and reading performance increases by 1.5 percent of a standard deviation in the first year following the announcement of the scholarship program. Likewise, having 12 additional private schools nearby boosts public school test scores by almost 3 percent of a standard deviation. The presence of two additional types of private schools nearby raises test scores by about 2 percent of a standard deviation. Finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the concentration of private schools nearby is associated with an increase of about 1 percent of a standard deviation in test scores.

Although these effects are relatively small, they consistently indicate a positive relationship between private school competition and student performance in the public schools, even before any students leave for the private sector. That is, these results provide evidence that public schools responded to the increased threat of losing students to the private schools. The fact that we obtain quite similar results regardless of the specific measure used makes us confident that the findings are not driven by other factors that might distinguish public schools facing more or less competition based on a given measure. Indeed, in ongoing work we have also considered measures of competition based on the number of available slots in nearby private schools and on the number of nearby churches, and again find very similar results.

Does Competition Improve Public Schools? - Education Next

Here's what I found from your source.

"Alternatively, private school vouchers and scholarships may have unintended negative effects on public schools: they may draw away the most involved families from public schools, community monitoring of those schools may diminish, and schools may reduce the effort they put into educating students."

"It is notoriously difficult to gauge the competitive effects of private schools on public school performance."

"In other words, it occurs from the threat of competition alone."

Now, to me what it looks like is this woman is not saying that private schools increase the performance of public schools, but that COMPETITION increases the performance of schools. So, it's pretty simple isn't it? Let kids go to any school they like, any school they can get in to. Let them take the money with them. They don't need vouchers, they just need to choice. In fact in the UK this choice exists. Kids can apply to any school they like, regardless of where they live. Funding is centralized from the govt, rather than through property taxes and the like. Hence why British education works better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does it?

You've just ignored everything I've shown you. IT DIDN'T WORK IN CHILE. It didn't increase results, it didn't make things better for most kids. It's not a good system.

It might allow a certain amount of change where poorer kids would go to a better school than they would otherwise go to, it might, but it doesn't change the fact that as a system it doesn't work.

Choice I think is a great thing in education. Don't get me wrong. I think that kids should have the choice of what public school they want to go to, and that if a school is failing then it can be seen by low numbers. But this DOESN'T require vouchers. It doesn't require rich kids being given money to go to a school they can already afford.

You say we need the best teachers in Public Schools. Sure. But then private schools will be charging voucher + extra money, so they'll be able to pay MORE for the best teachers. Vouchers don't change this.

If you want REAL CHANGE in education, you need to make sure REAL CHANGE happens and not funneling money out of the system into the pockets of the rich.

10% of kids are currently already in private school in the USA.

The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary - Private School Enrollment - Indicator May (2016)

That's $5.4 million kids. To give each of these 5.4 million kids say $10,000 a year to continue to go to their private school you're going to be paying $54 billion a year to send kids to school they can alredy afford. Where is this $54 billion going to come from? It's going to come from the poorer students. It's not going to be made up with more taxes. It's going to be taken out of the system.

Now, you take the $70 billion the federal govt spends on education and give most of that away, then what?

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

Which studies?

There are several of them. This is one I found in my folder from Florida:

For every 1.1 miles closer to the nearest private school, public school math and reading performance increases by 1.5 percent of a standard deviation in the first year following the announcement of the scholarship program. Likewise, having 12 additional private schools nearby boosts public school test scores by almost 3 percent of a standard deviation. The presence of two additional types of private schools nearby raises test scores by about 2 percent of a standard deviation. Finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the concentration of private schools nearby is associated with an increase of about 1 percent of a standard deviation in test scores.

Although these effects are relatively small, they consistently indicate a positive relationship between private school competition and student performance in the public schools, even before any students leave for the private sector. That is, these results provide evidence that public schools responded to the increased threat of losing students to the private schools. The fact that we obtain quite similar results regardless of the specific measure used makes us confident that the findings are not driven by other factors that might distinguish public schools facing more or less competition based on a given measure. Indeed, in ongoing work we have also considered measures of competition based on the number of available slots in nearby private schools and on the number of nearby churches, and again find very similar results.

Does Competition Improve Public Schools? - Education Next

Here's what I found from your source.

"Alternatively, private school vouchers and scholarships may have unintended negative effects on public schools: they may draw away the most involved families from public schools, community monitoring of those schools may diminish, and schools may reduce the effort they put into educating students."

"It is notoriously difficult to gauge the competitive effects of private schools on public school performance."

"In other words, it occurs from the threat of competition alone."

Now, to me what it looks like is this woman is not saying that private schools increase the performance of public schools, but that COMPETITION increases the performance of schools. So, it's pretty simple isn't it? Let kids go to any school they like, any school they can get in to. Let them take the money with them. They don't need vouchers, they just need to choice. In fact in the UK this choice exists. Kids can apply to any school they like, regardless of where they live. Funding is centralized from the govt, rather than through property taxes and the like. Hence why British education works better.

So you don't believe people of a community should be allowed to have the kind of schools they are willing to pay for? You live in a very nice area, but your schools have no more money than those in the ghetto?

