Teacher Unions: For the Children!

[Tokenconservative]

We're told that everything the teachers and their union do is "for the children!"

Seems that's exactly the case in Utah as the union does yeomanlike work and spends millions to make sure that the vote to reaffirm Utah's highly successful voucher program goes the "right" way.

As George Will (Wash Post) puts it, "(in Utah), teearshe unions, whose idea o progress is preservation of the status qo, are waging an expensive and meretricious campaign to overturn the right of parents to choose among competing schools, public and private, for the best education for their children."

Will, apparently, does not know that teachers, and educrats, not parents know what's best for our children.

As they always do, the unions in Utah are shrieking that every child removed from the public roll via Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act is a net loss in revenue for the schools, which of course means the public schools are being impoverished.

But wait...the "teachers" seem not to have employed any of those skilled in math in their calculations for it seems that in Utah (as in every other attempt at vouchers in the US) only a PORTION, and at that a SMALL portion of the total per-head $$ that goes to the public school for each student, is ciphoned off for the parents' chosen school, To wit: depending upon income, a voucher in the Utah system will range in dollar value from $500 to $3000 (USD).

But Utah spends $7,500 on each pupil, according to Will. Hmmm...let's see if we can all do the math together...are there any in here who were privately or home-schooled who can oversee our calculations?

$7,500
- 500
______
$7,000

or

7,500
-
3000
_____
$4,500

Now I'm no economist or accountant and as many in here are eager to point up, I was educated publicaly, and went to a lousy college where I didn't even have to take a math class, so I COULD be wrong, but it seems to me that LOGICALLY, if you take a kid out of a school, that kid no longer represents a COST to that school to educate him or her.

But the schools in this case (and every voucher proposal nationwide) would still get at minimum, $4,500 for a kid who is not there using the bathroom, not there taking up the teacher's valuable internet surfing time, not there wearing out the carpet or making the janitor cleanup his spitwads.

By any rational economic model, the absense of a net cost to a school (pupil) while that school retains at minimum (and more often most of) more than half the per-pupil dollars it recieves, would represent a net gain--a surplus in fact, to the school. It's as if you had a business and for each client you lost, you retained more than 1/2 of the $ that client used to spend with you...why wouldn't you just chase away all your clients, retain half your income but none of the work!?

But teachers and other liberals do this math differently, it appears and are spending millions in advertising in Utah to decry this system, claiming that it in fact represents a net economic LOSS to the schools and is thereby impoverishing further the "poor" children left behind in what we are told are, overcrowded schools that would only also profit educationally by a lower student-to-teacher ratio.

It's all very confusing to we, the unwashed and uneducated in the public, but apparently makes perfect sense to teachers and educrats.

Just remember: it's for the children!

Tokie

[NobbyNobbs]

Why do you hate America?

[Oroborus]

Why do you hate America?

:D:D

[phyz]

Why do you hate America?
:D:D:D

[frankvan]

Perhaps it's because of that nasty "liberal" bias I have in the way I do arithmetic; but are you saying that when the $500 - $3,000 is "siphoned off" the balance is still sent to the public schools for every student who is no longer attending that school? That certainly seems to be the sort of fiscal policy the voters might take exception to. Who is pocketing that $4,500++? :confused:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The bias and poor accounting skills, they underwhelm me.

[jsfisher]

Tokenconservative,

You have a remarkable talent for taking what could have been an interesting discussion (in this case, of teachers' unions and/or vouchers and/or the American public school system) and pre-poisoning it out of existence. Well done.

[fuelair]

Actually, the reasons most of us (teachers) oppose vouchers, at least in Florida,is:
A)many more of the poor students (as in not-competant for grade level) have parents/guardians who will not move them. Concentration of poor students causes situation to be even worse for the better students who remain;
B)the private schools who would be the recipients of the vouchers are not required to take the state tests showing required skills are being taught/learned;
C)many of the schools which would receive vouchers are religious - which means the citizens are having tax money used in support of religion in violation of Seperation of Church and State.

[Tokenconservative]

Perhaps it's because of that nasty "liberal" bias I have in the way I do arithmetic; but are you saying that when the $500 - $3,000 is "siphoned off" the balance is still sent to the public schools for every student who is no longer attending that school? That certainly seems to be the sort of fiscal policy the voters might take exception to. Who is pocketing that $4,500++? :confused:

Nice begging of the question.

I see you "neatly" and "cleverly" avoided the real issue with this.

Bravo!

Of course, this is part 'n parcel of the education industry's approach on this, so it doesn't surprise me.

On the one hand, you have teachers (like you) shrieking "but they're going to bankrupt the schools by taking away all this money," and then on the other glad-hand shrieking "okay....well, every voucher plan suggested so far leaves the lion's share of the per-pupil $$ with the public school...so people will be mad about this, therefore, since it's not perfect, it shouldn't be done!!!"

Nicely done!

I imagine all of your fellows in here are reading your sage words and nodding in agreement.

The question becomes: is this just another NEA talking point you are told to use, or did you actually come up with this little bit of speciousness by yourself?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The bias and poor accounting skills, they underwhelm me.

I'm quite open about my biases.

Can you perhaps enumerate and demonstrate where my math is wrong (it may very well be...I was educated in math in the public schools and I'd be the first to admit I'm lousy at it).

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Tokenconservative,

You have a remarkable talent for taking what could have been an interesting discussion (in this case, of teachers' unions and/or vouchers and/or the American public school system) and pre-poisoning it out of existence. Well done.

Ah, the old "I don't like you!!! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!!" argument.

Very intellectual.

You can't specifically identify how I've "pre-poisoned" anything, it's enough to your way of "reasoning" to say that I have.

Another NEA (and Liberal Playbook) tactic.

Well played!

And of course, your fellows in here are giving you a golf clap for it.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Is there anyone in this forum with the intellectual honesty to take a look at this thread and tell me if they notice anything...unusual about any of the arguments/rebutals/responses posted?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, the reasons most of us (teachers) oppose vouchers, at least in Florida,is:
A)many more of the poor students (as in not-competant for grade level) have parents/guardians who will not move them. Concentration of poor students causes situation to be even worse for the better students who remain;
B)the private schools who would be the recipients of the vouchers are not required to take the state tests showing required skills are being taught/learned;
C)many of the schools which would receive vouchers are religious - which means the citizens are having tax money used in support of religion in violation of Seperation of Church and State.

A. A valid concern. It has not worked out like this in the places it's been tried; Detroit for example in VERY poor neighborhoods. And this is a somewhat specious concern, anyway. In a free market, though it may take a bit of time, if the market exists, someone will come along to fill the need; if Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed.

B. Another valid concern, but borne, I think, of ignorance. I know of no private school that does not participate in some sort of standardized testing. Also, as a teacher you take the somewhat bigoted view that parents will yank their kids out of the publics and into privates that are run by escaped inmates from the local insane assylum...why would parents who care enough about their kids to go to the trouble of moving them to another school not demand that the new school be up to snuff? Privates test as a matter of good business practice. The private my kids went to would trumpet the fact that kids there were testing (Iowa Test) at, on avg. 2 yrs above their "peers" in the publics.
C. Can you tell me where in the Constitution this is specifically prohibited? For that matter, can you quote that pare of the Constitution that says "
"seperation of church and state"? My copy must be an older version, because I cannot find it. By the way...can you show me in there where it says...ANYthing about public schooling?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Why do you hate America?

Example?

Or is this just the best you can do?

Tokie

[jsfisher]

Ah, the old "I don't like you!!! I'm gonna take my ball and go home!!" argument.

Very intellectual.

Well, since I never offered a figurative ball for the game, your statement was a pointless invention.

You can't specifically identify how I've "pre-poisoned" anything, it's enough to your way of "reasoning" to say that I have.

We can discuss the "pre-poisoning" character of your OP, if you wish. Or would you rather discuss something more akin to the thread title?

Another NEA (and Liberal Playbook) tactic.

Would that be the National Education Association or the National Endowment for the Arts? I'm afraid my membership to both has lapsed, and I need to know which I should renew first.


Seriously, though, do you want to discuss a topic (and which topic would that be?), or just continue to exchange unpleasantries?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The teachers union is concerned that if vouchers are expanded they will lose in the competition between schools for students and thus lose funding.

Purely self-interest.

[jsfisher]

Actually, the reasons most of us (teachers) oppose vouchers, at least in Florida,is:
...
B)the private schools who would be the recipients of the vouchers are not required to take the state tests showing required skills are being taught/learned;

That is a problem that should be fixed. A school voucher system should be about effective competition that improves learning. Common standards for evaluation are a must.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, since I never offered a figurative ball for the game, your statement was a pointless invention.

We can discuss the "pre-poisoning" character of your OP, if you wish. Or would you rather discuss something more akin to the thread title?

Would that be the National Education Association or the National Endowment for the Arts? I'm afraid my membership to both has lapsed, and I need to know which I should renew first.

Seriously, though, do you want to discuss a topic (and which topic would that be?), or just continue to exchange unpleasantries?

(working top to bottom)

I like to do both.

Equivocation is not becoming.

You said I "pre-poisoned" the topic, so yeah...I'd like to know what you mean.

My statement was what it was and remains as such.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

Bingo!

Give that man a blue ribbon!

Wait...that stuff really sucks. Give that man a Fat Tire!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That is a problem that should be fixed. A school voucher system should be about effective competition that improves learning. Common standards for evaluation are a must.

It's not, apparently, a problem anywhere but in Florida. I'm not sure why one state out of 50 cannot address this. So maybe vouchers won't work there, but that's no reason the remaining 49 states shouldn't have them.

The problem with that post, actually, is the astounding level of bigotry and Big Brother "we know what's best for your children" thinking, as if the poster believes that most parents are so uncaring and too stupid to make sure their kids are getting educated.

This is the same argument they used against expanded home schooling: that all the home schooled kids would end being taught only to hate non-Christians, anyone not their color etc...then you have all these brilliant Asian and black and yes, some white kids coming out of home schools, and so many Hispanics, too...and um...well, that argument sort of fell apart.

Private schools already must meet some level of state-accredidation anywhere I've ever heard of, and that includes periodic testing to prove THEY are not simply teaching kids to hate (because of course all Christian privates do...)or teaching the girls how to be pregnant, barefoot mothers, etc.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'll ask it again: anybody else notice how quickly threads raising the questions this one does, MUST be diverted?

Does anybody think that's an accident?

Tokie

[frankvan]

Nice begging of the question.

I see you "neatly" and "cleverly" avoided the real issue with this.

Bravo!

Of course, this is part 'n parcel of the education industry's approach on this, so it doesn't surprise me.

On the one hand, you have teachers (like you) shrieking "but they're going to bankrupt the schools by taking away all this money," and then on the other glad-hand shrieking "okay....well, every voucher plan suggested so far leaves the lion's share of the per-pupil $$ with the public school...so people will be mad about this, therefore, since it's not perfect, it shouldn't be done!!!"

Nicely done!

I imagine all of your fellows in here are reading your sage words and nodding in agreement.

The question becomes: is this just another NEA talking point you are told to use, or did you actually come up with this little bit of speciousness by yourself?

Tokie

Wow! You certainly have a way of making a guy feel welcome!. I didn't realize that I was begging a question. Being a newcomer, retired from an electrical engineering career 25 years ago, I thought this looked like an interesting issue, and hoped to have you clarify just what the problem consisted of.

I didn't know that I had any "fellows in here" having only been here for a few weeks at most, but I'm happy if they are nodding in agreement at my innocent (and accidental) sagacity.

I do believe that if some of the tax money raised for public education is diverted to help make private schooling affordable for those wishing to send kids to parochial schools, that is unconstitutional. The issue of church/state separation is implied if not specifically spelled out in the constitution of this country, IMO! Obviously, not everyone agrees with my interpretation, or we wouldn't have to put up with the constant nibbling away at the minutiae in order to include such nonsense as the pledge of allegiance revision to include "under God", which has been added since my school days.

I'm glad to have become better acquainted with some of the members, including those with whom I'm destined to occasionally disagree. Thanks for the education, with or without vouchers.;)

[Darat]

One warning: To all participants address arguments, opinions and so on that are appropriate to this section of the Forum. Note that further attempts to personalise the issues will result in further Mod action which may include suspension and banning.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I do believe that if some of the tax money raised for public education is diverted to help make private schooling affordable for those wishing to send kids to parochial schools, that is unconstitutional. The issue of church/state separation is implied if not specifically spelled out in the constitution of this country, IMO! Obviously, not everyone agrees with my interpretation, or we wouldn't have to put up with the constant nibbling away at the minutiae in order to include such nonsense as the pledge of allegiance revision to include "under God", which has been added since my school days.

I take it then that it is not; in your opinion, unconstitutional for vouchers to be used at not religious private schools?

Do you have a constitutional problem with the Federal governmnet funding any schooling?

[Hindmost]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

Do you have any evidence for this?

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you have any evidence for this?

glenn

Which part of the premise do you question?

[fuelair]

A. A valid concern. It has not worked out like this in the places it's been tried; Detroit for example in VERY poor neighborhoods. And this is a somewhat specious concern, anyway. In a free market, though it may take a bit of time, if the market exists, someone will come along to fill the need; if Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed.

B. Another valid concern, but borne, I think, of ignorance. I know of no private school that does not participate in some sort of standardized testing. Also, as a teacher you take the somewhat bigoted view that parents will yank their kids out of the publics and into privates that are run by escaped inmates from the local insane assylum...why would parents who care enough about their kids to go to the trouble of moving them to another school not demand that the new school be up to snuff? Privates test as a matter of good business practice. The private my kids went to would trumpet the fact that kids there were testing (Iowa Test) at, on avg. 2 yrs above their "peers" in the publics.
C. Can you tell me where in the Constitution this is specifically prohibited? For that matter, can you quote that pare of the Constitution that says "
"seperation of church and state"? My copy must be an older version, because I cannot find it. By the way...can you show me in there where it says...ANYthing about public schooling?

TokieI was afraid that would be unclear in A - I am not using poor in the financial sense but in the sense of poor in the skills needed to learn, which is frequently the case when parents/guardians ar not concerned with their child's learning as long as the child is out of their hair for a while. There is some connection of the two - but........

You and Doc would get along well re:C). Public schooling came along later and was mostly state-by-state but the Feds have their hands (and funds) deeply into it. There are any number (yes, that means I do not know the number - which changes the facts not at all) of laws and regulations concerning seperation of church and State - and, to the best of my memory they all are founded on the no establishment of a state religion thing (if the state gives funds/support to any religion it could be said to be supporting it's establishment so.....)(and the courts - and I - really get along well with that argument).

As for B), no that is not my point. My point is many of the private schools do not use any standardized test in the first place - but even if they did the test used to grade schools here is the FCAT - so where vouchers have been given here it was on the basis of schools having certain numbers of students not passing the FCAT - which is demonstrably harder to pass than the theoretically comparable standardized tests you presumably refer to. So, the kids who can't pass the FCAT from certain schools get a chance - on state tax money - to go to schools where they are not required to pass it.
You may find that reasonable, I do not. On the bright side, I would have much less problem with this if all students in the state were required to pass FCAT for graduation - no matter whether they were in private school, home-schooled or in public school. Just a level playing field.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm quite open about my biases.

Can you perhaps enumerate and demonstrate where my math is wrong (it may very well be...I was educated in math in the public schools and I'd be the first to admit I'm lousy at it).

Tokie

Biases are evil, they are best rejected.

Here (http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/NEWS01/71024001/1002) is a good less biased analysis of the debate in Utah.

Notice what it says about funding, particularly that one percent need to use vouchers.

[Hindmost]

Which part of the premise do you question?

Do you have any evidence that all public school teachers are all low-level performers coming out of college?

At UCONN, you have to have a 3.0 just to get into their education program. http://www.education.uconn.edu/howtoapply/IBM_Info.pdf


glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you have any evidence that all public school teachers are all low-level performers coming out of college?

I never stated such.


What about this premise do you question?

Jerome said:
Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

[Rika]

That implies that some teachers are low level college performers.

Re: The OP (and by extension)

I strongly advise you look up Jefferson's letter, which is interepeted by many SC judges (starting at Marshell) to mean there should be no collusion between church and state. And funding is collusion.

[Fordama]

But the schools in this case (and every voucher proposal nationwide) would still get at minimum, $4,500 for a kid who is not there using the bathroom, not there taking up the teacher's valuable internet surfing time, not there wearing out the carpet or making the janitor cleanup his spitwads.

By any rational economic model, the absense of a net cost to a school (pupil) while that school retains at minimum (and more often most of) more than half the per-pupil dollars it recieves, would represent a net gain--a surplus in fact, to the school...
Actually, no.

This same kind of voodoo math was used by voucher proponents in California. It presupposes one unproven idea and completely ignores a couple of important facts.

One important fact is that current private school students do not cost public schools any money at all. Not a penny. The first money that will come out of the public school budget will be the millions to pay out to current private school students that are not costing a dime. So long before any alleged gain made by the loss of a public school student to a private school is measured, the public system takes millions in dollars of loss.

The second fact is that the $7,500 figure is the average cost per student, not the cost per average student. Regular ol' Johnny and Janey Doe aren't costing $7,500 each. They are much cheaper to educate. It's the special needs students that drive up the costs: physically, mentally, emotionally handicapped, low income, and students with other special circumstances that may be as simple as needing a bus. It is these students, who we have rightly decided in our society to educate, that fuel a great deal of the costs to a public school district. Special education is expensive and it is considered part of that average cost per student.

