Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

The people of the community can do that anytime they desire. It's up to them. Want better schools, then petition your representative to put a tax levy on the ballot for increase in funds. Then you pay that increase in your property taxes.

Oh, that's right. Let's tax poor people more.

Here's a better idea. Require rich people to send their kids to the same schools as poor people have to. Same leaky roofs, broken down heating systems and out of date textbooks.

Then watch how fast that shit gets fixed.

So what you did was mislead me when you said fix up their schools. What you really meant to say is fix their schools with other peoples money.

How do you do that Joe without having the state or federal government takeover the schools entirely? Yes, middle-class and rich have nicer schools because they agreed to pay for them. What you're suggesting is that they pay for their own schools, and other schools two thousand miles away.

 

[JoeB131]

So what you did was mislead me when you said fix up their schools. What you really meant to say is fix their schools with other peoples money.

You mean money they stole from the working class to start with? Um... yeah.

How do you do that Joe without having the state or federal government takeover the schools entirely? Yes, middle-class and rich have nicer schools because they agreed to pay for them. What you're suggesting is that they pay for their own schools, and other schools two thousand miles away.

Like I said, I think the best way to do it was to do what they tried in the 1960's. Rich kids got bused into the poor neighborhoods, poor kids got bused into the rich neighborhoods. No private schools. NO Charter Schools, and no schools teaching religion and shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like I said, I think the best way to do it was to do what they tried in the 1960's. Rich kids got bused into the poor neighborhoods, poor kids got bused into the rich neighborhoods. No private schools. NO Charter Schools, and no schools teaching religion and shit.

Oh yes, that genius idea. Well what happened here (and everywhere) is that the people with the money moved out of the city into the suburbs and country. The only people left behind were the parents who didn't have the money to move out. So what do you end up with when you have a city of people with no money?

The hazardous effects of bussing are still felt today like in my city. Even though bussing ended years ago, once those people with money are gone and take root somewhere else, they are not coming back.

I guess the only bright side is that they learned from their past mistakes. Cleveland wanted to increase their minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. The Democrats voted it down. Why? Because it would chase industry out of the city and into the suburbs. I guess you can teach old dogs new tricks.

You mean money they stole from the working class to start with? Um... yeah.

How did they "steal" money from the working class? Did they go into their checking account and take it or something? I haven't been a victim of this theft so I don't know.

 

[martybegan]

Same shit, different day.

And again, your issue with gay sex is interesting.....

I have no issues... Pedophiles aren't straight or gay... But a lot of them seem to become priests, for some reason.

Most of the priests in these cases were not true pedophiles, but pederasts, and yes some of them were probably repressed homosexuals.

But again you take the exception and make it the rule.

Sandusky was a pederast as well. The gymnast teachers on the other hand seemed to like their girls under 11 or so, making them actual pedophiles.

 

[aris2chat]

You mean obama didn't fix the schools in his 8 years in office? The opposite seems to have happened.

Actually, the graduation rate and test scores went up during the O years.

Easy pass, MINIMUM requirements

 

[Flopper]

In 2014, there 250,000 students participating in voucher programs. The expected graduation this school year is 3.2 million from public schools in the US and 300,000 from private schools. Unless we're not on the same page, there are over 10 times as many students graduating from public schools as there are vouchers issued in the US.
Fast Facts
School voucher - Wikipedia

But not with charter schools though. This is less of an issue of what does better as a whole than it is individual choice. You can go to areas (middle-class and upper-class suburbs) where the public schools have a fine history. We used to have that here where I live. Then pin that up against private school to get desired results. You won't get the same results if you put lower income city public school against private, and lower income schools are where most of those voucher kids are going to come from.

Charter Schools are nothing like private schools. Charter Schools are independently operated public schools started by parents, teachers, community organizations, and for-profit companies. These schools receive tax dollars, but the sponsoring group may also come up with private funding. Charter Schools do not charge tuition. They are also subject to most of the same laws and regulations that govern public schools. Unlike private schools, they are subject to the same disclosure requirements as public schools which include test scores, facility qualifications, and statistics related to discipline and crime. Most states require the same minimum level of training for teachers in Charter Schools as in public schools. Another difference is that most Charter Schools unlike private schools are usually specialized. For example, there are high school charter schools that specialized in math and science or the arts and there are those that cater to children of homeless parents, ESOL students, gifted students, students with learning disabilities and dropouts. Charter Schools are similar to private schools in that they have freedom in regard to curriculum and teaching methods.
You post hits on an interesting aspect of US education that does not exist in many of the countries that are said to have a better educational system than the US. The states in the US with the best test scores, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont scored an average of 30% better than the worst states, New Mexico, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia. When you look at the best and worst school districts, the difference is even more startling.