Sounds like more Socialism and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's also more dependency on the already in debt federal government. If you really want to improve schools in lower income places, have them pay more for the schools than those who don't have children in those schools. When you're paying money out of your own pocket, you make sure your kid is going to do well in school even if you have to stay up every night helping them with their homework. After all, that's what parents who can afford private school make sure of. I know, it's what my sister had to do with my niece.

But as clearly demonstrated, money doesn't equate results. The US spends more per capita on education than any other country in the industrialized world, yet we only have mediocre results to show for it. In other words, you take those inner-city students and place all of them in an upper suburban community, they would probably do worse than better because the standards are higher. You don't solve anything that way.

As to my article, yes, competition does force public schools to work harder. That's why private schools and home schooling should be expanded.

 

[peach174]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

Explain to us why vouchers are only given to inner city kids, not rich kids.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Total complete fucking horseshit. Your "study" is propaganda. Private schools out perform government schools. That's been proven over and over and over. What you're saying is that sending kids to better schools won't produce a better outcome. Only an imbecile would believe such a proposition.

Yes and no.

What studies have found is that public schools do better when private schools are in the area. Without private school (as in most places) public school has no competition. So it doesn't matter how good or bad they do because students have nowhere else to go.

When private schools open up, the public schools worry about losing students. They have to step up to the plate to keep students there. They start performing better or at least try to get near the results that private schools often get.

Which studies?

There are several of them. This is one I found in my folder from Florida:

For every 1.1 miles closer to the nearest private school, public school math and reading performance increases by 1.5 percent of a standard deviation in the first year following the announcement of the scholarship program. Likewise, having 12 additional private schools nearby boosts public school test scores by almost 3 percent of a standard deviation. The presence of two additional types of private schools nearby raises test scores by about 2 percent of a standard deviation. Finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the concentration of private schools nearby is associated with an increase of about 1 percent of a standard deviation in test scores.

Although these effects are relatively small, they consistently indicate a positive relationship between private school competition and student performance in the public schools, even before any students leave for the private sector. That is, these results provide evidence that public schools responded to the increased threat of losing students to the private schools. The fact that we obtain quite similar results regardless of the specific measure used makes us confident that the findings are not driven by other factors that might distinguish public schools facing more or less competition based on a given measure. Indeed, in ongoing work we have also considered measures of competition based on the number of available slots in nearby private schools and on the number of nearby churches, and again find very similar results.

Does Competition Improve Public Schools? - Education Next

Here's what I found from your source.

"Alternatively, private school vouchers and scholarships may have unintended negative effects on public schools: they may draw away the most involved families from public schools, community monitoring of those schools may diminish, and schools may reduce the effort they put into educating students."

"It is notoriously difficult to gauge the competitive effects of private schools on public school performance."

"In other words, it occurs from the threat of competition alone."

Now, to me what it looks like is this woman is not saying that private schools increase the performance of public schools, but that COMPETITION increases the performance of schools. So, it's pretty simple isn't it? Let kids go to any school they like, any school they can get in to. Let them take the money with them. They don't need vouchers, they just need to choice. In fact in the UK this choice exists. Kids can apply to any school they like, regardless of where they live. Funding is centralized from the govt, rather than through property taxes and the like. Hence why British education works better.

So you don't believe people of a community should be allowed to have the kind of schools they are willing to pay for? You live in a very nice area, but your schools have no more money than those in the ghetto?

Sounds like more Socialism and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's also more dependency on the already in debt federal government. If you really want to improve schools in lower income places, have them pay more for the schools than those who don't have children in those schools. When you're paying money out of your own pocket, you make sure your kid is going to do well in school even if you have to stay up every night helping them with their homework. After all, that's what parents who can afford private school make sure of. I know, it's what my sister had to do with my niece.

But as clearly demonstrated, money doesn't equate results. The US spends more per capita on education than any other country in the industrialized world, yet we only have mediocre results to show for it. In other words, you take those inner-city students and place all of them in an upper suburban community, they would probably do worse than better because the standards are higher. You don't solve anything that way.

As to my article, yes, competition does force public schools to work harder. That's why private schools and home schooling should be expanded.

I believe areas can have whatever schools they can afford, if they can afford private they get private. If they can't, they get state. Like I said, the state school system works better in the UK than the US because of the way schools are funded. The funding of schools through local property taxes leads to problems in society.

Funny how people bring out the "it sounds more like socialism" card when it suits them, but when the govt starts paying for workers in private companies many don't care because it's a right wing govt doing it.

You seem to think kids should grow up with all the trappings of the unequal world. Why shouldn't poor kids get the same educations as the rich kids if both are being sent to state school? Why should a kid being brought up in poverty go to a run down no money school and a rich kid who has everything go to a wealthy state school? It makes no sense to me. It seems to encourage social injustice and lead to all the problems that shouldn't exist in a society like the USA.