These special students aren't going to be the ones that will allegedly be transferring in droves to private schools because the private schools will charge those parents for the extra costs--far, far more than what vouchers pay for. So what will happen with all these alleged transfers is that the public school will be left with a higher percentage of students who are more expensive to educate. That $7,500 per student average would climb with the exodus of the lower costing students.

The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most.

Let's not even go into the unproven proposition that a voucher system will actually cause and improvement in the education system to begin with!

Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That implies that some teachers are low level college performers.

Are you stating that some teachers are not low level college performers?

[Rika]

Yes? That seems like quite the hasty generalization to me.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This same kind of voodoo math was used by voucher proponents in California. It presupposes one unproven idea and completely ignores a couple of important facts.

You are pretending that private education does not exist. How can you honestly state that private education is unproven?



One important fact is that current private school students do not cost public schools any money at all. Not a penny. The first money that will come out of the public school budget will be the millions to pay out to current private school students that are not costing a dime. So long before any alleged gain made by the loss of a public school student to a private school is measured, the public system takes millions in dollars of loss.

What you are saying here is that public school must be funded at their current level.

Why?


The second fact is that the $7,500 figure is the average cost per student, not the cost per average student. Regular ol' Johnny and Janey Doe aren't costing $7,500 each. They are much cheaper to educate. It's the special needs students that drive up the costs: physically, mentally, emotionally handicapped, low income, and students with other special circumstances that may be as simple as needing a bus. It is these students, who we have rightly decided in our society to educate, that fuel a great deal of the costs to a public school district. Special education is expensive and it is considered part of that average cost per student.

Educate yourself on the boondoggle that is special education. I have personal experience in this area. You are being fooled.


The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most.


This is called creating a market.

Based on what you are saying here; Marconi should not have invented the radio because there was not an antenna market.

[Hindmost]

I never stated such.


What about this premise do you question?

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.


What evidence do you have that public schooling is a jobs program for low level college performers?

glenn

[Fordama]

You are pretending that private education does not exist. How can you honestly state that private education is unproven?Seeing how this statement seems to have absolutely nothing to do with my quoted text, I have no way to respond.


What you are saying here is that public school must be funded at their current level.

Why?What I said was that it is inaccurate to imply that this sort of voucher actually increases money available to public schools on a per student basis.

It seems as though you are replying with conclusions that are not related to my post.


Educate yourself on the boondoggle that is special education. I have personal experience in this area. You are being fooled.This is an empty statement. It makes the basic mistake that I am not educated on the issue, doesn't offer any specifics about the system. You may think that special education is some sort of "boondoggle," but the United States Office of Civil Rights takes it seriously.


This is called creating a market.You ignored what I wrote and used an unsupported conclusion as a response.

It seems as though you have thought that a discussion is simply the automatic gainsay of what I said. Well, in the spirit of The Argument Clinic:

Based on what you are saying here; Marconi should not have invented the radio because there was not an antenna market.No it doesn't.


Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes? That seems like quite the hasty generalization to me.

Do you have evidence that public school teachers were high level college performers?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What evidence do you have that public schooling is a jobs program for low level college performers?

glenn

I asked you what about the premise do you disagree with.

See; I need to know what it is that you disagree with to provide evidence of such.

[Rika]

Do you have evidence that public school teachers were high level college performers?

You make the assertion, you should back it up.

However, I can tell you my 11th grade Honors English teacher was teaching at Duke University and was pursuing his Doctorate.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Seeing how this statement seems to have absolutely nothing to do with my quoted text, I have no way to respond.

This statement illustrates that you do not understand what you yourself wrote.

What I said was that it is inaccurate to imply that this sort of voucher actually increases money available to public schools on a per student basis.

Why do you believe that the public school system has to be funded at current levels?


This is an empty statement. It makes the basic mistake that I am not educated on the issue, doesn't offer any specifics about the system. You may think that special education is some sort of "boondoggle," but the United States Office of Civil Rights takes it seriously.

The United States also allowed slavery. This does not make the governmnet correct.

You ignored what I wrote and used an unsupported conclusion as a response.

I responded to what you wrote. I am sorry if the words you write are not understood by you.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

However, I can tell you my 11th grade Honors English teacher was teaching at Duke University and was pursuing his Doctorate.

Anecdotal.

Who is paying for the degree? The public school system?

[Rika]

Then I await your proof, it is your assertion (Because incidently, I will note that you haven't backed up your statements)

(Oh, I was wrong, incidently. I meant my 12th grade AP teacher:

Charles Cobb, Ph.D. Bioinformatics and Genomics. in the High School Biology Curriculum. Southeast Raleigh High School,. Wake County Public Schools ...

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:RNdA2LwxrtIJ:www.ncsu.edu/kenanfellows/archive/KFP_Brochure_FINAL.pdf+%22Charles+Cobb%22+Ph.D+bio logy+southeast+raleigh&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera

(And assuming I was right about my 11th grade teacher.. umm.. yes? He gets paid by them, then pays it with his own money, it's possibly reasonable to assume the public school system is indirectly paying for it..)

[Fordama]

This statement illustrates that you do not understand what you yourself wrote. No, it illustrates that you didn't understand what I wrote.

Being magnanimous, I will assume my writing style was not adequate for getting my message across. Nowhere in my post did I say that private education was "unproven." I'm not sure how you read that into my post. What I said was that the idea that a voucher initiative would increase the per-student funding for public education is wrong. I said it was based on two factual issues and one unproven assumption. If you look at the structure of my post, I discussed the two factual issues plus the unproven assumption--which was that there would be a mass exodus of public school students to private schools.

It was not that private schools are unproven.

Why do you believe that the public school system has to be funded at current levels? Where did I say that I thought it did or did not? You are avoiding the issue that I posted about by bringing in issues that I wasn't addressing.


The United States also allowed slavery. This does not make the governmnet correct.Which again has nothing to do with what I said. Like it or not, public schools cannot break Federal law and educate all citizens. That skews the $7,500 dollar per student figure, and that is what I addressed and what you have ignored.


I responded to what you wrote. I am sorry if the words you write are not understood by you.Personally, I have not seen you address anything that I posted.

Fordama

[Rika]

Why do you believe that the public school system has to be funded at current levels?

Ideally more, but current if they reworked their testing and NCLB.


The United States also allowed slavery. This does not make the governmnet correct.

Bad attempt at equivocation.

[Hindmost]

I asked you what about the premise do you disagree with.

See; I need to know what it is that you disagree with to provide evidence of such.

At this point, I can only conclude that you have no evidence. You made a statement and I asked for evidence behind the statement. If you don't have any, it is just a strawman arguement. Now, if you provide me evidence that the public school system is a jobs program is for low-level performers, this discussion can continue.

I disagree that teachers are low level performers coming out of colleges.

glenn

[Fordama]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.I think that presidential campaigns have become jobs programs for low level college performers.

Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

(And assuming I was right about my 11th grade teacher.. umm.. yes? He gets paid by them, then pays it with his own money, it's possibly reasonable to assume the public school system is indirectly paying for it..)

Most school public school systems pay for further education for their employees.

This would be additional money the system pays out.

Circular funding.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

To be a secondary education teacher, you have to be a double major in both your subject area and in education.

Not easy.

You also have to keep taking classes to stay up to date when you do get a job over the summers.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fordama, what idea did you mean when you said "It presupposes one unproven idea..."?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ideally more, but current if they reworked their testing and NCLB.

This is a reasonable thought with which people can disagree.:)



Bad attempt at equivocation.

The ridiculousness of the equivocation was an intentional illustration of ridiculousness of the argument "the governmnet says it is good".

[Fordama]

It's hard to generalize about many of these subjects as different states have different systems. As far as I know, I have never heard of a school district actually paying tuition and costs for a teacher to get a master's degree or doctorate, but most do raise the pay of a teacher after they have acquired those degrees. That varies from district to district, though.

I'm not sure of how many states require a double-major. I know most require a bachelor's degree plus a one or two year post graduate program in order to become credentialed.

Fordama

[Rika]

He said 'society' and gave examples of governmental bodies that take it seriously, which is not quite the same

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To be a secondary education teacher, you have to be a double major in both your subject area and in education.

Not according to my sister-in law and my best friend; both of whom work in a very well funded public school system.


You also have to keep taking classes to stay up to date when you do get a job over the summers.

Who pays for those classes?

BTW: I know the answer.

[Fordama]

Fordama, what idea did you mean when you said "It presupposes one unproven idea..."?Hopefully this will clear up what I wrote in my original post:
Actually, no.

This same kind of voodoo math was used by voucher proponents in California. It presupposes one unproven idea and completely ignores a couple of important facts.

One important fact is that current private school students do not cost public schools any money at all. .....

The second fact is that the $7,500 figure is the average cost per student, not the cost per average student. ....


The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He said 'society' and gave examples of governmental bodies that take it seriously, which is not quite the same

Nope:

You may think that special education is some sort of "boondoggle," but the United States Office of Civil Rights takes it seriously.

[Fordama]

T

The ridiculousness of the equivocation was an intentional illustration of ridiculousness of the argument "the governmnet says it is good".
Umm, are you trying to assert that my argument was "the government says it is good" in my post?

Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hopefully this will clear up what I wrote in my original post:

So, the unproven idea that you reference is that students will leave the public school system for a private school?

Or, is it that the private system could not support the influx of students?


These both have proven results.



I am trying to honestly understand your position.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Umm, are you trying to assert that my argument was "the government says it is good" in my post?

Fordama

You discounted my phrase "boondoggle" with the evidence that the governmnet approves.

You had much better angles from which you could have attacked my phrase. The one you choose was weak.

[shuize]

There are some very bright public school teachers out there. My high school, for example, was pretty good. However, in one of my past jobs I worked at a juvenile court where I had the opportunity to review teacher written incident reports schools submitted to the court. Over the years, I'm sure I read hundreds and I can say without exaggeration that the vast majority were total crap. It was a rare day when one of these reports, formal documents which everyone knew would be kept on file, did not contain at least one spelling or grammatical error -- But if those were their only faults, they were still considered "good."

I still remember one of the first I read, before I realized it was a teacher's report, thinking to myself, "Man, this kid is f-cked. What's she ever going to do in life?" Then I realized she'd already found it. Unable to string a single sentence together, she was in charge of a group of kids who had no choice but to rely on her for an education.

But, yeah, vouchers are like really bad, Man.

[Fordama]

You discounted my phrase "boondoggle" with the evidence that the governmnet approves.No, I didn't. You attached meaning to my words that were not implied by what I actually wrote.

What I said was that the Feds take it seriously. This means that the schools have to take it seriously and must operate within guidelines, which cost money.

If you recall I was talking about the $7,500 per student cost and what would happen under a voucher system. You may not like special education, but what I was pointing out was that it doesn't matter as the Federal Government does and that is what has to count to responsible state and local bodies.

Your statement was simply an interjection of your personal feelings.

You had much better angles from which you could have attacked my phrase. The one you choose was weak.I was not "attacking" your phrase, simply pointing out that it has no bearing on the issue, which was the cost per student figure.

Fordama

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not according to my sister-in law and my best friend; both of whom work in a very well funded public school system.




Who pays for those classes?

BTW: I know the answer.

Well, should I trust me or someones sister-in law :rolleyes: ?

Also, the minimum GPA ia 2.5.

And if you know the answer, don't be a jerk, just say it.

Though from what I know, you pay for it. But the school increases your salary when you get more education.

[shuize]

There are some very bright public school teachers out there. My high school, for example, was pretty good. However, in one of my past jobs I worked at a juvenile court where I had the opportunity to review teacher written incident reports schools submitted to the court. Over the years, I'm sure I read hundreds and I can say without exaggeration that the vast majority were total crap. It was a rare day when one of these reports, formal documents which everyone knew would be kept on file, did not contain at least one spelling or grammatical error -- But if those were their only faults, they were still considered "good."

I still remember one of the first I read, before I realized it was a teacher's report, thinking to myself, "Man, this kid is f-cked. What's she ever going to do in life?" Then I realized she'd already found it. Unable to string a single sentence together, she was in charge of a group of kids who had no choice but to rely on her for an education.

But, yeah, vouchers are like really bad, Man.

[Fordama]

So, the unproven idea that you reference is that students will leave the public school system for a private school?

Or, is it that the private system could not support the influx of students?


These both have proven results.



I am trying to honestly understand your position.
I'm pretty sure that I am being clear:

"The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, should I trust me or someones sister-in law :rolleyes: ?


I know, I know.:o I will tell you this: I do not lie.

My best friend and my sister both are bright people and fully understand the system. They both openly admit that the system is poorly designed for the education of children. They also fully understand the advantages that they personally gain from the system. That is why they made public school teaching a career choice.



And if you know the answer, don't be a jerk, just say it.

Sorry, sometimes I can't help myself. :(

Though from what I know, you pay for it. But the school increases your salary when you get more education.

Most public school systems reimburse for extra schooling.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm pretty sure that I am being clear:

"The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most."

I am somewhat concerned that in an attempt to explain what you are saying you keep quoting yourself.



We have evidence that public school children DO go to private schools when vouchers are instituted.


Specifically; what unproven proposition are you arguing?

[Fordama]

I am somewhat concerned that in an attempt to explain what you are saying you keep quoting yourself.



We have evidence that public school children DO go to private schools when vouchers are instituted.


Specifically; what unproven proposition are you arguing?That lots of them--sizable enough to offset the loss of funding that would go to current private students--that would make voucher initiatives more money per student like some voucher proponents falsely claim.

Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That lots of them--sizable enough to offset the loss of funding that would go to current private students--that would make voucher initiatives more money per student like some voucher proponents falsely claim.

Fordama

This brings back the question: Why does the public school system have to continue to have the same amount of funding?

[LostAngeles]

Well, should I trust me or someones sister-in law :rolleyes: ?

Also, the minimum GPA ia 2.5.

And if you know the answer, don't be a jerk, just say it.

Though from what I know, you pay for it. But the school increases your salary when you get more education.

You are incorrect. In CA the standard for a public school teacher, elementary or secondary is a Bachelor's degree. In fact, there's a push to recruit people with math and science degrees to teach those very subjects. Teach for America takes anyone with a GPA greater than 2.5 with any degree. You are expected to earn a Master's however, but you can start teaching with a Bachelor's. For a grad school I see requirements of at least a 3.0 mostly.

A double major in education and anther subject is not necessarily necessary. Standards vary from state to state and country to country.

[jsfisher]

You are incorrect. In CA the standard for a public school teacher, elementary or secondary is a Bachelor's degree. In fact, there's a push to recruit people with math and science degrees to teach those very subjects. Teach for America takes anyone with a GPA greater than 2.5 with any degree. You are expected to earn a Master's however, but you can start teaching with a Bachelor's. For a grad school I see requirements of at least a 3.0 mostly.

A double major in education and anther subject is not necessarily necessary. Standards vary from state to state and country to country.

New York is similar, except the Masters degree is a requirement to continue teaching after 5 years, if I recall correctly.

[Fordama]

This brings back the question: Why does the public school system have to continue to have the same amount of funding?Good question, one worthy of its own thread I'd say.

However, was it the topic of this thread? I was under the impression that the topic had more to do with trying to discuss whether a ballot initiative for vouchers would actually bring more money to schools on a per-student basis.

That's the topic I have addressed.

Fordama

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You are incorrect. In CA the standard for a public school teacher, elementary or secondary is a Bachelor's degree. In fact, there's a push to recruit people with math and science degrees to teach those very subjects. Teach for America takes anyone with a GPA greater than 2.5 with any degree. You are expected to earn a Master's however, but you can start teaching with a Bachelor's. For a grad school I see requirements of at least a 3.0 mostly.

A double major in education and anther subject is not necessarily necessary. Standards vary from state to state and country to country.

Yes, they do vary depending on where you go. My info was just from my area.

[LostAngeles]

Yes, they do vary depending on where you go. My info was just from my area.

Not to be rude, but you really should have said that when you gave the info originally.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not to be rude, but you really should have said that when you gave the info originally.

Well, I figured it was common sense.

Except I hate that phrase...

You are being far too rude :p .

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, no.

This same kind of voodoo math was used by voucher proponents in California. It presupposes one unproven idea and completely ignores a couple of important facts.

One important fact is that current private school students do not cost public schools any money at all. Not a penny. The first money that will come out of the public school budget will be the millions to pay out to current private school students that are not costing a dime. So long before any alleged gain made by the loss of a public school student to a private school is measured, the public system takes millions in dollars of loss.

The second fact is that the $7,500 figure is the average cost per student, not the cost per average student. Regular ol' Johnny and Janey Doe aren't costing $7,500 each. They are much cheaper to educate. It's the special needs students that drive up the costs: physically, mentally, emotionally handicapped, low income, and students with other special circumstances that may be as simple as needing a bus. It is these students, who we have rightly decided in our society to educate, that fuel a great deal of the costs to a public school district. Special education is expensive and it is considered part of that average cost per student.

These special students aren't going to be the ones that will allegedly be transferring in droves to private schools because the private schools will charge those parents for the extra costs--far, far more than what vouchers pay for. So what will happen with all these alleged transfers is that the public school will be left with a higher percentage of students who are more expensive to educate. That $7,500 per student average would climb with the exodus of the lower costing students.

The unproven proposition is that lots of public school students would leave public schools for private schools. Where will the private schools that exist put them? I ask this because this, and every voucher idea I've seen, doesn't come close to financing new facilities. They certainly cannot finance new schools; property and construction costs dwarf any proposed voucher money. This is double true in urban areas where the public schools are struggling the most.

Let's not even go into the unproven proposition that a voucher system will actually cause and improvement in the education system to begin with!

Fordama

Yes...all you have to do is shriek "voodoo math!!! Voooooddoooooo mathhhhhhhhhh!!!" and that will make the very simple math involved here go away.