In the US, only one of the top 5 states had a voucher program. 3 of the worst states had voucher systems. This accounts for much of the misunderstanding in the private vs public school battle. People that live in states with high performing public schools can't understand why people are so down on public schools in other parts of the country. People that live in the worst performing states tend to see all public schools in the US as under performing, mismanaged, and riddled with crime and discipline problems.

Which is why it should boil down to an individual choice.

You are going to find different results depending on what study you use to determine which system is better. But I think that it should be evaluated by the parents when they make their choice. I can tell you of some great public schools in our suburbs here in Cleveland, and I can point to public schools that are falling apart with a large percentage of HS dropouts. It's all a matter of what city or state you are in, what availabilities you have, and of course, resources.

School X does better in math and science than school Y. Okay, but what about on an individual basis? Are the students that opted to attend school Y doing better than they were in school X? That's the most important question.

Even if a kid goes from a D to a C average because of vouchers, isn't that worth the money to keep them and even expand them? While it may be the rest of his or her classmates in school X are doing better than his new school Y, would that be a good reason to stop him from attending if he or she is individually doing better?

I actually believe vouchers are good option in districts, not states where public schools are failing badly, not because I believe parents will be able to chose the best alternative but because some districts are so poorly managed or underfunded that improvement is just not possible and just about anything parents chose would be an improvement. When the situation is that bad parents should be given an option.

However, I think most parents are no better at choosing the best school for their kids than they are choosing the best shoes. It is not at all clear that parents chose schools primarily on the basis of academic effectiveness. School uniforms, the demographics of a school, and sports programs are easier to observe, and parents often consider these, along with religious values, to be more important than the quality of academic instruction This has been shown consistently in studies of parents’ school-choice behavior.

So if you really believe that parents are not responsible for making the decisions on behalf of their children, you think government can?

No, I did not say I think parents aren't responsible for making decisions on behalf of their children. You seemed to have jumped to that conclusion. I said, "It is not clear that parents choose schools primarily on the basis of academic effectiveness.

Parents certainly do have choices now. In all but 6 states, Charter Schools which are public schools independently managed and tuition free are an option for parents as well as private schools. In most states now, parents can transfer their children in failing schools to other district public schools and in some cases out of district schools with C or higher ratings. Also, some states have scholarship programs that allow parents to transfer their kids out of failing schools to private schools.

 

[Flopper]

Universally speaking, I believe public schools do better. The issue I have specifically is in the case of public schools that underperform, are dangerous, and/or aged facilities. Parents don't want their kids to have to go to that school yet may not have access to finances to send their kids to private schools. Vouchers enable that.

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Universally speaking, I believe public schools do better. The issue I have specifically is in the case of public schools that underperform, are dangerous, and/or aged facilities. Parents don't want their kids to have to go to that school yet may not have access to finances to send their kids to private schools. Vouchers enable that.

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

Well I guess our school must be different than all the rest because we have a teacher getting assaulted nearly every month. The police are always at the school to try and stop gang fights before they happen or at least be near when they do.

But it doesn't have to be violence to disrupt an entire class. It's really not much different than when I was in school. Every kid wanted to be cool and they often imitated the actions of the troublemakers because troublemakers were funny and cool.

But again I say that should be up to the parents to decide whether their child's environment is acceptable or not for their kids to learn. Without some hope such as vouchers, kids are stuck right where they are at with no escape in sight. All parents can do is hope for the best that their child doesn't get mixed up with the wrong group of kids and end up fighting or worse yet, getting hooked on drugs.

 

[Flopper]

Universally speaking, I believe public schools do better. The issue I have specifically is in the case of public schools that underperform, are dangerous, and/or aged facilities. Parents don't want their kids to have to go to that school yet may not have access to finances to send their kids to private schools. Vouchers enable that.

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

Well I guess our school must be different than all the rest because we have a teacher getting assaulted nearly every month. The police are always at the school to try and stop gang fights before they happen or at least be near when they do.

But it doesn't have to be violence to disrupt an entire class. It's really not much different than when I was in school. Every kid wanted to be cool and they often imitated the actions of the troublemakers because troublemakers were funny and cool.

But again I say that should be up to the parents to decide whether their child's environment is acceptable or not for their kids to learn. Without some hope such as vouchers, kids are stuck right where they are at with no escape in sight. All parents can do is hope for the best that their child doesn't get mixed up with the wrong group of kids and end up fighting or worse yet, getting hooked on drugs.

One of the major causes of student disruption in class is smarter kids bored out of their mind because the district is not providing advanced classes for these kids. I have a grandson in the 5th grade that's reading at a 12 grade level and is in the 99 percentile in math. He's always getting in trouble because there is nothing to challenge him at school. What's needed is advanced classes in all grade levels. Even if we had vouchers, they wouldn't pay anything even close the $24,000/yr tuition charged by the school he needs to attend.