The first point is that mass education isn't about the individual per se, it's about society. It's about making sure there is an educated work force, it's about making sure things go right in society. And yet you come on here telling me it's something akin to stealing if rich parents don't get to have a public school that is shining like their ass in the sun, and poor kids don't get to have the dirtiest most run down piece of shit going.

Maybe if you're paying for school you'll make sure your kids do well. But it's not always the case, sorry. A lot of the attitude with those who pay for education is "I'm paying for this, so I expect you to put the effort in" and they sit back and expect things to happen without their own effort. It all depends on the family, not on the money.

Like you say, money doesn't equate to results, and even results don't equate to results. Basically just quantifying education isn't very easy. Those who quantify miss out on a lot of stuff. Like the Chinese. There's a program, very interesting, about a British school going Chinese. And they saw an increase in their math scores. Hardly surprising as they had to do double the work, but this push for those subjects where you have right and wrong answers is what is turning China into a country of robots. Creativity? No, because it's harder to quantify, therefore harder to show progress, therefore not worth it for the politicians. Besides, creativity leads to opinions and shit that the CCP don't want.

So what is the US doing wrong then? Firstly the way education is funded. Secondly the social problems aren't being solved so then money gets thrown at poor communities' education and yet, it doesn't work well because the kids are bringing in their social problems to school and making education difficult. Thirdly education doesn't seem to be aimed at getting kids the skills they'll need as adults.

Having a system that is inherently unfair doesn't help at all. Like I said, in a place like the UK you can see poor schools doing better (based on quantifying education of course).

Overview of London boroughs | London's Poverty Profile

Here's a list of London Boroughs and the four most depraved are Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Brent, Ealing.

Barking and Dagenham have 9 Secondary Schools (high school),

Barking and Dagenham schools moving in the right direction - Press releases - GOV.UK

"The numbers of primary and secondary schools in the area judged good or better by Ofsted has outpaced the national rate of improvement."

"Inspectors also found that school-to-school support was used and commissioned effectively. School networks were working well where they were mature, and were developing well in other areas of the council."

"Barking and Dagenham is in the bottom 20 local authorities in England for primary school inspection outcomes."

"Despite the area facing significant challenges, these are not being allowed to become a barrier to educational achievement. The authority has a clear and ambitious vision to improve education for all and drive up academic standards, which it is going some way to achieve."

This is the sort of thing you want to be seeing, even though Barking and Dagenham is one of the most deprived areas of the UK, and it does suffer from schools which are struggling, it is also seeing improvement because the govt is doing something about it, having networks in place so teachers and schools can learn from each other etc.

Newham College rated Good in latest Ofsted inspection | Newham College

"
Newham College rated Good in latest Ofsted inspection"

Even in thee deprived areas, there is choice and there are good schools.

Rather than have each school as an individual island, getting its funding from the local residents and moving along as the local conditions fit, having a NATIONAL strategy, having regional support networks, having aims and targets for improvement, having inspections to push up standards, having a whole concerted effort is what is needed. However in the US, like you showed, as soon as you do this people start moaning their ass off, claiming it'll lead to this and that, when in fact it's the only way to make good progress.

You say competition forces public schools to do better, then have competition within public schools. It's simply not necessary to include private schools in that. Allow choice. Michigan has such choice, 23% of students go to a school outside their district. They don't need school vouchers for that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump hasn't taken office yet, but already his picks are showing what his main policy is. To make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

In charge of education he wants DeVos who is a strong advocate for school vouchers. Vouchers are basically a ways of giving money to rich parents who can already send their kids to private school. So now they get money off their private school, and it won't do anything for most kids in the US.

Tom Price, who Trump will nominate to be in charge of Health, has sent through the last 3 Congresses a bill which would see people get reduced insurance bills, unless of course you have a problem in which case Price doesn't give a fuck about you and you'll have such a large insurance bill that you'll essentially die, unless of course you're rich.

Trump said he was having a revolution, that he was an outsider. So his pick for Treasury is a banker. The very people who caused all the problems that people could have supposed that a change, a revolution, would do away with. And he will essentially be carry out tax cuts for the wealthy.

For Attorney General there is Jeff Sessions. A guy who voted against a bill to prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment under the control of the US govt. He has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Well we know Trump has no idea about Human Rights, so to pick someone who doesn't give a damn about them or the Constitution is telling.

Basically the rich will get richer, and the poor are stuffed. The President won't represent anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

Explain to us why vouchers are only given to inner city kids, not rich kids.

Why would I explain something that isn't true?

School Vouchers for All? Nevada Law Breaks New Ground

"
School Vouchers for All? Nevada Law Breaks New Ground"

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...oucher-law-will-worsen-educational-inequality

"Yet when Nevada enacted the nation's first law last month creating almost universal access to vouchers"

No Child's Behind Left - Greg Palast

"What made Arizona heavenly in the Journal's view is that the State Senate voted to give a "school voucher" to all parents who want one to pay to send their kid to any school they want."

"According to No Child Left expert Scott Young, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher program has gone to children already in private schools."

Yep, the kids in private school, the rich kids, were the kids who used the school voucher scheme. Wow, amazing use of money there.