You are right, of course. This math is very simple and does not take into account things like "free" breakfast and lunch (about $7.00/day-per pupil where I live) or ESL bonuses (about $3-4000/year per pupil where I live). These funds would indeed NOT follow the kid whose parents take him/her to another school, so the math is indeed imperfect in this simplified form.

Talk about voodoo math...so let me see if I follow your arithmatic here:

$7,500
- 3,000
_______

New facilities cannot be financed.

Hmm....well, math has changed a bit since I went to school I guess.

So what allows districts to afford new schools now? Where I live, they passed a mil levy increase to pay for a new HS, a new MS and several new elems. even though demographic trends clearly indicate a current downward trend in children in the district....

The HS is filled, only because it is new and half the parents in the district want their kids to go there. Meanwhile, the new MS is filled to about 1/3 capacity (and building of new homes in the area has come to an utter dead stop...so don't look for it to gain population anytime soon, unless all the retired folks who live around this school get lots and lots of Viagra...). Two of the new elems are at something like 50% capacity, and I don't recall on the other one, but I sub at three different MS that are running at maybe 40-60% capacity.

Here's an idea for building new facilities: don't build to meet the demands in the district from 40 years ago, build to meet the demands of TODAY, and make sure you take into acount the drainoff of students to a voucher program if you are lucky enough to have one where you live.

Just a thought....probably demonstrates my utter ignorance of voodoo economics, huh?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

To be a secondary education teacher, you have to be a double major in both your subject area and in education.

Not easy.

You also have to keep taking classes to stay up to date when you do get a job over the summers.


LOL.

Do you have some evidence suggesting it's not easy?

The reason teachers do not emerge from their undergrad experience carrying a MA or MS is because everybody knows that the "education" requirements are a joke.

I took some ED classes in college...they are a joke. I had an exit-level "Children's Lit" class taught by a guy renowned around the world for his knowledge in this area. The class was about 40 strong (small city college, but the largest teacher ed school in my state). There was me, some sort of eng. student and a nursing student, and 37 "Education" students.

When asked to analyze the theme in a piece of kid-lit guess who in the class were the only students who even knew what literary theme means?

When I asked the prof about this, he gave me a dead-fish stare, shrugged and turned away.

Hmmm....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It's hard to generalize about many of these subjects as different states have different systems. As far as I know, I have never heard of a school district actually paying tuition and costs for a teacher to get a master's degree or doctorate, but most do raise the pay of a teacher after they have acquired those degrees. That varies from district to district, though.

I'm not sure of how many states require a double-major. I know most require a bachelor's degree plus a one or two year post graduate program in order to become credentialed.

Fordama

What's was typically req'd (pre-NCLB) was a 4-yr degree in any subject (allowing you to TEACH any subject), and 1-2 years (depending on how fast YOU could pound through it) in "Education." This is very, very different from gaining a MA/MS, by the way...with virtually none of the rigorous intellectual requirements.

Later, teachers have to take CE courses, most typically "taught" over the summer in resort areas (Boca Raton, FL had become an "education center" of sorts for this). Post NCLB, a teacher must have the "Ed" classes and a degree in their subject, which is good, by the way. Or better, not exactly good, I guess. Most Ed classes, by the way, at most American colleges are simply a means of determining whether the candidate "teacher" is sufficiently left-of-center ideologically to be a "fit" in the modern American classroom, and in fact in some Ed school, students must face a board that determines just this before being given their Ed creds.

Tokie

[Fordama]

Yes...all you have to do is shriek "voodoo math!!! Voooooddoooooo mathhhhhhhhhh!!!" and that will make the very simple math involved here go away.Okay, I'll just say "bad math" next time. No need to be colorful, I guess.

You are right, of course. This math is very simple and does not take into account things like "free" breakfast and lunch (about $7.00/day-per pupil where I live) or ESL bonuses (about $3-4000/year per pupil where I live). These funds would indeed NOT follow the kid whose parents take him/her to another school, so the math is indeed imperfect in this simplified form.And they would not stay with the school that he or she left so it is not part of the mythological "profit."

Talk about voodoo math...so let me see if I follow your arithmatic here:

$7,500
- 3,000
_______

New facilities cannot be financed.;Facilities are far more expensive than what a few thousand dollars per year bring in.

Hmm....well, math has changed a bit since I went to school I guess.No, but property values, construction costs, and liabilities have.

So what allows districts to afford new schools now? Where I live, they passed a mil levy increase to pay for a new HS, a new MS and several new elems. even though demographic trends clearly indicate a current downward trend in children in the district....Apparently this is some sort of anecdote. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic. Private schools won't be able to pass their own bond measures, so I don't see how that applies.


Just a thought....probably demonstrates my utter ignorance of voodoo economics, huh?
Actually, I said "voodoo math," but if you want to add your phrase, go ahead.

Fordama

[Tsukasa Buddha]

LOL.

Do you have some evidence suggesting it's not easy?

The reason teachers do not emerge from their undergrad experience carrying a MA or MS is because everybody knows that the "education" requirements are a joke.

I took some ED classes in college...they are a joke. I had an exit-level "Children's Lit" class taught by a guy renowned around the world for his knowledge in this area. The class was about 40 strong (small city college, but the largest teacher ed school in my state). There was me, some sort of eng. student and a nursing student, and 37 "Education" students.

When asked to analyze the theme in a piece of kid-lit guess who in the class were the only students who even knew what literary theme means?

When I asked the prof about this, he gave me a dead-fish stare, shrugged and turned away.

Hmmm....

Tokie

Your anecdotes, I simply cannot argue with them :rolleyes: .

I am the only Education major in my Elementary Number Theory class. Guess who scored highest on the test?

I am the only Education major in my American Politics class. Guess who scored the highest on the exam? The other people in the class couldn't even name the presidential candidates.

Hmmm...

(Being satirical, for those non-Education majors who didn't go to public school)

[Hindmost]

Let's see how this works.

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

This is a fairly comprehensive study on teacher education. Take a look at page 55.

glenn

[Fordama]

Not to mention that when it comes to elementary school education, the art of working with small children isn't necessarily a function of collegiate academic achievement. I sat in on a kindergarten class for a few days to observe--yikes! Somewhere along the second hour I distinctly remember thinking that I couldn't do this job in a million years! It was like having to herd cats, then having to teach them basic academic and social skills!

Fordama

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Let's see how this works.

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

This is a fairly comprehensive study on teacher education. Take a look at page 55.

glenn

Thanks for the article :) !

But don't you know that you have to argue in anecdotes?

[NobbyNobbs]

Public schooling has become a jobs program for the low level college performers.

I think that posting theories on forums without evidence to back them up has become a (low-paying) jobs program for the low level college high school performers.


And I'll bet I can find more evidence for my statement than you can for yours.

[Tokenconservative]

I think that posting theories on forums without evidence to back them up has become a (low-paying) jobs program for the low level college high school performers.


And I'll bet I can find more evidence for my statement than you can for yours.

I wonder why it is so necessary for apologists for or champions of the failed education system in the US to divert substantial discussions of the continuing failures of that system and the people in it. I wonder as well why they desperately, at any cost (the education of America's children be damned) divert any attention from the prominent role the "teachers" union(s) play in that failure.

I wonder why that is?

Tokie

[Fordama]

I wonder why it is so necessary for apologists for or champions of the failed education system in the US to divert substantial discussions of the continuing failures of that system and the people in it. I wonder as well why they desperately, at any cost (the education of America's children be damned) divert any attention from the prominent role the "teachers" union(s) play in that failure.

I wonder why that is?

TokieSeeing how others who apparently don't approve of the public school system have done the same, it seems unfair that you chide only one side.

Fordama

[NobbyNobbs]

I wonder why it is so necessary for apologists for or champions of the failed education system in the US to divert substantial discussions of the continuing failures of that system and the people in it. I wonder as well why they desperately, at any cost (the education of America's children be damned) divert any attention from the prominent role the "teachers" union(s) play in that failure.

I wonder why that is?

Tokie

May I refer you to this post?

Tokenconservative,

You have a remarkable talent for taking what could have been an interesting discussion (in this case, of teachers' unions and/or vouchers and/or the American public school system) and pre-poisoning it out of existence. Well done.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Let's see how this works.

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

This is a fairly comprehensive study on teacher education. Take a look at page 55.

glenn

Are you sure you reviewed your link prior to posting?

Here are a couple of quotes from your suggested page 55:

While many education students are not academically strong, the picture is far more complex than is usually portrayed.

Aspiring elementary education teachers were among the poorest performers on the exam, scoring almost 100 points below the national average.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that posting theories on forums without evidence to back them up has become a (low-paying) jobs program for the low level college high school performers.


Are you attacking the argument or the arguer?

And I'll bet I can find more evidence for my statement than you can for yours.


I will take that bet.

[Hindmost]

Are you sure you reviewed your link prior to posting?

Here are a couple of quotes from your suggested page 55:




A study by the Educational Testing Service and the American College Testing Program took a different approach to analyzing the academic quality of teacher education students. They looked at the SAT and ACT scores of intended education majors who passed the Praxis I exam of basic skills, which is increasingly a requirement for entry into education schools. The study found that the group passing Praxis I had higher SAT scores overall on both the math and verbal tests than the national average. On the ACT, the group did better overall and, on the English portion of the exam, better than the national average, but performed slightly less well in math.




The ETS/ACT study went on to compare the SAT scores of education majors who passed the Praxis II exam in subject mastery (required by some education schools for graduation and many states for teacher licensure) with those of college graduates generally. On this measure, aspiring secondary teachers overall had scores that were comparable to those of all college graduates.


If you are truly interested in an exchange here, I will continue--however, hasty generalizations or cherry picked statements are not reasonable.

If you look at the report, the statements above are in direct oppostion to what you posted. It definitely shows teachers are in line with other students. Now, elementary teachers are lower...I consider this an issue as it would tend to limit science and math instruction at an early age...which is a problem with US education. How do you get high performing people to teach elementary ed? As in a previous post, there is a lot more to teaching elementary school than grades on standardized tests. Getting good math and science teachers in middle schools is also difficult.


glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you are truly interested in an exchange here, I will continue--however, hasty generalizations or cherry picked statements are not reasonable.

I presented the highlighted text from the report you posted. This is certainly not cherry-picking. Unless you are contenting that the author was cherry-picking?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you look at the report, the statements above are in direct oppostion to what you posted. It definitely shows teachers are in line with other students. Now, elementary teachers are lower...I consider this an issue as it would tend to limit science and math instruction at an early age...which is a problem with US education. How do you get high performing people to teach elementary ed? As in a previous post, there is a lot more to teaching elementary school than grades on standardized tests. Getting good math and science teachers in middle schools is also difficult.
glenn


Are you here admitting that elementary school teachers score lower than the average student?

Are you admitting here that public middle schools do not have large amounts of "good" science and math teachers?

[Hindmost]

I presented the highlighted text from the report you posted. This is certainly not cherry-picking. Unless you are contenting that the author was cherry-picking?

Actually, picking that one point that supports your position is the definition of cherry picking.

glenn

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, picking that one point that supports your position is the definition of cherry picking.

glenn

So, are you saying that the author highlighted that text because the author supported my point?

[Hindmost]

Are you here admitting that elementary school teachers score lower than the average student?

Are you admitting here that public middle schools do not have large amounts of "good" science and math teachers?

Yes, it is something of an issue--but it very much depends on the district and the state. Middle school is difficult to teach and many teachers would rather teach high school. Some of them can't make the qualifications to teach high school and end up relegated to middle school. The teachers that do enjoy it are incredible if you ask me. I wouldn't even attempt to teach middle school.

In parts of the Northeast, tons of teachers want to teach elementary school. A good school district will get hundreds of applications for a single position. As a result, the schools can be very selective.

glenn

[Hindmost]

So, are you saying that the author highlighted that text because the author supported my point?

this is getting tedious. If you read a report on airbags in cars and the only thing you point to is the deaths that have occurred from air bags, then that is cherry picking data. The overwhelming benefit of air bags would be masked. The single statement you highlited is not the whole point of that report--the overwhelming data showed teachers are in line on standardized tests with other students graduating college with that particular exception.

glenn

[jsfisher]

Are you sure you reviewed your link prior to posting?

Here are a couple of quotes from your suggested page 55:
Aspiring elementary education teachers were among the poorest performers on the exam, scoring almost 100 points below the national average.

Bolding mine. "The exam" in question is the SAT. A dirty little secret I am led to believe is generally true (but at least so for the university with which I am associated) is that SAT scores are poorly correlated to academic performance in college.

By the way, I am not sure with this particular line of argument is all that important. Mastery of college level "academic" subjects is not really the point for most of public school teachers, now is it? Far more important for most grade levels are dedication to and enthusiasm for teaching and competence with pedagogical methods.

...and none of that gets reflected in SAT or ACT scores.

[Fordama]

I like the way that this thread has been diverted from its original topic to the truly meaningless issue of the test scores of elementary school teachers. Brilliant move to take the focus away from the false premise of the entire thread.

Fordama

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Is there anyone in this forum with the intellectual honesty to take a look at this thread and tell me if they notice anything...unusual about any of the arguments/rebutals/responses posted?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Hello?

Is this thing on?
They are pro teacher union?

[genesplicer]

I oppose the use of vouchers for several simple reasons.

1. Money is diverted away from public schools that are already underfunded. If they passed vouchers here in California, even if no kids left the public school, we would take a 15% hit to our budget, just to cover those kids already in private schools.

2. People mentioned earlier that there seems to be a discrepancy, where the schools would still get some money after the vouchers were paid out. Not so. Our school does not get funding based on potential students, we get funding based on actual students. That's why taking roll and dealing with truancy is so important. If we have a day where lots of kids are absent, we lose funding because they were out. This is called ADA "Average Daily Attendance". Less kids equals less funding. Then they would take the vouchers out of the funding, reducing our funds even more. To give you an idea about how our funding is right now, let's look at my department budget. This is the science department. Our discretionary budget (to buy things like microscopes, dissection specimens, copy paper, pens and such) is $600. That's for the whole year, for 6 teachers... Imagine what we can do with that. And imagine what we could do if they took 20% or so from it.

3. The way the most voucher laws are written, any parent can claim to be a "Private School" and receive funding for homeschooling their own kids.

4. Most private schools are religious in nature and have a religious education component. I oppose my tax dollars supporting religious education.

5. There is no accountability set up for private schools. They are exempt from all the accreditation we have to go through, as well as all mandated testing.

As for teacher education levels, I know that districts encourage their teachers to continue their educations. I have my master's degree, as does my wife. As for districts paying for it, that is not common. My degree cost me $12,000. My district gave me a bonus of $750. Woo hoo. I do get a pay raise, but it will take several years to make back the money I have spent...

Am I pro-union. Absolutely. I understand what would happen if we did not have a contract with the district. The demands on our time are constantly being increased. If there was no contract, I am sure we would be forced to work late after school every day, and would be threatened with termination for even minor infractions.

Just my $.02, but what do I know? I've only been a teacher for 16 years.

[bluess]

For a variety of reasons, we are homeschooling Blue2. However, I want tax dollars to continue to go into the public school system. Our future depends on educating our children. The better our public schools, where most children are educated, the better off we will all be in the future. Why should Blue2's very bright friends who are in public school have LESS of a chance at a good education because we chose to homeschool our daughter?

[Hindmost]

We're told that everything the teachers and their union do is "for the children!"

Seems that's exactly the case in Utah as the union does yeomanlike work and spends millions to make sure that the vote to reaffirm Utah's highly successful voucher program goes the "right" way.

As George Will (Wash Post) puts it, "(in Utah), teearshe unions, whose idea o progress is preservation of the status qo, are waging an expensive and meretricious campaign to overturn the right of parents to choose among competing schools, public and private, for the best education for their children."

Will, apparently, does not know that teachers, and educrats, not parents know what's best for our children.

As they always do, the unions in Utah are shrieking that every child removed from the public roll via Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act is a net loss in revenue for the schools, which of course means the public schools are being impoverished.

But wait...the "teachers" seem not to have employed any of those skilled in math in their calculations for it seems that in Utah (as in every other attempt at vouchers in the US) only a PORTION, and at that a SMALL portion of the total per-head $$ that goes to the public school for each student, is ciphoned off for the parents' chosen school, To wit: depending upon income, a voucher in the Utah system will range in dollar value from $500 to $3000 (USD).

But Utah spends $7,500 on each pupil, according to Will. Hmmm...let's see if we can all do the math together...are there any in here who were privately or home-schooled who can oversee our calculations?

$7,500
- 500
______
$7,000

or

7,500
-
3000
_____
$4,500

Now I'm no economist or accountant and as many in here are eager to point up, I was educated publicaly, and went to a lousy college where I didn't even have to take a math class, so I COULD be wrong, but it seems to me that LOGICALLY, if you take a kid out of a school, that kid no longer represents a COST to that school to educate him or her.

But the schools in this case (and every voucher proposal nationwide) would still get at minimum, $4,500 for a kid who is not there using the bathroom, not there taking up the teacher's valuable internet surfing time, not there wearing out the carpet or making the janitor cleanup his spitwads.

By any rational economic model, the absense of a net cost to a school (pupil) while that school retains at minimum (and more often most of) more than half the per-pupil dollars it recieves, would represent a net gain--a surplus in fact, to the school. It's as if you had a business and for each client you lost, you retained more than 1/2 of the $ that client used to spend with you...why wouldn't you just chase away all your clients, retain half your income but none of the work!?