 

[Flopper]

Universally speaking, I believe public schools do better. The issue I have specifically is in the case of public schools that underperform, are dangerous, and/or aged facilities. Parents don't want their kids to have to go to that school yet may not have access to finances to send their kids to private schools. Vouchers enable that.

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

Well I guess our school must be different than all the rest because we have a teacher getting assaulted nearly every month. The police are always at the school to try and stop gang fights before they happen or at least be near when they do.

But it doesn't have to be violence to disrupt an entire class. It's really not much different than when I was in school. Every kid wanted to be cool and they often imitated the actions of the troublemakers because troublemakers were funny and cool.

But again I say that should be up to the parents to decide whether their child's environment is acceptable or not for their kids to learn. Without some hope such as vouchers, kids are stuck right where they are at with no escape in sight. All parents can do is hope for the best that their child doesn't get mixed up with the wrong group of kids and end up fighting or worse yet, getting hooked on drugs.

I think Ohio has some kind of state scholarship program that pays for private school for kids that are in failing schools.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yes, that genius idea. Well what happened here (and everywhere) is that the people with the money moved out of the city into the suburbs and country. The only people left behind were the parents who didn't have the money to move out. So what do you end up with when you have a city of people with no money?

then you expand busing to include the suburbs. the real problem with schools is that we have too many school districts with too many standards. (The same can be said of police departments.)

 

[JoeB131]

Most of the priests in these cases were not true pedophiles, but pederasts, and yes some of them were probably repressed homosexuals.

But again you take the exception and make it the rule.

Sandusky was a pederast as well. The gymnast teachers on the other hand seemed to like their girls under 11 or so, making them actual pedophiles.

Yeah, whatever, guy, keep trying to change the subject away from the Catholic Church and it's organized pedophilia.

The minute the ORGANIZATION started moving priests, and then promoted Ratzinger to Pope, that became the rule, not the exception.

 

[martybegan]

Most of the priests in these cases were not true pedophiles, but pederasts, and yes some of them were probably repressed homosexuals.

But again you take the exception and make it the rule.

Sandusky was a pederast as well. The gymnast teachers on the other hand seemed to like their girls under 11 or so, making them actual pedophiles.

Yeah, whatever, guy, keep trying to change the subject away from the Catholic Church and it's organized pedophilia.

The minute the ORGANIZATION started moving priests, and then promoted Ratzinger to Pope, that became the rule, not the exception.

So you are saying this is still an ongoing, condoned practice?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Universally speaking, I believe public schools do better. The issue I have specifically is in the case of public schools that underperform, are dangerous, and/or aged facilities. Parents don't want their kids to have to go to that school yet may not have access to finances to send their kids to private schools. Vouchers enable that.

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

Well I guess our school must be different than all the rest because we have a teacher getting assaulted nearly every month. The police are always at the school to try and stop gang fights before they happen or at least be near when they do.

But it doesn't have to be violence to disrupt an entire class. It's really not much different than when I was in school. Every kid wanted to be cool and they often imitated the actions of the troublemakers because troublemakers were funny and cool.

But again I say that should be up to the parents to decide whether their child's environment is acceptable or not for their kids to learn. Without some hope such as vouchers, kids are stuck right where they are at with no escape in sight. All parents can do is hope for the best that their child doesn't get mixed up with the wrong group of kids and end up fighting or worse yet, getting hooked on drugs.

One of the major causes of student disruption in class is smarter kids bored out of their mind because the district is not providing advanced classes for these kids. I have a grandson in the 5th grade that's reading at a 12 grade level and is in the 99 percentile in math. He's always getting in trouble because there is nothing to challenge him at school. What's needed is advanced classes in all grade levels. Even if we had vouchers, they wouldn't pay anything even close the $24,000/yr tuition charged by the school he needs to attend.

That's the nice thing about home school, a student learns at their own pace.

It's been my opinion that we should promote more home schooling. Have home school parents take in some neighborhood kids and give them the education money instead. It would save us tax payers a bundle, allow home school mothers to have an income while teaching, and that would allow more women to pursue staying at home to teach their (and other) children.

It's the perfect idea except for one thing: teachers unions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh yes, that genius idea. Well what happened here (and everywhere) is that the people with the money moved out of the city into the suburbs and country. The only people left behind were the parents who didn't have the money to move out. So what do you end up with when you have a city of people with no money?

then you expand busing to include the suburbs. the real problem with schools is that we have too many school districts with too many standards. (The same can be said of police departments.)

We pay the most per student in primary education as it is. You want to increase taxes for all these school busses and drivers? And for what? It won't solve anything.

If you could make a deal to take all the kids in a failing school, ship them to the great suburban school, they will continue to fail. The kids from that great school that got bussed to the lousy school will continue to pass with flying colors.