But teachers and other liberals do this math differently, it appears and are spending millions in advertising in Utah to decry this system, claiming that it in fact represents a net economic LOSS to the schools and is thereby impoverishing further the "poor" children left behind in what we are told are, overcrowded schools that would only also profit educationally by a lower student-to-teacher ratio.

It's all very confusing to we, the unwashed and uneducated in the public, but apparently makes perfect sense to teachers and educrats.

Just remember: it's for the children!

Tokie

Is there anyone in this forum with the intellectual honesty to take a look at this thread and tell me if they notice anything...unusual about any of the arguments/rebutals/responses posted?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

I didn't think the OP was serious as it was not written with a professional tone. It appeared to be another rant against teachers and teachers unions. However, I am willing to be clobbered by you once more--but you will have to read the stuff in the links I post and you have told me before that you do not do so.

First, vouchers have been around for longer than most people realize. Milwaukee's program is one of the standards. However, it has shown that the results--after 17 years are mixed and some cases there have been absolute abuses. One of the problems with private schools is there is no accountability. This has lead to some misuse of funds and other issues...please read the articles.

Private school students don't have to take state mandated tests, don't have open record requirements, don't have to have certified teachers. In milwaukee, the private schools stopped giving out achievement info after the first year since they didn't have to. It has made comparisons difficult. However, if one is going to advocate how great vouchers are, they should be willing to back it with statistics and that doesn't seem to be the case. I think it is reasonable to have mandated releasing of all achievement scores of private schools accepting voucher students. I also think they should take state or federally mandated tests. If you are doing a better job, then it shouldn't even be an issue. There is also some evidence that middle class students that would have gone to private schools with or without vouchers are now able to use public funds.

The two articles here are informative. The first one from the Salt lake tribune has some interesting points.


http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7300227

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0523/p01s03-usgn.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0523/p01s03-usgn.html)

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/voucher_report/v_vouc182.shtml This site is against vouchers, but this issue here is still a problem. Certain special needs students can get left behind by the voucher program.

As far as cost in concerned. Schools have a baseline fixed cost just like every other business or agency...heating, electricity, school programs, infrastructure, salaries etc. Taking a portion of the money and giving it to private schools will certainly have an impact. Removing enough students to close some schools down wouldn't really be an issue if it was done on an even basis,i.e., shut down one of two elementary schools and layoff all the teachers and staff from that school. However, losing some students from a school district would just reduce funds and not have any impact on the staffing and fixed costs associated with running the school. Depending on each district, this would be an issue. Appling voucher inequitably across school districts would almost be impossible.

There is a move to have more accountability in Milwaukee. The following links show the problems associated with some voucher schools:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418063

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418193

Obviously the jury is still out...however after 17-18 years in Milwaukee, there appears to be no tangible benefits. Since that is almost a generation, I think that should be sufficient time to be able to determine efficacy. I personally see no benefit overall.

OK...shields up...I'm ready.

glenn

[shuize]

Yes, it is something of an issue--but it very much depends on the district and the state. Middle school is difficult to teach and many teachers would rather teach high school. Some of them can't make the qualifications to teach high school and end up relegated to middle school. The teachers that do enjoy it are incredible if you ask me. I wouldn't even attempt to teach middle school.

In parts of the Northeast, tons of teachers want to teach elementary school. A good school district will get hundreds of applications for a single position. As a result, the schools can be very selective.

glenn


I've posted this anecdote before, but I really wonder about "teachers" who can't make the qualifications. Years ago I knew someone who was relocating from overseas and had to be re-certified. She was very stressed about the state exam. At first I thought how unfair it was to make such a nice lady with so much experience working overseas have to re-qualify. Then I read the math portion that was giving her so much trouble:

2x+1 = 5 Solve for x

Sorry. If you can't solve that equation in under 5 seconds you have no business graduating high school much less standing up in front of a classroom of students.

I'd be willing to write it off as an anomaly except, as I mentioned above, I've seen hundreds of reports since then written by licensed "teachers" who could barely spell their own names.

[jsfisher]

genesplicer,

As I read your post, it seems less about vouchers than about broken school funding mechanisms. If those defects could be remedied, would you be more amenable to vouchers?

I oppose the use of vouchers for several simple reasons.

1. Money is diverted away from public schools that are already underfunded. If they passed vouchers here in California, even if no kids left the public school, we would take a 15% hit to our budget, just to cover those kids already in private schools.

In California, how are the schools funded? Is it by locally-decided property taxes with state and federal subsidies, or more directly from the state, or what?

2. People mentioned earlier that there seems to be a discrepancy, where the schools would still get some money after the vouchers were paid out. Not so. Our school does not get funding based on potential students, we get funding based on actual students. That's why taking roll and dealing with truancy is so important. If we have a day where lots of kids are absent, we lose funding because they were out. This is called ADA "Average Daily Attendance". Less kids equals less funding. Then they would take the vouchers out of the funding, reducing our funds even more. To give you an idea about how our funding is right now, let's look at my department budget. This is the science department. Our discretionary budget (to buy things like microscopes, dissection specimens, copy paper, pens and such) is $600. That's for the whole year, for 6 teachers... Imagine what we can do with that. And imagine what we could do if they took 20% or so from it.

In my state, I believe the average daily attendance figures apply only to federal funding. Is California across the board?

3. The way the most voucher laws are written, any parent can claim to be a "Private School" and receive funding for homeschooling their own kids.

Why is this a bad thing?

4. Most private schools are religious in nature and have a religious education component. I oppose my tax dollars supporting religious education.

Yep, that is a problem.

5. There is no accountability set up for private schools. They are exempt from all the accreditation we have to go through, as well as all mandated testing.

This could be fixed without too much difficulty.

As for teacher education levels, I know that districts encourage their teachers to continue their educations. I have my master's degree, as does my wife. As for districts paying for it, that is not common. My degree cost me $12,000. My district gave me a bonus of $750. Woo hoo. I do get a pay raise, but it will take several years to make back the money I have spent...

In my state, the master's degree is a requirement for a permanent teaching certificate.

Am I pro-union. Absolutely. I understand what would happen if we did not have a contract with the district. The demands on our time are constantly being increased. If there was no contract, I am sure we would be forced to work late after school every day, and would be threatened with termination for even minor infractions.

Just my $.02, but what do I know? I've only been a teacher for 16 years.

I will not butt heads with you on the union issue, at least not in this thread. Vouchers are far more interesting to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now I'm no economist or accountant and as many in here are eager to point up, I was educated publicaly, and went to a lousy college where I didn't even have to take a math class, so I COULD be wrong, but it seems to me that LOGICALLY, if you take a kid out of a school, that kid no longer represents a COST to that school to educate him or her.
But the kid certainly doesn't represent a savings of the total $7,500, either. What are you going to do, lay off 15% of a teacher or heat the buildings a bit less? Also note that if two kids swap public schools, it doesn't matter how much money follows the kids and how much stays (on average).

The real question is what happens when a bunch of kids opt out to private schools. I have no idea.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why is this a bad thing?
Because then public money is going to fund parents teaching their kids religion and intelligent design.

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I oppose the use of vouchers for several simple reasons.

1. Money is diverted away from public schools that are already underfunded. If they passed vouchers here in California, even if no kids left the public school, we would take a 15% hit to our budget, just to cover those kids already in private schools.

Do you have evidence that the schools are underfunded?

2. People mentioned earlier that there seems to be a discrepancy, where the schools would still get some money after the vouchers were paid out. Not so. Our school does not get funding based on potential students, we get funding based on actual students. That's why taking roll and dealing with truancy is so important. If we have a day where lots of kids are absent, we lose funding because they were out. This is called ADA "Average Daily Attendance". Less kids equals less funding. Then they would take the vouchers out of the funding, reducing our funds even more. To give you an idea about how our funding is right now, let's look at my department budget. This is the science department. Our discretionary budget (to buy things like microscopes, dissection specimens, copy paper, pens and such) is $600. That's for the whole year, for 6 teachers... Imagine what we can do with that. And imagine what we could do if they took 20% or so from it.

Why should a school get funding for children it is not teaching?



3. The way the most voucher laws are written, any parent can claim to be a "Private School" and receive funding for homeschooling their own kids.

What business is it of yours how parents choose to teach their children?

4. Most private schools are religious in nature and have a religious education component. I oppose my tax dollars supporting religious education.

Many are secular. If public schooling did not use some much of the resources there most probably would be many more.

5. There is no accountability set up for private schools. They are exempt from all the accreditation we have to go through, as well as all mandated testing.

There is accountability. The parents can FIRE the school if the school is not educating their children.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because then public money is going to fund parents teaching their kids religion and intelligent design.

~~ Paul

Where did that money come from Paul?

Are you claiming that the governmnet has a right to take a parents money and then mandate what to teach their child?

[Rika]

Strangely, yes. It does.

Establishment of civil rights

The civil rights provisions of the ordinance foreshadowed the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Many of the concepts and guarantees of the Ordinance of 1787 were incorporated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the Northwest Territory, various legal and property rights were enshrined, religious tolerance was proclaimed, and it was enunciated that since "Religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." The right of habeas corpus was written into the charter, as was freedom of religious worship and bans on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury and a ban on ex post facto laws were also rights granted.

(Northwest Ordance, passed 1787.)

ETA: Also, public schools have their currcula often set at the local level. Where, you know, parents can vote on it. Your objection is disingeous, at best.

[jsfisher]

Because then public money is going to fund parents teaching their kids religion and intelligent design.

~~ Paul

That gets back to the teaching standards and testing issues, not whether vouchers should be available to cover home-schooling costs.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The funding system in the US is so fricking complex and varied, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to vouchers if there was more funding reform.

In my state, it is required that the state provide a majority of the funding for schools.

Of course, this has been interpreted as being a plurality as opposed to a majority. So the state provides ~20%, the feds 10%. This leads to wide variation in the funding of schools in different class neighborhoods.

The problem I have with the "simple" math given by the voucher supporter here is that the system is so much more ridiculously complex.

The funding is why I am skeptical of most wide-spread educational reform.

In other countries, the funding is centralized, IIRC.

[Hindmost]

I oppose the use of vouchers for several simple reasons.

1. Money is diverted away from public schools that are already underfunded. If they passed vouchers here in California, even if no kids left the public school, we would take a 15% hit to our budget, just to cover those kids already in private schools.

2. People mentioned earlier that there seems to be a discrepancy, where the schools would still get some money after the vouchers were paid out. Not so. Our school does not get funding based on potential students, we get funding based on actual students. That's why taking roll and dealing with truancy is so important. If we have a day where lots of kids are absent, we lose funding because they were out. This is called ADA "Average Daily Attendance". Less kids equals less funding. Then they would take the vouchers out of the funding, reducing our funds even more. To give you an idea about how our funding is right now, let's look at my department budget. This is the science department. Our discretionary budget (to buy things like microscopes, dissection specimens, copy paper, pens and such) is $600. That's for the whole year, for 6 teachers... Imagine what we can do with that. And imagine what we could do if they took 20% or so from it.

3. The way the most voucher laws are written, any parent can claim to be a "Private School" and receive funding for homeschooling their own kids.

4. Most private schools are religious in nature and have a religious education component. I oppose my tax dollars supporting religious education.

5. There is no accountability set up for private schools. They are exempt from all the accreditation we have to go through, as well as all mandated testing.

As for teacher education levels, I know that districts encourage their teachers to continue their educations. I have my master's degree, as does my wife. As for districts paying for it, that is not common. My degree cost me $12,000. My district gave me a bonus of $750. Woo hoo. I do get a pay raise, but it will take several years to make back the money I have spent...

Am I pro-union. Absolutely. I understand what would happen if we did not have a contract with the district. The demands on our time are constantly being increased. If there was no contract, I am sure we would be forced to work late after school every day, and would be threatened with termination for even minor infractions.

Just my $.02, but what do I know? I've only been a teacher for 16 years.

Excellent post. Many cannot believe such things when looking from the outside. I can remember the look on my principal's face when I asked for $400 to buy some lab equipment...it was as if I asked for a bucket of gold. Somehow, she came up with the money.

Your Item 3...with no accountability, there have been some horrible abuses of the voucher system.

your item 4...I agree, but the supreme court has ruled against that particular item.

Your item 5...As I said in my post, private schools should be held to the same standard and should have to open their records to the public if they are going to accept any money. (but I actually oppose vouchers as they are ineffective and hurt public schools.

glenn

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where did that money come from Paul?

Are you claiming that the governmnet has a right to take a parents money and then mandate what to teach their child with that money? [clarification mine]
Indeed they do. If you don't like that, you can get the laws changed. Or refuse to pay your taxes.


That gets back to the teaching standards and testing issues, not whether vouchers should be available to cover home-schooling costs.
By all means, if you can assure me that my taxes aren't funding violations of church/state separation, then I will withdraw my objection.

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

But the kid certainly doesn't represent a savings of the total $7,500, either. What are you going to do, lay off 15% of a teacher or heat the buildings a bit less? Also note that if two kids swap public schools, it doesn't matter how much money follows the kids and how much stays (on average).

The real question is what happens when a bunch of kids opt out to private schools. I have no idea.

~~ Paul

Hmmm...I guess I was not clear in my figures.

Let's say the school recieves $7,500 (USD) per pupil. With a voucher, the pupil would take, let's say, (a maximum of) $3,000 with him/her/other to a private school. Yes, while that would mean a net "loss" of $3,000 to the schoo, it also means that the pupil is not there using up any of the remainder ($4,000) which is more than that pupil is taking away.

So, the school retains the lion's share of the per-pupil cost of "educating" a student, even when that student is not there.

I guess I don't understand how a student who is not there, but who has left behind more than half the money that accompanies him/her is costing the school anything.'

Please explain?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

For a variety of reasons, we are homeschooling Blue2. However, I want tax dollars to continue to go into the public school system. Our future depends on educating our children. The better our public schools, where most children are educated, the better off we will all be in the future. Why should Blue2's very bright friends who are in public school have LESS of a chance at a good education because we chose to homeschool our daughter?

And yours is by far the more typical perspective than is the monstershouting one typically presented by the schools and the union, that you are in fact, a raving, rightwing "fundie" evangelical Christian (a nifty trick if you happen to be a Jew, Muslim or atheist, eh?) who lives in a secluded compound in remote Montana and wants to homeschool so that your blonde, blue-eyed Aryan child will not be subjected to those of other races and ethnicities, and so that you can make sure he or she remains utterly ignorant of things like sex, homosexuality, and how to dress like a slut.

You are DAMAGING your child by doing this, they will (and no doubt have) told you...she will wind up a racist, sexist, homophobe unable to function outside your very narrow little sect, not that she'll need to, being as how you are training her to be only a baby factory, barefoot and pregant, locked away in the house wainting for her brutish, evangelical Christian husband to come home and adminster the beating she so very much needs.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I oppose the use of vouchers for several simple reasons.

1. Money is diverted away from public schools that are already underfunded. If they passed vouchers here in California, even if no kids left the public school, we would take a 15% hit to our budget, just to cover those kids already in private schools.

2. People mentioned earlier that there seems to be a discrepancy, where the schools would still get some money after the vouchers were paid out. Not so. Our school does not get funding based on potential students, we get funding based on actual students. That's why taking roll and dealing with truancy is so important. If we have a day where lots of kids are absent, we lose funding because they were out. This is called ADA "Average Daily Attendance". Less kids equals less funding. Then they would take the vouchers out of the funding, reducing our funds even more. To give you an idea about how our funding is right now, let's look at my department budget. This is the science department. Our discretionary budget (to buy things like microscopes, dissection specimens, copy paper, pens and such) is $600. That's for the whole year, for 6 teachers... Imagine what we can do with that. And imagine what we could do if they took 20% or so from it.

3. The way the most voucher laws are written, any parent can claim to be a "Private School" and receive funding for homeschooling their own kids.

4. Most private schools are religious in nature and have a religious education component. I oppose my tax dollars supporting religious education.

5. There is no accountability set up for private schools. They are exempt from all the accreditation we have to go through, as well as all mandated testing.

As for teacher education levels, I know that districts encourage their teachers to continue their educations. I have my master's degree, as does my wife. As for districts paying for it, that is not common. My degree cost me $12,000. My district gave me a bonus of $750. Woo hoo. I do get a pay raise, but it will take several years to make back the money I have spent...

Am I pro-union. Absolutely. I understand what would happen if we did not have a contract with the district. The demands on our time are constantly being increased. If there was no contract, I am sure we would be forced to work late after school every day, and would be threatened with termination for even minor infractions.

Just my $.02, but what do I know? I've only been a teacher for 16 years.

Are you a shill for the union and the schools?

Serious question.

1. What schools are underfunded? Some very rural American schools may be. per-pupil expenditures where I live (HS level) are about $8k/head. The privates here do a much better job of educating kids at about $5k/head. Given, they don't have to deal with special needs kids as the publics do, and I understand that. But there it is, anyway. Publics are not underfunded, the money that goes to them is wasted. On top of the $8 k, by the way, they get another $3k for anyone they can put into an ESL class...which is why they tried to put my nephew, 1/2-blooded Choctaw into one.

2. Your math is exactly the problem...you either can't or won't understand these very simple equations, or believe that if the union says it's true, even if your calculator says something else, the union must be right. If no kids leave the school, on any voucher system I've ever heard of and the way it works in Utah, then no MONEY leaves the school either...not 15%, not 5%...0%, actually.

3. True. A kid who NEVER attends PS would be a net loss to you. So tell me...if that kid attends a private school entirely on his parents' dime, how much do you get? The Utah plan, like any other voucher plan, only applies to kids being taken OUT of a PS and moved to a private. Given, what many parents of private schooled kids do, is put their kid in the public for whatever proscribed time is required, then move them back, but by far, the vast majority of kids being moved to privates have already been in Publics (hmmm....you should think about that)...so their money stays in the public so long as they stay in the district. You need to work on your math AND your reading comprehension. I hope this sort of sloppiness does not show itself in your teaching.

4. No, that's what monstershouters in the union and the school CLAIM, but it's simply not true. Schools still have to be accredited, by the state. Do you (or any other shill in here) have proof that Billy Bob and Bertha have set up a Skool and are sucking in tens of thousands while letting their "students" watch Oprah all day long? While you are at it, why not offer some proof that most parents are so stupid and care so little about their kids they'd send them to such a school. Of course, being a "teacher" you "know" that most parents are stupid...even the ones who graduated from the same university you did, only with 4.0 and higher GPA in things like math, science, business, law, medicine, etc...

5. And many parents would love to send their kids to a secular private, but most of those cost $20k + a year. The market would respond to this, and has in Utah, where non-religious private schools that cost something more reasonable have sprung up to meet the need...you don't believe in the free market, so you don't understand this.

6. Wrong again. Very few privates are non-accredited. I don't believe any states allow this. Even those states that allow for home-schooling vet the parents and demand yearly or bi-yearly testing and a final, state-administered test for graduation. Do you know anything about this or do you just parrot the union cant?

Your 16 years have taught you to toe the union line, but little else.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Strangely, yes. It does.



(Northwest Ordance, passed 1787.)

ETA: Also, public schools have their currcula often set at the local level. Where, you know, parents can vote on it. Your objection is disingeous, at best.


Yes, that's the model. In practice it is of course quite a different reality.

Typically, teachers and educrats set the curriculum, and while this often looks good on paper it is rarely (winky-winky!) carried out in the classroom where our kids have been being expected to do less and less and less, in response to the dumbing-down of the teachers themselves.

Soon, our kids will be getting huzzahs and hallelujahs (well, maybe not that last) for rolling over and sitting up...as a graduation requirement.

Tokie

[Rika]

Yes, that's the model. In practice it is of course quite a different reality.

Typically, teachers and educrats set the curriculum, and while this often looks good on paper it is rarely (winky-winky!) carried out in the classroom where our kids have been being expected to do less and less and less, in response to the dumbing-down of the teachers themselves.

Soon, our kids will be getting huzzahs and hallelujahs (well, maybe not that last) for rolling over and sitting up...as a graduation requirement.

Tokie

Got any proof for this asseration? Seriously, put up or shut up.

. What schools are underfunded? Some very rural American schools may be. per-pupil expenditures where I live (HS level) are about $8k/head. The privates here do a much better job of educating kids at about $5k/head. Given, they don't have to deal with special needs kids as the publics do, and I understand that. But there it is, anyway. Publics are not underfunded, the money that goes to them is wasted. On top of the $8 k, by the way, they get another $3k for anyone they can put into an ESL class...which is why they tried to put my nephew, 1/2-blooded Choctaw into one.Hmm. Let's see. I dunno. How about this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec04/underfunded_7-19.html

2. Your math is exactly the problem...you either can't or won't understand these very simple equations, or believe that if the union says it's true, even if your calculator says something else, the union must be right. If no kids leave the school, on any voucher system I've ever heard of and the way it works in Utah, then no MONEY leaves the school either...not 15%, not 5%...0%, actually.Schools are funded per student, based on the district. And if they don't go, they actually lose some funding.

3. True. A kid who NEVER attends PS would be a net loss to you. So tell me...if that kid attends a private school entirely on his parents' dime, how much do you get? The Utah plan, like any other voucher plan, only applies to kids being taken OUT of a PS and moved to a private. Given, what many parents of private schooled kids do, is put their kid in the public for whatever proscribed time is required, then move them back, but by far, the vast majority of kids being moved to privates have already been in Publics (hmmm....you should think about that)...so their money stays in the public so long as they stay in the district. You need to work on your math AND your reading comprehension. I hope this sort of sloppiness does not show itself in your teaching.And he still loses money.

4. No, that's what monstershouters in the union and the school CLAIM, but it's simply not true. Schools still have to be accredited, by the state. Do you (or any other shill in here) have proof that Billy Bob and Bertha have set up a Skool and are sucking in tens of thousands while letting their "students" watch Oprah all day long? While you are at it, why not offer some proof that most parents are so stupid and care so little about their kids they'd send them to such a school. Of course, being a "teacher" you "know" that most parents are stupid...even the ones who graduated from the same university you did, only with 4.0 and higher GPA in things like math, science, business, law, medicine, etc...Right, right. Hasty generalization much? This entire point doesn't even address it, except cursorily, and.. proof the accredited comment?

5. And many parents would love to send their kids to a secular private, but most of those cost $20k + a year. The market would respond to this, and has in Utah, where non-religious private schools that cost something more reasonable have sprung up to meet the need...you don't believe in the free market, so you don't understand this.You know, we might take you seriously if you didn't say such things. Okay. Proof? (This is a skeptics board, actually take the time to proof your statements.)

Wrong again. Very few privates are non-accredited. I don't believe any states allow this. Even those states that allow for home-schooling vet the parents and demand yearly or bi-yearly testing and a final, state-administered test for graduation. Do you know anything about this or do you just parrot the union cant?Accredited by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_Oklahoma#Schools_Accred ited_by_the_Association_of_Christian_Schools_Inter national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_Oklahoma#Schools_Accred ited_by_the_Association_of_Christian_Schools_Inter national)

? I hope not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I guess I don't understand how a student who is not there, but who has left behind more than half the money that accompanies him/her is costing the school anything.'

Please explain?
The student costs the school money because the school budgeted as if the student would be there. When the student leaves, there is no practical way that the school can reduce the budget by 15% of a teacher, 10% of a room, or an hour's worth of heating oil per month.

Taking the full $7,500 away from the school when a handful of students leave would completely screw up the budget. I realize that you may not care about that, but I don't think it's the state's goal to screw up the school systems, but to improve them.

If many students opt to change schools, then the budgets will have to be recalibrated. I'm not sure how that would work. The entire program sounds like a mess to me.

We just had the annual auction for our town's public grade and middle schools. We raised over $70,000. Clearly there is great disparity in the degree to which townspeople like their schools.

~~ Paul

[Fordama]

As expected, voucher initiative goes down in flames.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7392263

Not surprising given the socioeconomics and Mormon influenced culture of Utah.

Fordama

[bluess]

And yours is by far the more typical perspective than is the monstershouting one typically presented by the schools and the union, that you are in fact, a raving, rightwing "fundie" evangelical Christian (a nifty trick if you happen to be a Jew, Muslim or atheist, eh?) who lives in a secluded compound in remote Montana and wants to homeschool so that your blonde, blue-eyed Aryan child will not be subjected to those of other races and ethnicities, and so that you can make sure he or she remains utterly ignorant of things like sex, homosexuality, and how to dress like a slut.

You are DAMAGING your child by doing this, they will (and no doubt have) told you...she will wind up a racist, sexist, homophobe unable to function outside your very narrow little sect, not that she'll need to, being as how you are training her to be only a baby factory, barefoot and pregant, locked away in the house wainting for her brutish, evangelical Christian husband to come home and adminster the beating she so very much needs.

Tokie

Wow. I think you might be agreeing with me, but who could tell by your putting words in everyone elses' mouths?

[jsfisher]

By all means, if you can assure me that my taxes aren't funding violations of church/state separation, then I will withdraw my objection.

Would that be the same separation that disallows taking an income tax deduction for charitable contributions to a church?

Seriously, though, like it or not parents will instill in there children a sense of morality and a belief system. That's going to happen, it is one of their jobs, and it is not in and of itself a bad thing. So, are we to deny support for what may be a perfectly reasonable schooling program because parents will be doing other things that parents normally do and it is too hard to account for the various activities? For that matter, since vouchers are not for school lunch programs, should we also disallow vouchers for home school because parents will likely feed their kids?

If I may care the point to the extreme, should we not also banish any sort of public assistance program to parents with young children just because we know there may be religious instruction going on at home?

[genesplicer]

Are you a shill for the union and the schools?

Serious question.


I'm not going to take the time to answer every point, but here are a couple of observations. First, I'm not a shill. I do understand the value of unions, however.


2. Your math is exactly the problem...you either can't or won't understand these very simple equations, or believe that if the union says it's true, even if your calculator says something else, the union must be right. If no kids leave the school, on any voucher system I've ever heard of and the way it works in Utah, then no MONEY leaves the school either...not 15%, not 5%...0%, actually.


In California, the voucher law that was proposed (and defeated more than once) states that every student, even those who have never attended public school, get the voucher. So, as I stated, even if no kids left the public schools, we would still take a substantial hit, just to cover the kids who are already in private schools or being home schooled.



4. No, that's what monstershouters in the union and the school CLAIM, but it's simply not true. Schools still have to be accredited, by the state. Do you (or any other shill in here) have proof that Billy Bob and Bertha have set up a Skool and are sucking in tens of thousands while letting their "students" watch Oprah all day long? While you are at it, why not offer some proof that most parents are so stupid and care so little about their kids they'd send them to such a school. Of course, being a "teacher" you "know" that most parents are stupid...even the ones who graduated from the same university you did, only with 4.0 and higher GPA in things like math, science, business, law, medicine, etc...


Thanks for the assumption about me being a "teacher" who "knows" parents are stupid. Amazingly, I assume parents are pretty smart. to quote Merlin "There's always somebody cleverer than yourself." I understand this. However, I probably know more about education than most parents, simply because that's my job. If dad's a bricklayer, he know more about that than I do, and I defer to his wisdom in that area.
I never said that most parents would just drop their kids into any hellhole and call it a school, but there is no educational requirements for private schools, only recommendations. Public school have requirements. It is far easier for private schools to drop the ball than public schools.

There are credentialing requirements for teachers in public schools. In order to teach science I had to have a degree in science, pass a graduate-level exam in my subject, and take two years of education classes, just to get the credential. Just to substitute, you need to have a bachelor's degree and pass the CBEST exam. The law for private schools is not the same. Basically, in California, any adult can teach any subject in private school, no credential, nothing. This resulted because many religious schools did not have individuals qualified to teach, and they brought up a HUGE religious freedom argument. I'm not saying that most private schools hire slack-jawed, booger-eating morons, but they could if they wanted to, and the state would do nothing about it.


5. And many parents would love to send their kids to a secular private, but most of those cost $20k + a year. The market would respond to this, and has in Utah, where non-religious private schools that cost something more reasonable have sprung up to meet the need...you don't believe in the free market, so you don't understand this.


...And your belief in an unfettered free market seems to have blinded you to the fact that there are things that can be done better and more efficiently when the government does them, simply because it can pool taxpayer money and get the job done. I'm a teacher. I could never afford to send a bunch of kids to private school, pay for private police forces and fire protection. Luckily, the government is able to take my tax money, as well as that of my neighbors, put it all together and provide us all with free education, police protection and fire services (And those fire services were VERY, VERY valuable to me and my extended family a couple of weeks ago.)


6. Wrong again. Very few privates are non-accredited. I don't believe any states allow this. Even those states that allow for home-schooling vet the parents and demand yearly or bi-yearly testing and a final, state-administered test for graduation. Do you know anything about this or do you just parrot the union cant?


All states have a voluntary accreditation process. Note, I said voluntary. Many schools don't bother. We have had many parents who get a rude surprise when their kid graduates from some private school, only to find that the University of California and the California State College systems will not accept them, because they don't have a diploma backed up by accreditation. Interestingly, many of these schools are very religious, and most of those kids are not interested in attending a public college. many of them end up going to the private college affiliated with the same religion/denomination. (I'm thinking about a baptist private school system in my local area. A prime example of this problem. They feed into a baptist college.)


Your 16 years have taught you to toe the union line, but little else.

Tokie

Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I am free to think for myself. I am a union member, and, to be perfectly honest, that likely means I understand the situation pretty well, because I have to be informed about the ed code in this state to do my duties as Union Rep.

[jsfisher]

...If I may care the point....

Out! Out! Damn typo.

Thus, I carry the day.

[Tokenconservative]

Got any proof for this asseration? Seriously, put up or shut up.

Hmm. Let's see. I dunno. How about this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec04/underfunded_7-19.html

Schools are funded per student, based on the district. And if they don't go, they actually lose some funding.

And he still loses money.

Right, right. Hasty generalization much? This entire point doesn't even address it, except cursorily, and.. proof the accredited comment?

You know, we might take you seriously if you didn't say such things. Okay. Proof? (This is a skeptics board, actually take the time to proof your statements.)

Accredited by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_Oklahoma#Schools_Accred ited_by_the_Association_of_Christian_Schools_Inter national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_Oklahoma#Schools_Accred ited_by_the_Association_of_Christian_Schools_Inter national)

? I hope not.

Hmmmm....Wiki as a source?

In any case...are you able at all to actually present an argument/assertion/rebuttal, etc...or just these little parroted pieces of cant?

Yeah...that's what I thought.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The student costs the school money because the school budgeted as if the student would be there. When the student leaves, there is no practical way that the school can reduce the budget by 15% of a teacher, 10% of a room, or an hour's worth of heating oil per month.

Taking the full $7,500 away from the school when a handful of students leave would completely screw up the budget. I realize that you may not care about that, but I don't think it's the state's goal to screw up the school systems, but to improve them.

If many students opt to change schools, then the budgets will have to be recalibrated. I'm not sure how that would work. The entire program sounds like a mess to me.

We just had the annual auction for our town's public grade and middle schools. We raised over $70,000. Clearly there is great disparity in the degree to which townspeople like their schools.

~~ Paul


LOL!

I love this type of fuzzy economics...

Maybe each school could factor in the missing students and turn down the thermostat say, .0005% per each one no longer there?

I'm no Algore, but I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the money the school gets for NOT teaching the student more than makes up for the heat that student no longer requires.

As to the teacher...they (you?) constantly bitch that one of the biggest problems is too-large class size (avg. here in elem. is something like 19....and still they gripe) and that because of this, they (you?) end up working 32 hour days. Um...just a hunch, but for every kid NOT in the school, a couple or three things: that kid is NOT using resources such as supplies provided by the school, is NOT using up the teachers' valuable time, etc. I don't know how teachers do this sort of economics, but in the real world time is money, and if you can get the same job done in less time, for the same pay,you make more money.

Who said anything about the whole $7500. No voucher plan calls for this. Rational people agree that Americans must educate ALL our kids, even those whose parents don't care enough to get them out of the pubs if at all possible.

This is not a "screw up the budget" concern, but nice try. It's actually a power concern on the part of teachers (you). The biggest worry (borne out in FL, UT, and Detroit) is that the plan works and that kids taken out of their terrible public schools and educated in private or even charger schools do remarkably better "for some reason."

The bookkeeping is the least of teachers (your) or anybody's concerns. That's why they pay accountants, by the way...and the accountants are already on-staff in schools, and not going anywhere, so they just have to do their accountancy magic, move a bit of $$ to this column from that one. Oddly, you don't make this argument for a mil levy increase...you know, whether it's money being taken away (never happens, so hard to test for) from the schools or more money given to them, the district accountants still have to figure it all out.

This is the sort of irrational argument I expect from a teacher, though.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

As expected, voucher initiative goes down in flames.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7392263

Not surprising given the socioeconomics and Mormon influenced culture of Utah.

Fordama

Big surprise. The anti-choice people (NEA) brought something like $2million+ to Utah to defeat this, while the pro-choice side had a few hundred thousand to work with...

I did not see any of the ads, but if they were anything like those run here when we were voting on vouchers, you can imagine the images of little black and Hispanic children starving in the streets while their rich, white counterparts are driven to their tony dayschools in limos....

The scaremongers on the "teachers" side won this one by bringing an overwhelming amount of $$ to the fight.

Teachers- 1
Kids- 0

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Big surprise. The anti-choice people (NEA) brought something like $2million+ to Utah to defeat this, while the pro-choice side had a few hundred thousand to work with...

I did not see any of the ads, but if they were anything like those run here when we were voting on vouchers, you can imagine the images of little black and Hispanic children starving in the streets while their rich, white counterparts are driven to their tony dayschools in limos....

The scaremongers on the "teachers" side won this one by bringing an overwhelming amount of $$ to the fight.

Teachers- 1
Kids- 0

Tokie


I wonder how many children could have been taught with $2 million?

The NEA is all about the children, is it not?

[Hindmost]

I wonder how many children could have been taught with $2 million?

The NEA is all about the children, is it not?

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2007/10/the_man_behind_the_provoucher_1.html

about the same as Patrick Byrne's money.

glenn

[Tokenconservative]

I'm not going to take the time to answer every point, but here are a couple of observations. First, I'm not a shill. I do understand the value of unions, however.

In California, the voucher law that was proposed (and defeated more than once) states that every student, even those who have never attended public school, get the voucher. So, as I stated, even if no kids left the public schools, we would still take a substantial hit, just to cover the kids who are already in private schools or being home schooled.

Thanks for the assumption about me being a "teacher" who "knows" parents are stupid. Amazingly, I assume parents are pretty smart. to quote Merlin "There's always somebody cleverer than yourself." I understand this. However, I probably know more about education than most parents, simply because that's my job. If dad's a bricklayer, he know more about that than I do, and I defer to his wisdom in that area.
I never said that most parents would just drop their kids into any hellhole and call it a school, but there is no educational requirements for private schools, only recommendations. Public school have requirements. It is far easier for private schools to drop the ball than public schools.