 

[Flopper]

Not really. All they do is create a larger pool for the Private schools to choose from, but they still end up picking the kids who are easiest to teach.

I don't know if you have any evidence of your claim or not, but one of the biggest reasons to send your child to a private school is so they are not distracted by disruptive kids. Inner-city parents want their children to be in a learning environment instead of a drug infested violent environment. In order to accomplish that, they would have to try and get the kids that really want to learn.

Of the 100,000 public schools in the country, there are very few violent interruptions in class. Most interruptions in class are talking out of turn, talking when teacher is talking, not paying attention, getting out of their seat and moving around the room without permission, excessive trips to the restroom, distractions by students with games, cell phones, and other devices, tardiness, disrespectful language toward the teacher or other students. Expelling kids for class interruptions is not the answer. For one thing you would be expelling some of brightest kids and secondly, it doesn't fix the problem.

I taught 5th grade for two years in a Chapter One School. All students were on free or reduce lunch. They were 90% Black or Hispanic and most of them lived in a low income housing project across from the school. There were lots interruptions in class because that's how they go attention at home, but there was never any serious violence other than an occasional school yard fight.

Well I guess our school must be different than all the rest because we have a teacher getting assaulted nearly every month. The police are always at the school to try and stop gang fights before they happen or at least be near when they do.

But it doesn't have to be violence to disrupt an entire class. It's really not much different than when I was in school. Every kid wanted to be cool and they often imitated the actions of the troublemakers because troublemakers were funny and cool.

But again I say that should be up to the parents to decide whether their child's environment is acceptable or not for their kids to learn. Without some hope such as vouchers, kids are stuck right where they are at with no escape in sight. All parents can do is hope for the best that their child doesn't get mixed up with the wrong group of kids and end up fighting or worse yet, getting hooked on drugs.

One of the major causes of student disruption in class is smarter kids bored out of their mind because the district is not providing advanced classes for these kids. I have a grandson in the 5th grade that's reading at a 12 grade level and is in the 99 percentile in math. He's always getting in trouble because there is nothing to challenge him at school. What's needed is advanced classes in all grade levels. Even if we had vouchers, they wouldn't pay anything even close the $24,000/yr tuition charged by the school he needs to attend.

That's the nice thing about home school, a student learns at their own pace.

It's been my opinion that we should promote more home schooling. Have home school parents take in some neighborhood kids and give them the education money instead. It would save us tax payers a bundle, allow home school mothers to have an income while teaching, and that would allow more women to pursue staying at home to teach their (and other) children.

It's the perfect idea except for one thing: teachers unions.

Homeschooling is fine for those that can do it. Almost half of the two parent families both parents work full time. 46% of the single parent families work full time. For those that don't have full time jobs, most have part time jobs. Couple that with the fact that a lot parents can't handle teaching, it's not an option for the vast majority parents.

 

[JoeB131]

So you are saying this is still an ongoing, condoned practice?

I'm sure it is. They haven't turned over Cardinal Law for prosecution yet, have they?

We pay the most per student in primary education as it is. You want to increase taxes for all these school busses and drivers? And for what? It won't solve anything.

Sure it will. You send rich people's kids to the same shitty schools that poor people's kids have to go to, and you'll be AMAZED how fast things get fixed.

 

[owebo]

So you are saying this is still an ongoing, condoned practice?

I'm sure it is. They haven't turned over Cardinal Law for prosecution yet, have they?

We pay the most per student in primary education as it is. You want to increase taxes for all these school busses and drivers? And for what? It won't solve anything.

Sure it will. You send rich people's kids to the same shitty schools that poor people's kids have to go to, and you'll be AMAZED how fast things get fixed.

Spoken like a true fascist....

 

[bripat9643]

Oh yes, that genius idea. Well what happened here (and everywhere) is that the people with the money moved out of the city into the suburbs and country. The only people left behind were the parents who didn't have the money to move out. So what do you end up with when you have a city of people with no money?

then you expand busing to include the suburbs. the real problem with schools is that we have too many school districts with too many standards. (The same can be said of police departments.)

The real problem with schools is the fact the government runs them. Can you name one single thing government does better than the private sector?

 

[bripat9643]

So you are saying this is still an ongoing, condoned practice?

I'm sure it is. They haven't turned over Cardinal Law for prosecution yet, have they?

We pay the most per student in primary education as it is. You want to increase taxes for all these school busses and drivers? And for what? It won't solve anything.

Sure it will. You send rich people's kids to the same shitty schools that poor people's kids have to go to, and you'll be AMAZED how fast things get fixed.

Which just goes to show that parents are responsible for the quality of the schools, not the government employees who run them. In fact, it doesn't even really matter what the quality of the schools is. Wealthier parents have smarter kids because the parents are smarter and more involved. They do most of the educating of their kids.