There are credentialing requirements for teachers in public schools. In order to teach science I had to have a degree in science, pass a graduate-level exam in my subject, and take two years of education classes, just to get the credential. Just to substitute, you need to have a bachelor's degree and pass the CBEST exam. The law for private schools is not the same. Basically, in California, any adult can teach any subject in private school, no credential, nothing. This resulted because many religious schools did not have individuals qualified to teach, and they brought up a HUGE religious freedom argument. I'm not saying that most private schools hire slack-jawed, booger-eating morons, but they could if they wanted to, and the state would do nothing about it.

...And your belief in an unfettered free market seems to have blinded you to the fact that there are things that can be done better and more efficiently when the government does them, simply because it can pool taxpayer money and get the job done. I'm a teacher. I could never afford to send a bunch of kids to private school, pay for private police forces and fire protection. Luckily, the government is able to take my tax money, as well as that of my neighbors, put it all together and provide us all with free education, police protection and fire services (And those fire services were VERY, VERY valuable to me and my extended family a couple of weeks ago.)



All states have a voluntary accreditation process. Note, I said voluntary. Many schools don't bother. We have had many parents who get a rude surprise when their kid graduates from some private school, only to find that the University of California and the California State College systems will not accept them, because they don't have a diploma backed up by accreditation. Interestingly, many of these schools are very religious, and most of those kids are not interested in attending a public college. many of them end up going to the private college affiliated with the same religion/denomination. (I'm thinking about a baptist private school system in my local area. A prime example of this problem. They feed into a baptist college.)



Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I am free to think for myself. I am a union member, and, to be perfectly honest, that likely means I understand the situation pretty well, because I have to be informed about the ed code in this state to do my duties as Union Rep.

For someone who is not taking on every point you do it with a remarkable number of words...

Anyway...

1. Yes, it's terrible that I assumed you are a teacher...um, what is it you do for a living again? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...You carry the union's water on this issue; you seem to know more than the average bear about this. That makes you a shill, whether you accept that title or not.

2. You imply that because a voucher is defeated that's because so many voters are opposed to them..in fact, as in Utah, it's because the NEA throws MILLIONS at this in any state in which it comes to the voter. Where I live, the last go 'round, the NEA spent in excess of $2 million...the pro-voucher side spent somewhere around $160k. Of course, the union is only throwing so much money at these..."for the children!"

3. And there's the rub: "kids would leave YOUR schools" taking with them YOUR money, huh? That'd be tuuurrriiiibbble! Especially terrible would be the fact that many of them would actually get an education! Please explain something to me: in our schools, each pupil represents a $$ amount, right? Can we agree on that? If so...what's that $$ for? Let's see if we can agree: it's to EDUCATE that child.

Now stick with me here (this seems to be the point at which "teachers" get lost): if the kid is not IN the school, then the cost of educating him or her is ALSO not there....do you retain that pupils $$ when he/she moves to another district or state? But that's different, right? While every kid in America has a right to be publically educated, the $$ to do that should not follow the child with the right, but rather the school so that it can pay a teacher who is not teaching this kid?

Does that make sense to you? Of course it does. That's "teacher math!" Even better than the New Math or Rainforest Math!

4. Nice begging of the question here. I did not say the brick layer would be a better teacher than you (about whom I made the terrible assumption about your profession....). I said that teachers and educrats believe they know what is best for everyone else's kids. My kids, for example, having come out of a K-9 private system are now in mostly honors and AP courses at a public high school and are near tears every day because of the ploddingly slow pace, mindless repetition, and lack of knowledge from their "teachers." We are going to decide shortly whether to yank them and begin home-schooling them.

The district, by the way, has been counting them as going to school there for 4 years now (they spent 1/2 year at a public ele. school), and will continue to get the $$ for them if they leave.

5. And since the bricklayer is stupid, he should not be permitted to put his kid into a school taught by slack-jawed booger-eaters (or Christians)...right?

6. Good point...IF the schools were actually educating people, your argument here would make sense. The fire dept. puts out fires. The cops stop and investigate crime...the education system...is a jobs program for um...well, you and other teachers and churns out slack-jawed booger-eaters who become...the next generation of teachers!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2007/10/the_man_behind_the_provoucher_1.html

about the same as Patrick Byrne's money.

glenn

LOL!

I always love Hind's "logic"

Um...so you believe this guy using his own money to push for vouchers should what, donate it instead to the public schools he clearly thinks are the big joke they are?

LOL!

Nearly too rich for words...

And this is your reply to the post questioning why the NEA, who is "all about the children!!!" didn't use the $$ they spent in Utah defeating this (and I misspoke...it was $2 mil--and that's not counting the cool $1mil a private Marxit-heiress here kicked in--HERE...I don't know how much they spent in Utah, but if some private citizen kicked in $7 mil to get vouchers passed, I am gonna guess NEA ponied up $10-12 mil to defeat it).

But...if the NEA is all about the chilruns....pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Wow.

Just...wow.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Wow. I think you might be agreeing with me, but who could tell by your putting words in everyone elses' mouths?

My description, while presented a bit more honestly and without all the weasel-words the teachers/schools use, is the one the teachers/schools have used for years to beat down home-schoolers and voucher proponents, and which they use to describe private schools.

I was once told by a left-liberal home-schooler like you, by the way, that while HER kids "deserved" to be home-schooled (because the schools in her VERY expensive district) just weren't doing the job, MY kids should go to the local public, because, after all, they surely wouldn't need the higher-levels of learning she would be providing her Baby Einsteins at home....

One of her kids could barely speak at about 8 years of age. The other two seemed...average.

One of my 10th graders does calculus...for fun. The other writes operas.

You sound like this lady's sister.

Tokie

[Rika]

Actually, I wasn't parroting. And I am still eagerly awating your proof.

And ancedotal evidence is not proof.

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, I wasn't parroting. And I am still eagerly awating your proof.

And ancedotal evidence is not proof.

Hmm....so when you say things like "anyone who homeschools is teaching their kids to be racist haters!!!!" that's not parroting the NEA line?

It just SEEMS like it is?

Tokie

[Hindmost]

LOL!

I always love Hind's "logic"

Um...so you believe this guy using his own money to push for vouchers should what, donate it instead to the public schools he clearly thinks are the big joke they are?

LOL!

Nearly too rich for words...

And this is your reply to the post questioning why the NEA, who is "all about the children!!!" didn't use the $$ they spent in Utah defeating this (and I misspoke...it was $2 mil--and that's not counting the cool $1mil a private Marxit-heiress here kicked in--HERE...I don't know how much they spent in Utah, but if some private citizen kicked in $7 mil to get vouchers passed, I am gonna guess NEA ponied up $10-12 mil to defeat it).

But...if the NEA is all about the chilruns....pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Wow.

Just...wow.

Tokie

Surely you don't agree that Pryce should do whatever he wants unopposed...that's not a conservative view is it?

Speaking of logic, nothing you have posted in this thread has anything to do with improving education. Nothing--so you are certainly not "about the children." The only reason you are for the voucher system is because it is anti-teachers union.

You have not shown a single wisp of evidence that vouchers have worked to improve education. The "gold standard" Milwaukee system has 17-18 years of experience with nothing to show except 50 out of 122 voucher schools are not accredited--and all voucher schools have continually refused to publish their scores. Principals buying cars with voucher money and even a convicted rapist opening a school.

glenn

[bluess]

My description, while presented a bit more honestly and without all the weasel-words the teachers/schools use, is the one the teachers/schools have used for years to beat down home-schoolers and voucher proponents, and which they use to describe private schools.

I was once told by a left-liberal home-schooler like you, by the way, that while HER kids "deserved" to be home-schooled (because the schools in her VERY expensive district) just weren't doing the job, MY kids should go to the local public, because, after all, they surely wouldn't need the higher-levels of learning she would be providing her Baby Einsteins at home....

One of her kids could barely speak at about 8 years of age. The other two seemed...average.

One of my 10th graders does calculus...for fun. The other writes operas.

You sound like this lady's sister.

Tokie

Yes, you have such a deep understanding of my child's needs; and apparently have completely SKIPPED my point - all children need to be educated, and that's why the public school system exists.

I was rather under the impression from things you have written in other threads that you actually homeschooled, and was quite distressed by the under-education that your children experienced once they were placed in the public/parochial school system. I'm not sure from your varied stories if your children are in private school. So, what happened? Once your children could no longer be homeschooled, homeschoolers all became inept, egotistical morons?



3. And there's the rub: "kids would leave YOUR schools" taking with them YOUR money, huh? That'd be tuuurrriiiibbble! Especially terrible would be the fact that many of them would actually get an education! Please explain something to me: in our schools, each pupil represents a $$ amount, right? Can we agree on that? If so...what's that $$ for? Let's see if we can agree: it's to EDUCATE that child.

Now stick with me here (this seems to be the point at which "teachers" get lost): if the kid is not IN the school, then the cost of educating him or her is ALSO not there....do you retain that pupils $$ when he/she moves to another district or state? But that's different, right? While every kid in America has a right to be publically educated, the $$ to do that should not follow the child with the right, but rather the school so that it can pay a teacher who is not teaching this kid?

Does that make sense to you? Of course it does. That's "teacher math!" Even better than the New Math or Rainforest Math!

Tokie

Your accounting does not include facilities maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't matter that there are two less children in a particular school, or even twenty. The base costs for electricity, cooling, heat, cleaning, grounds keeping, and non-teaching staff remain the same. Additionally, schools must maintain insurance policies of various sorts - none of these policy premiums is reduced by the reduction of students.

That's called Real World Math. Try it some time.

[Rika]

Hmm....so when you say things like "anyone who homeschools is teaching their kids to be racist haters!!!!" that's not parroting the NEA line?

It just SEEMS like it is?

Tokie

Didn't say that, or even implied that. I pointed out some schools are 'accredited' by fundamentalist groups. Which is a far cry from what you think I said.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2007/10/the_man_behind_the_provoucher_1.html

about the same as Patrick Byrne's money.

glenn

Were does Patrick get his money?

I believe that most of the money that the NEA has comes from the teachers salaries and thus the state.

Is is correct for a state funded institution to use tax dollars to lobby the state?

Is this not state funded propaganda for the purpose of funding the state?

[Rika]

s is correct for a state funded institution to use tax dollars to lobby the state?

Is this not state funded propaganda for the purpose of funding the state?

Is this totally ignoring what teachers do with their own money is their own buisness? Yes?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is this totally ignoring what teachers do with their own money is their own buisness? Yes?

Not in states that do not have right to work laws.

[Rika]

.. what a teacher does with their money is their buisness. That's a liberterian credo.. not quite sure what you're going on now, but you're taking an interesting turn into government control.

[Tokenconservative]

Surely you don't agree that Pryce should do whatever he wants unopposed...that's not a conservative view is it?

Speaking of logic, nothing you have posted in this thread has anything to do with improving education. Nothing--so you are certainly not "about the children." The only reason you are for the voucher system is because it is anti-teachers union.

You have not shown a single wisp of evidence that vouchers have worked to improve education. The "gold standard" Milwaukee system has 17-18 years of experience with nothing to show except 50 out of 122 voucher schools are not accredited--and all voucher schools have continually refused to publish their scores. Principals buying cars with voucher money and even a convicted rapist opening a school.

glenn

You have not shown a single wisp of evidence for any of this...link? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKK!!!!??

Anyway...Since vouchers have only been around for a very short time, and no...it's not true that "no voucher school has or will ever release data about itself!!!!" we do have limited data. What we don't have, is limited data about how much better privates do than the publics. Now, you will shriek link--LIIINNNNKKKKKKKKKKK!!! But I won't provide one. Neither will I provide one for this assertion: the sun rises in the east.

Sorry....just the kinda hairpin I am.

Now on to our cases:

1. More than 1.2 million students drop out of (fail to graduate from) America's public schools.

2. 60% of these come from "low income" families

3. Only about half of American Latino and black kids graduate from a public school on time.

4. The vast majority of ALL kids graduating, are not ready for college. This is why nearly one-in-three college freshmen fail college placement tests and must take remedial courses in writing and simple math that should've been learned at some point in the previous 12 years of...dare I say it? Public schooling.

5. Only 56% of freshmen entering college manage to graduate in 4 years..most, today, take six years. That USED to be the number of years to get a Masters. We are here, talking about a Bachelors degree.

6. America has one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.

First, I wonder why a good Liberal like you, Hind, believe that it's okay that our poor and minority kids are so badly treated in the schools.

Second, while you will now shriek "this has nothing--NOTHIIIIINGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!--to do with it!!!," the reality is that this tells us something given that MOST kids go to public schools.

But you go ahead, champion the public schools and their unions and the status quo they so desperately fight to maintain.

I am sure that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually make the schools better. Maybe a better contract giving teachers more days off will help?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, you have such a deep understanding of my child's needs; and apparently have completely SKIPPED my point - all children need to be educated, and that's why the public school system exists.

I was rather under the impression from things you have written in other threads that you actually homeschooled, and was quite distressed by the under-education that your children experienced once they were placed in the public/parochial school system. I'm not sure from your varied stories if your children are in private school. So, what happened? Once your children could no longer be homeschooled, homeschoolers all became inept, egotistical morons?

Your accounting does not include facilities maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't matter that there are two less children in a particular school, or even twenty. The base costs for electricity, cooling, heat, cleaning, grounds keeping, and non-teaching staff remain the same. Additionally, schools must maintain insurance policies of various sorts - none of these policy premiums is reduced by the reduction of students.

That's called Real World Math. Try it some time.

Hmmm...I find this approach marvelously refreshing: read what the poster actually writes, not what your preconceptions of said poster leads you to WANT the poster to write.

Our kids (yeah, unusual but here it is: I am married to a woman. We have been married for 25+ years. Our kids have one--count 'em!--set of parents!). After OUR experiences in the public screwels, we agreed that our kids would be private-schooled and they were. One to the 7th grade, one to the 9th. The one skipped 8th and went right into 9th at the high school.

We thought the schools had "changed" at one point, and put them in the local elementary for 4-5th, 5-6th grade for 1/2 year. Oh...you are wondering about those funny hyphenated numbers? We had to involve our lawyer to get them moved up a grade each about 5 weeks in. The principal was certain it would be a "social" disaster. We happened to be more concerned with their academics. Because we are terrible parents. You knew this already though, huh...that whole "one set of parents thing," eh? We yanked them out of this mess 1/2 way through and home-schooled them for 1/2 year to get them up to speed to go BACK one year each at the private school again.

Anyway...One has been in a public HS for a year and a half. The other a half year. Though they are in AP and "Honors" (LOL!) classes, both are complaining, pretty bitterly, the more academic of the two, sometimes tearfully, about how slow the pace of "learning" is, how little their teachers actually teach--or understand their subject--and how they nap through most of their overlong classes. They have virtually NO homework, and both complain about this, too.

This is not the best HS in our district, but it's a pretty good one by the testing numbers, which tells me more about the testing than it does about the teaching.

We are debating yanking them out of this mindnumbing situation and allowing them to finish HS with home/online schooling. These two are bright, motivated, intellectually curious and disciplined...both want to take college classes this summer (they are currently both in the 10th grade).

'K...we got that covered? Yeah...the story is a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, but I don't like your implication. Just because I either don't tell the story well, or you have low-comprehension, it does not automatically follow that I must be a liar.

The $7500 per child DOES include that. I have run businesses all my life. The only kind of math I know is "real world" math. When my income drops, I cut back. When a school loses population, it needs to shutter rooms and stop heating and cooling them. When it loses population, it needs to lay off teachers, staff, janitors, etc., no longer needed. Oh...wait...there's the union issue, huh? Can't do that! When a school loses population, whether that's 2 kids or 3/4s of last year's, they need to RESPOND as would any other business. There are schools in older areas of my district that are running at 1/3 their capacity. They are hiring teachers.

Please explain that in "real math" terms?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Didn't say that, or even implied that. I pointed out some schools are 'accredited' by fundamentalist groups. Which is a far cry from what you think I said.

Really...what groups and what schools.

The two big Christian schools near me, are accredited by the same outfit that provides this for the state community colleges hereabouts.

You must live in a very different place.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Were does Patrick get his money?

I believe that most of the money that the NEA has comes from the teachers salaries and thus the state.

Is is correct for a state funded institution to use tax dollars to lobby the state?

Is this not state funded propaganda for the purpose of funding the state?

Even I would say that's begging the question a bit.

The teachers are free to use their pay for whatever purpose they want. Their union one of the largest and inarguable the most powerful in the country, which is currently perfectly legal, uses the massive amounts of money they gather from their members to push their own, self-interested agenda...just as any union should.

The difference is that this union is not auto workers or grocery store clerks. They are teachers. Um...who are supposed to be teaching our kids and thereby helping to perpetuate our society.

Of course, they are first and foremost very, very far left-liberal politically, so the help they are giving the far left in destroying our culture is not only greatly appreciated by the left, but sort of the schools purpose as far as the left is concerned, anyway.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Not in states that do not have right to work laws.

Ah. Yeah, true. Forgot that. Good point.

Tokie

[bluess]

Hmmm...I find this approach marvelously refreshing: read what the poster actually writes, not what your preconceptions of said poster leads you to WANT the poster to write.

Are you talking about your newfound capacity to do so?


Our kids (yeah, unusual but here it is: I am married to a woman. We have been married for 25+ years. Our kids have one--count 'em!--set of parents!).

Wow, how astonishing! NO ONE else on this on a board like this could POSSIBLY match that statistic.


After OUR experiences in the public screwels, we agreed that our kids would be private-schooled and they were. One to the 7th grade, one to the 9th. The one skipped 8th and went right into 9th at the high school.

We thought the schools had "changed" at one point, and put them in the local elementary for 4-5th, 5-6th grade for 1/2 year. Oh...you are wondering about those funny hyphenated numbers? We had to involve our lawyer to get them moved up a grade each about 5 weeks in. The principal was certain it would be a "social" disaster. We happened to be more concerned with their academics. Because we are terrible parents. You knew this already though, huh...that whole "one set of parents thing," eh? We yanked them out of this mess 1/2 way through and home-schooled them for 1/2 year to get them up to speed to go BACK one year each at the private school again.

Anyway...One has been in a public HS for a year and a half. The other a half year. Though they are in AP and "Honors" (LOL!) classes, both are complaining, pretty bitterly, the more academic of the two, sometimes tearfully, about how slow the pace of "learning" is, how little their teachers actually teach--or understand their subject--and how they nap through most of their overlong classes. They have virtually NO homework, and both complain about this, too.

This is not the best HS in our district, but it's a pretty good one by the testing numbers, which tells me more about the testing than it does about the teaching.

We are debating yanking them out of this mindnumbing situation and allowing them to finish HS with home/online schooling. These two are bright, motivated, intellectually curious and disciplined...both want to take college classes this summer (they are currently both in the 10th grade).

'K...we got that covered? Yeah...the story is a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, but I don't like your implication. Just because I either don't tell the story well, or you have low-comprehension, it does not automatically follow that I must be a liar.

Sigh ... could you learn how to read what was written? I never called you a liar, nor implied the same. I advised that I had gleaned your family situation from various posts. Frankly, you don't tell your story well. It appears from above that you private-schooled, then public-schooled, then home-schooled, then private-schooled, then public-schooled. Is that correct? If not, could you try again with the time-line?

I'd also be interested in why you ended lawyering up to get your kids moved grade-wise. Could you provide a time-line on that? As I have stated elsewhere, we faced a specific problem in terms of grade placement. While it was certainly our option to force the school system to provide reasonable accomodation, we chose homeschooling to provide a more solid approach to resolving the issue. No big point here, just collecting stories from various parents on their school experiences.


The $7500 per child DOES include that. I have run businesses all my life. The only kind of math I know is "real world" math. When my income drops, I cut back. When a school loses population, it needs to shutter rooms and stop heating and cooling them. When it loses population, it needs to lay off teachers, staff, janitors, etc., no longer needed. Oh...wait...there's the union issue, huh? Can't do that! When a school loses population, whether that's 2 kids or 3/4s of last year's, they need to RESPOND as would any other business. There are schools in older areas of my district that are running at 1/3 their capacity. They are hiring teachers.

Please explain that in "real math" terms?

Tokie


Yes, obviously ALL public buildings have individual heating and cooling controls in each room. :rolleyes: All you have to do is turn the heat or AC off, who cares if the remaining children are too cold or too hot to learn. After all, we already knew they weren't learning anything anyways, right? And you still have not addressed insurance, base costs for building maintenance (unless you think the unused rooms should just go to rack and ruin), base costs for support staff, etc.

If your particular school district is hiring teachers in what seems to be an ill-reasoned manner, what have you done to become part of the process? Are you a member of your school's PTA? Been placed on the email list for the school board? Attended school board meetings? Attended county government meetings, especially in relation to budgets? Or just thrown your hands up in the air and decried the whole as stupid?

I don't actually have a position on the school voucher policies. I just find it hard to agree with anyone who doesn't put forth a reasoned argument. You may have a point, but as I stated before, who can tell with the way your present the information?

[jsfisher]

Now on to our cases:

1. More than 1.2 million students drop out of (fail to graduate from) America's public schools.

2. 60% of these come from "low income" families

3. Only about half of American Latino and black kids graduate from a public school on time.

4. The vast majority of ALL kids graduating, are not ready for college. This is why nearly one-in-three college freshmen fail college placement tests and must take remedial courses in writing and simple math that should've been learned at some point in the previous 12 years of...dare I say it? Public schooling.

5. Only 56% of freshmen entering college manage to graduate in 4 years..most, today, take six years. That USED to be the number of years to get a Masters. We are here, talking about a Bachelors degree.

6. America has one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.


Perhaps in America too much emphasis has been put on going to college and not enough on just good basic education.

[Fordama]

1. Yes, it's terrible that I assumed you are a teacher...um, what is it you do for a living again? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...You carry the union's water on this issue; you seem to know more than the average bear about this. That makes you a shill, whether you accept that title or not. Then that makes anybody who proposes or defends any idea a "shill" and you are simply engaging in meaningless name calling.

2. You imply that because a voucher is defeated that's because so many voters are opposed to them..in fact, as in Utah, it's because the NEA throws MILLIONS at this in any state in which it comes to the voter.The fact that you cannot allow for the possibility that people could not come to a reasoned belief different than yours is a weakness. Voucher initiatives don't pass because many people, believe it or not, are happy with their local school districts and don't want to change. This is especially true in well-to-do communities who have excellent public schools. Orange County, California is a prime example. Affluent and conservative, it voted down vouchers because their public schools are some of the nation's best and they don't want to have them screwed with for political reasons.



Now stick with me here (this seems to be the point at which "teachers" get lost): if the kid is not IN the school, then the cost of educating him or her is ALSO not there....do you retain that pupils $$ when he/she moves to another district or state? But that's different, right? While every kid in America has a right to be publically educated, the $$ to do that should not follow the child with the right, but rather the school so that it can pay a teacher who is not teaching this kid?

Does that make sense to you? Of course it does. That's "teacher math!" Even better than the New Math or Rainforest Math!This point has been addressed several times, and all that has been offered in return are platitudes and/or anecdotes. The issues brought forth by myself and others--such as the cost of those currently in private schools--have been ignored.

Fordama

[JEROME DA GNOME]

.. what a teacher does with their money is their buisness. That's a liberterian credo.. not quite sure what you're going on now, but you're taking an interesting turn into government control.

When money is taken out of ones pay for union dues without option is not choice.

People should be free to join a union if they so desire. People should not be required to join a union.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Would that be the same separation that disallows taking an income tax deduction for charitable contributions to a church?
I'm not sure what you mean. Contributions to churches are deductible.

Seriously, though, like it or not parents will instill in there children a sense of morality and a belief system. That's going to happen, it is one of their jobs, and it is not in and of itself a bad thing. So, are we to deny support for what may be a perfectly reasonable schooling program because parents will be doing other things that parents normally do and it is too hard to account for the various activities? For that matter, since vouchers are not for school lunch programs, should we also disallow vouchers for home school because parents will likely feed their kids?

If I may care the point to the extreme, should we not also banish any sort of public assistance program to parents with young children just because we know there may be religious instruction going on at home?
You are right that it is a dilemma. I have a fundamental distrust of certain people's reasons for home schooling, so I should probably just let it drop.

~~Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

LOL!

I love this type of fuzzy economics...

Maybe each school could factor in the missing students and turn down the thermostat say, .0005% per each one no longer there?

I'm no Algore, but I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the money the school gets for NOT teaching the student more than makes up for the heat that student no longer requires.

As to the teacher...they (you?) constantly bitch that one of the biggest problems is too-large class size (avg. here in elem. is something like 19....and still they gripe) and that because of this, they (you?) end up working 32 hour days. Um...just a hunch, but for every kid NOT in the school, a couple or three things: that kid is NOT using resources such as supplies provided by the school, is NOT using up the teachers' valuable time, etc. I don't know how teachers do this sort of economics, but in the real world time is money, and if you can get the same job done in less time, for the same pay,you make more money.

Who said anything about the whole $7500. No voucher plan calls for this. Rational people agree that Americans must educate ALL our kids, even those whose parents don't care enough to get them out of the pubs if at all possible.

This is not a "screw up the budget" concern, but nice try. It's actually a power concern on the part of teachers (you). The biggest worry (borne out in FL, UT, and Detroit) is that the plan works and that kids taken out of their terrible public schools and educated in private or even charger schools do remarkably better "for some reason."

The bookkeeping is the least of teachers (your) or anybody's concerns. That's why they pay accountants, by the way...and the accountants are already on-staff in schools, and not going anywhere, so they just have to do their accountancy magic, move a bit of $$ to this column from that one. Oddly, you don't make this argument for a mil levy increase...you know, whether it's money being taken away (never happens, so hard to test for) from the schools or more money given to them, the district accountants still have to figure it all out.

This is the sort of irrational argument I expect from a teacher, though.
Were you having some sort of spasms while you wrote this reply, or were you purposely assuming that I'm a teacher? I suspect the latter, which, coupled with previous behavior on your part, makes you certainly the most presumptuous ******* I have ever conversed with on this forum. The trick is not to assume things about people, but to ask.


Who said anything about the whole $7500.
Oh, so we were just arguing over how much should be transferred? In that case, sure, it's debatable.

~~Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps in America too much emphasis has been put on going to college and not enough on just good basic education.
Indeed.

~~Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are right that it is a dilemma. I have a fundamental distrust of certain people's reasons for home schooling, so I should probably just let it drop.


I have a fundamental distrust of those that desire state mandated and controlled education as this is one of the major tenets of the communist manifesto.

[Rika]

Hey, guilt by association.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out as no one's really llistening.

[Cleon]

I have a fundamental distrust of those that desire state mandated and controlled education as this is one of the major tenets of the communist manifesto.

Oh yay, redbaiting. Always a good indication of rational discussion. :rolleyes:

You are aware that "state mandated and controlled education" dates back to before Marx was a tent in his daddy's pants, right?

[jsfisher]

I have a fundamental distrust of those that desire state mandated and controlled education as this is one of the major tenets of the communist manifesto.


That point seems a bit distant from the issue Paul and I were considering. We were exploring a constitutional problem with government funding supporting home schooling. It seems you have somehow concluded from that our total opposition to anything other than state schools.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That point seems a bit distant from the issue Paul and I were considering. We were exploring a constitutional problem with government funding supporting home schooling. It seems you have somehow concluded from that our total opposition to anything other than state schools.

OK, where is the constitutional authority for Federal governmnet involvement in any schools?

[jsfisher]

OK, where is the constitutional authority for Federal governmnet involvement in any schools?


Injection of "federal" was your doing, not mine. Be that as it may, the US federal government has no direct right to regulate education. Nor has the federal government legislated any direct control over education.

On the other hand, the federal government's abilities to collect taxes and fund activities with the 50 states have been exploited in a variety of cases to indirectly influence education.

So, the answer to your question is Amendment XVI and Article I, Section 8, the later being that vague "to provide for general Welfare of the United States".

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Injection of "federal" was your doing, not mine. Be that as it may, the US federal government has no direct right to regulate education. Nor has the federal government legislated any direct control over education.

On the other hand, the federal government's abilities to collect taxes and fund activities with the 50 states have been exploited in a variety of cases to indirectly influence education.

So, the answer to your question is Amendment XVI and Article I, Section 8, the later being that vague "to provide for general Welfare of the United States".

You are forgetting that the constitution is a limiting document. Taking "to provide for the general welfare of the United States" to mean that the Federal government has powers not specifically enumerated is to disregard the rest of the document.

[jsfisher]

You are forgetting that the constitution is a limiting document. Taking "to provide for the general welfare of the United States" to mean that the Federal government has powers not specifically enumerated is to disregard the rest of the document.

I wasn't saying I agreed with the point of view; nonetheless, that's the argument often used.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I wasn't saying I agreed with the point of view; nonetheless, that's the argument often used.

Understood.

None the less; I do have a fundamental problem with the State mandating, regulating, and controlling education.

[Rika]

You should read the Elastic Clause one day.

ETA: I said I was bowing out, but this is said so often I feel the urge to point out that it's b ecoming .. annoying common

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You should read the Elastic Clause one day.



You should read the entirety of the document.

It would be foolish to cherry-pick out of context and from this claim the rest of the document invalid.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

None the less; I do have a fundamental problem with the State mandating, regulating, and controlling education.
Just the federal government, or also state governments?

~~Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just the federal government, or also state governments?

~~Paul

The individual states have the right to set it up in the manner that the voters of that state desire.

This gives the individual much easier access to government and the ability to move to a different state if they can not achieve their desires.

My personal preference would be for mostly local control.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My personal preference would be for mostly local control.
Agreed.

~~Paul

[jsfisher]

Agreed.


There is far too much agreement going on. Someone needs to stop.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There is far too much agreement going on.

I disagree with your assertion.


PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT!!!

[Rika]

I have read the entire thing. If you want a more sound argument, it goes like this:

Promote the genereal Welfare includes educating the children (granted, this is where I think you reach, and my personal preference is that the federal government should only dictate the absolute minimum requirements.. and things like NCLB and standardized testing should go by the wayside)

Okay, so that gives Congress the power to make laws about education.

So, rather then spending the time, they delegate the power to the Department of Education (which is why Congress has oversight, it's creatred by them and represents a loss of power from the legislative branch)

This is where you get the constutionalism of it. Whether or not it does its jobs or does too much is, of course, an entire seperate argument.

(FYI: The Constution as it is interpeted now is not a limiting document. Welcome to change in government.)

[Tokenconservative]

Are you talking about your newfound capacity to do so?

Wow, how astonishing! NO ONE else on this on a board like this could POSSIBLY match that statistic.

Sigh ... could you learn how to read what was written? I never called you a liar, nor implied the same. I advised that I had gleaned your family situation from various posts. Frankly, you don't tell your story well. It appears from above that you private-schooled, then public-schooled, then home-schooled, then private-schooled, then public-schooled. Is that correct? If not, could you try again with the time-line?

I'd also be interested in why you ended lawyering up to get your kids moved grade-wise. Could you provide a time-line on that? As I have stated elsewhere, we faced a specific problem in terms of grade placement. While it was certainly our option to force the school system to provide reasonable accomodation, we chose homeschooling to provide a more solid approach to resolving the issue. No big point here, just collecting stories from various parents on their school experiences.

Yes, obviously ALL public buildings have individual heating and cooling controls in each room. :rolleyes: All you have to do is turn the heat or AC off, who cares if the remaining children are too cold or too hot to learn. After all, we already knew they weren't learning anything anyways, right? And you still have not addressed insurance, base costs for building maintenance (unless you think the unused rooms should just go to rack and ruin), base costs for support staff, etc.

If your particular school district is hiring teachers in what seems to be an ill-reasoned manner, what have you done to become part of the process? Are you a member of your school's PTA? Been placed on the email list for the school board? Attended school board meetings? Attended county government meetings, especially in relation to budgets? Or just thrown your hands up in the air and decried the whole as stupid?

I don't actually have a position on the school voucher policies. I just find it hard to agree with anyone who doesn't put forth a reasoned argument. You may have a point, but as I stated before, who can tell with the way your present the information?

1. No. I have a very practiced ability to read between the lines; I was suggesting that YOU might try reading what others write rather than reading what you, in your bigotry, inist they must write in order to make you more comfortable.

2. Your sarcasm needs work. It's not at all subtle. Read me...learn from a master.

3. Hmmm...Well, I suppose I was a bit harsh then, but just because you have been unable to gleam from whatever collection of my works in here you've drawn together, my specific story, that's not my problem. You asked, I told, and THIS time (at long last!) you got it. Yeah, that's about how it went with my kids schooling. We had argued vehemently that our kids needed to be moved up one grade BEFORE enrolling them, and the princi"pal" insisted, and convinced us otherwise (we knew this guy personally, and were willing to take his professional opinion into consideration) before enrolling them. His concern was that they would be "socially" out of place with older kids. I don't know about you, but my kids go to school for academics, not socializing. In any case, we allowed them to be put into the "age-appropriate" grades and discovered almost immediately that they were at least two (2) years ahead in every subject, and 3-4 in science (coming from an anti-evolution Evangelical school...) and math.

4. When we asked nicely at mid-year or so to have our kids moved up a grade so they'd stop being bored all day long or being used as assistant teachers (that's okay for a bit, but not in every class, every day, all day) the school refused. The district refused. We lawyered up. They suddenly found it to be an acceptable idear.

5. I get the feeling you understand neither economics nor how budgeting works for schools. While there are seperate budgets established for personnel and facilities, the money all comes from the same pot. You don't have a mil levy tax that goes JUST to building maintenance (tho that's often what they tell you when pushing for it) or one JUST for teacher pay. Besides, if say, 10% of the kids in a public leave, that means the school has no need of 10% of its faculty and support staff (counselors, paraprofessionals, etc.). The saving from laying these now un-needed employees off, would easily cover the facilities costs.

6. And there it is...first let me say that I find liberals like you who home-school while vehemently supporting the publics and shrieking that vouchers are a bad idea (you know...not EVERYONE is in a position to homeschool) to be an especially venal kind of liberal hypocrite. PTAs here are run by the teachers. Without taking a gun in, nothing gets done that the teachers don't want done. Period. End of story. You are also forgetting the very important issue of the diffuse interest vs. the concentrated interest. Parents are the diffuse interest, with little to know organization, a short-term perspective (12 years) and no money behind them. Teachers are the concentrated interest. The Union brings its money not just to things like voucher referenda, but to school boards that look like they are straying, too. Jane Average running for PTA president with a budget of her rumpus room and plates of homemade cookies doesn't stand a change against the NEA with its millions of dollars. You can run around hypocritically shrieking "grassroots!!! grassroots!!!" but the reality is all of this winds down to the money. Grown ups who are HONEST know this. Grownups who are liberals, deny it.

7. Ah, the old "I don't have a view!!!" hypocrisy, after spending 10,000 words arguing that vouchers are bad. My view is acually the view presented by George Will in a column (OP). You find that "unreasoned" because first and foremost you are a liberal, and second you are a hypocrite. Now, of course, you will shriek "ad hom!!! Ad HOM!!!!!" despite the fact that my accurately identifying you for what you are is far less an ad hom than I face every time I utter a word in here.

If you want to have a "reasoned" debate on the issue, stop demanding personal information about it. Stop insisting that those who favor vouchers do so because they hate the poor (the one in Utah is means-based...hmmmmm) or because voucher proponents are all evil white men who want to take education away from "coloreds." Um...do you know anything about the voucher program in Detroit? In Florida?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

You are forgetting that the constitution is a limiting document. Taking "to provide for the general welfare of the United States" to mean that the Federal government has powers not specifically enumerated is to disregard the rest of the document.

Remember, Jerome, most liberals believe that "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is in the US Constitution.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The individual states have the right to set it up in the manner that the voters of that state desire.

This gives the individual much easier access to government and the ability to move to a different state if they can not achieve their desires.

My personal preference would be for mostly local control.

This was the original intent (regarding control) and so long as generally-accepted standards were met on a national level, it worked just fine.

That, of course, was before the rise of the NEA, a NATIONAL body that in effect controls the schools.

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Promote the genereal Welfare includes educating the children (granted, this is where I think you reach, and my personal preference is that the federal government should only dictate the absolute minimum requirements.. and things like NCLB and standardized testing should go by the wayside)

Okay, so that gives Congress the power to make laws about education.

So, rather then spending the time, they delegate the power to the Department of Education (which is why Congress has oversight, it's creatred by them and represents a loss of power from the legislative branch)

This is where you get the constutionalism of it. Whether or not it does its jobs or does too much is, of course, an entire seperate argument.

(FYI: The Constution as it is interpeted now is not a limiting document. Welcome to change in government.)


I see, you do not believe in honoring legal contracts. Just make it up as you go?

[bluess]

1. No. I have a very practiced ability to read between the lines; I was suggesting that YOU might try reading what others write rather than reading what you, in your bigotry, inist they must write in order to make you more comfortable.

Do, please give examples of my bigotry. Really, I just can't wait. And let me point out how funny it is that you can read between the lines but everyone else should read what you wrote.


2. Your sarcasm needs work. It's not at all subtle. Read me...learn from a master.

I glad to know that you could see the subtlety, what will all the capital letters I was using.


3. Hmmm...Well, I suppose I was a bit harsh then, but just because you have been unable to gleam from whatever collection of my works in here you've drawn together, my specific story, that's not my problem. You asked, I told, and THIS time (at long last!) you got it. Yeah, that's about how it went with my kids schooling. We had argued vehemently that our kids needed to be moved up one grade BEFORE enrolling them, and the princi"pal" insisted, and convinced us otherwise (we knew this guy personally, and were willing to take his professional opinion into consideration) before enrolling them. His concern was that they would be "socially" out of place with older kids. I don't know about you, but my kids go to school for academics, not socializing. In any case, we allowed them to be put into the "age-appropriate" grades and discovered almost immediately that they were at least two (2) years ahead in every subject, and 3-4 in science (coming from an anti-evolution Evangelical school...) and math.

4. When we asked nicely at mid-year or so to have our kids moved up a grade so they'd stop being bored all day long or being used as assistant teachers (that's okay for a bit, but not in every class, every day, all day) the school refused. The district refused. We lawyered up. They suddenly found it to be an acceptable idear.



That is an unforunate experience. Our school system did not have a problem with moving our child up mid-year; and from talking with other parents that seems the general experience here. The real issues in our county surround assistance with learning issues. I wonder why your personal relationship with the principal didn't carry more value in your attempt to move your children up in grade level?

Were you being cute writing 'idear'?


5. I get the feeling you understand neither economics nor how budgeting works for schools. While there are seperate budgets established for personnel and facilities, the money all comes from the same pot. You don't have a mil levy tax that goes JUST to building maintenance (tho that's often what they tell you when pushing for it) or one JUST for teacher pay. Besides, if say, 10% of the kids in a public leave, that means the school has no need of 10% of its faculty and support staff (counselors, paraprofessionals, etc.). The saving from laying these now un-needed employees off, would easily cover the facilities costs.


Well, I do understand budgeting and economics, even though I am not you. I don't believe your understanding of staffing needs is correct. A drop in population does not necessarily correspond to an equivalent drop in staffing needs. Even if 10% of the students leave, you still need a school secretary (or two). Ditto for the school nurse. If the entire third grade population for a school was reduced by one class load, I could see not needing the extra third grade teacher. But then, perhaps, in next year the parents who put their children in private school/homeschool would decide to return them to public school. You know, like you did. The school board has to try to forecast future needs.

And the next paragraph is so astonishing that I need to do it line by line (apologies to everyone else reading).

6. And there it is...first let me say that I find liberals like you who home-school while vehemently supporting the publics and shrieking that vouchers are a bad idea (you know...not EVERYONE is in a position to homeschool) to be an especially venal kind of liberal hypocrite.

Apparently, your reading between the lines has reached Geller-like proportions. Please re-read every single post I have made here. With the exception of the post to which you responded, I have not made a single comment regarding vouchers. And in that post I stated "I don't actually have a position on the school voucher policies." But somehow, I have been "shrieking" that vouchers are a bad idea.

And nice name calling, by the way. I find that your ongoing decision to villify the people with whom you are conversing to continually increase my respect for you.

(Shh, don't anybody tell TokenConservative about the sarcasm in the sentence above.)



PTAs here are run by the teachers. Without taking a gun in, nothing gets done that the teachers don't want done. Period. End of story. You are also forgetting the very important issue of the diffuse interest vs. the concentrated interest. Parents are the diffuse interest, with little to know organization, a short-term perspective (12 years) and no money behind them. Teachers are the concentrated interest. The Union brings its money not just to things like voucher referenda, but to school boards that look like they are straying, too. Jane Average running for PTA president with a budget of her rumpus room and plates of homemade cookies doesn't stand a change against the NEA with its millions of dollars. You can run around hypocritically shrieking "grassroots!!! grassroots!!!" but the reality is all of this winds down to the money. Grown ups who are HONEST know this. Grownups who are liberals, deny it.


So the NEA funds PTA elections at your school? Damn, your school must be incredibly important. Have you considered providing leadership to your fellow parents?

Oh, perhaps you left out a transitionary sentence, and mean that parents cannot sway the direction of county education policy due to the NEA's interference at the county level? Again, maybe you live in a focal county, as that hasn't been my experience in our dealings.

And once again with the shrieking. I had no idea that I typed so loudly.


7. Ah, the old "I don't have a view!!!" hypocrisy, after spending 10,000 words arguing that vouchers are bad.

Again, please show me by pointing to specific posts where, other than in the post I made the above statement, I have made any arguments for or against school vouchers.


My view is acually the view presented by George Will in a column (OP). You find that "unreasoned" because first and foremost you are a liberal, and second you are a hypocrite. Now, of course, you will shriek "ad hom!!! Ad HOM!!!!!" despite the fact that my accurately identifying you for what you are is far less an ad hom than I face every time I utter a word in here.

Shrieking yet again? Do make use of a theosaurus and learn some new words. Why couldn't I yell, or bellow, or keen, or wail, or scream? Oh, wait, in your little world liberals can only 'shriek'. That must be why True Liberals bring ear plugs when they shop at the organic market.:D

Well, I've actually had discussions with another member of this board who is a conservative. He apparently has been put here to prove to me that not all conservatives are like you. We have had a great deal of reasoned discourse, so you'll understand if I find the problem in discoursing here to reside with you. As noted above, you find it is eminently reasonable to decide someone is a hypocrite based on their deduced politics. :rolleyes:



If you want to have a "reasoned" debate on the issue, stop demanding personal information about it. Stop insisting that those who favor vouchers do so because they hate the poor (the one in Utah is means-based...hmmmmm) or because voucher proponents are all evil white men who want to take education away from "coloreds." Um...do you know anything about the voucher program in Detroit? In Florida?

Tokie

Er, I did not demand personal information. I requested it and stated that I had requested the same for personal reasons. You apparently had no problem providing it, as noted in quotes from your post above. Again, I have made ONE comment regarding the voucher issue, stating I didn't have a position. Perhaps in your enthusiasm to respond to various posts, you have confused me with some other poster. As I have not taken any position regarding vouchers, I have not insisted anything about those who favor or oppose the same.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1. No. I have a very practiced ability to read between the lines;
You should do it less. It's really annoying, especially when you get it wrong. With two minutes work you could have found out that I'm not a teacher.

~~Paul

[Hindmost]

You have not shown a single wisp of evidence for any of this...link? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKK!!!!??

Anyway...Since vouchers have only been around for a very short time, and no...it's not true that "no voucher school has or will ever release data about itself!!!!" we do have limited data. What we don't have, is limited data about how much better privates do than the publics. Now, you will shriek link--LIIINNNNKKKKKKKKKKK!!! But I won't provide one. Neither will I provide one for this assertion: the sun rises in the east.


Sorry....just the kinda hairpin I am.

First, vouchers are much more complex than "the sun rises in the east." And the sun doesn't rise in the east at all, the earth turns to expose the sun...unless you are one of those earth centered universe conservatives.


Actually, I provided a link shown here:

There is a move to have more accountability in Milwaukee. The following links show the problems associated with some voucher schools:http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418063 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418063)http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418193 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418193)Obviously the jury is still out...however after 17-18 years in Milwaukee, there appears to be no tangible benefits. Since that is almost a generation, I think that should be sufficient time to be able to determine efficacy. I personally see no benefit overall.

and you just failed to read it...please try again.

Now on to our cases:

1. More than 1.2 million students drop out of (fail to graduate from) America's public schools.

2. 60% of these come from "low income" families

3. Only about half of American Latino and black kids graduate from a public school on time.

4. The vast majority of ALL kids graduating, are not ready for college. This is why nearly one-in-three college freshmen fail college placement tests and must take remedial courses in writing and simple math that should've been learned at some point in the previous 12 years of...dare I say it? Public schooling.

5. Only 56% of freshmen entering college manage to graduate in 4 years..most, today, take six years. That USED to be the number of years to get a Masters. We are here, talking about a Bachelors degree.

6. America has one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.

First, I wonder why a good Liberal like you, Hind, believe that it's okay that our poor and minority kids are so badly treated in the schools.

Second, while you will now shriek "this has nothing--NOTHIIIIINGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!--to do with it!!!," the reality is that this tells us something given that MOST kids go to public schools.

But you go ahead, champion the public schools and their unions and the status quo they so desperately fight to maintain.

I am sure that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually make the schools better. Maybe a better contract giving teachers more days off will help?

Tokie

Again with the strawman...I NEVER indicated in anything I have posted that I believe it is OK for minorities to be treated badly. Your statement is just ridiculous. I also have never indicated I am for the status quo in this or past threads.

Why do you think vouchers are going to fix what you have posted here?

I agree that there is a problem with high schools and have posted that previously...20-30% of all high school students are not accomodated in typical high school. To fix this would take a program much more advanced than vouchers...which really doesn't even have an infrastructure to even start the process. All vouchers do is move some money from one place to another--how can that improve education when there is no accountability for the voucher schools and no data to show that a voucher school can do a better job.

As far as college graduation rates being low in four years, I would have to put the majority of that blame on the parents and students.

If you care to look at Bill Gates ideas for education.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/TransformingHighSchools/default.htm


glenn

[Rika]

I see, you do not believe in honoring legal contracts. Just make it up as you go?

When a legal contract no longer works, then you are actually supposed to change it. With the evolution of the American Government, it became increasingly clear that the states could not handle everything themselves. If you are intrested more, I recommend taking a government and politics course.

In addition, the Federal level DoE doesn't actually do that much.

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party), who saw the department as an unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.
Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States) is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act)). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_accreditation), over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.
Rather, the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.
On March 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_23), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), President Bush signed into law H.R. 584, which designates the ED Headquarters building as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building



(Bolding Mine)

[Rika]

This was the original intent (regarding control) and so long as generally-accepted standards were met on a national level, it worked just fine.

That, of course, was before the rise of the NEA, a NATIONAL body that in effect controls the schools.

Tokie

Got any proof? (Incidently, the NEA doesn't really control the schools. It does oppose merit pay, which ... makes sense. (it's in their bests intrsts to do so) but opposing stuff such as NCLB is a "...well, duh?" move.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When a legal contract no longer works, then you are actually supposed to change it. With the evolution of the American Government, it became increasingly clear that the states could not handle everything themselves. If you are intrested more, I recommend taking a government and politics course.

I take it that you do not deal with many contracts.

Typically contracts prescribe the method of change within the contract itself.

This is the case with the constitution.

A member of a contract can not unilaterally "evolve" the contract outside of the frame of the contract.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Got any proof?

History.

Reality.

[Rika]

That is not valid proof. Proof would include evidence or actual LINKS. (Yeah, I said it)


I take it that you do not deal with many contracts.

Typically contracts prescribe the method of change within the contract itself.

This is the case with the constitution.

A member of a contract can not unilaterally "evolve" the contract outside of the frame of the contract.

Yes and no. The Constutition was built on the social contract theory. THat is, the people have the right to alter the government as they saw fit.

Overall, the majority of Americans want the federal governemnt to do this. It's not a hard bit of reasoning.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Overall, the majority of Americans want the federal governemnt to do this. It's not a hard bit of reasoning.

So, by your reasoning:

If the majority of the people want the Federal governmnet to sterilize all people that have an I.Q. under 100 and a height under 5' 10", you find this in accord with the constitution.

[Rika]

Yeah, that's an equivalant scenairo to people thinking hte federal governement should be more involved :rolleyes:

[jsfisher]

Yes and no. The Constutition was built on the social contract theory. THat is, the people have the right to alter the government as they saw fit.

Overall, the majority of Americans want the federal governemnt to do this. It's not a hard bit of reasoning.


The US Constitution is too precious to yield to the ever-changing whim of a simple majority of citizens.

If the Constitution needs to adapt and be reshaped with time, it should be amended, not reinterpreted out of convenience.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The US Constitution is too precious to yield to the ever-changing whim of a simple majority of citizens.

If the Constitution needs to adapt and be reshaped with time, it should be amended, not reinterpreted out of convenience.

Nominated.:D

[jsfisher]

Nominated.:D

Take note, though: The TLA tsar has a new rule. (One post above yours in the Nomination thread.)

[Rika]

The US Constitution is too precious to yield to the ever-changing whim of a simple majority of citizens.

If the Constitution needs to adapt and be reshaped with time, it should be amended, not reinterpreted out of convenience.

Uhm.. I'd say 90% to be more than a simple majority. In any case, replacing it is most likely impratical and not advisable with the current level of partisan politics.

[jsfisher]

Uhm.. I'd say 90% to be more than a simple majority. In any case, replacing it is most likely impratical and not advisable with the current level of partisan politics.

At 90%, an appropriate amendment should be easily passed. I am not sure why you raised "replacing it" as an option.

[Rika]

Give me a few hours to type up a reply in Politics. This thread is getting a bit derailed.

[jsfisher]

Give me a few hours to type up a reply in Politics. This thread is getting a bit derailed.

You are right about the derail. Why don't we all just allow this to move back to the teachers and vouchers discussion and let the Constitution debate subside.

[Tokenconservative]

Do, please give examples of my bigotry. Really, I just can't wait. And let me point out how funny it is that you can read between the lines but everyone else should read what you wrote.



Oh goody! 'Nother Tokie stalker!

1. Anyway...sure, read between the lines all you want...do so ACCURATELY, though. I never said, textually or between the lines that I'd like to see poor, ethnic etc., kids thrown out of school. This, by the way, is an example of your bigotry. You falsely believe that any "conservative" MUST desire this...because after all, we don't want "them" in our country clubs and we don't want "them" mixing with our Aryan WASP children in the schools! But wait...don't all us fat, white, rich WASPs send our kids to expensive day schools?

In fact, I am very much opposed to any idea that would completly defund the schoolsm, whether those schools are populated entirely by my Aryan brothers and sisters who, because of their race, deserve even more funding, or by "coloreds" who don't need to be educated anyway. I have no problem with a wholesale re-organization of the public schools system, defunding the CURRENT unworkable, anti-educational mess, but we'd have to come up with something to replace it and yes, that takes money.

B. Well, this system DID have that problem, and in (later) talking to other parents their then-stated claim that we were the "only" parents experiencing these problems was a lie. Good that your schools are better, though I am guessing you suffer from another issue in your analysis of your local schools this way.

IV. Princi'pal': I should have said he was an acquaintance, and from speaking with him over the years I thought it would carry more weight, too. However, what he really turned out to be was a smarmy, self-serving bastard intent on toeing the company line at all costs--this is why he fought so hard to put our kids into the "correct" grade for "social" reasons (his argument to us), because the publics are loathe to admit that privates generally teach 2-3 years over their ability at grade level. It turns out he is one of those princi'pals' who is constantly shifted around the district as they wait out his tenure with them until his retirement. He's been moved to two different schools since then.

2. Not sure what you mean by "assistance with learning issues." Stossel found some interesting stats that he conected the dots with to reveal that the longer one stays in the public schools the stupider you become. This weekend, we had a big blowup with our daughters concerning their schooling and the one who has only just begun in the public school admitted that she is terrified by what she is seeing happening to her sister: her sister is being dumbed down. She says that she can see that her sister is losing her intellectual edge and that it has her scared to death. This, by the way, is EXACTLY what Stossel found, writ large for my wife and me in our own kids. You might say "well, not in OUR schools!" but Stossel addressed that too, noting that survey after survey shows that locally, parents say, "our LOCAL schools do a good job but nationally? They stink!" You seem reasonably bright...how can it be that on the micro level the schools are wonderful, but on the macro level they stink? Please explain? Also explain this curiosity: you say your local schools are wonderful...and yet...you homeschool?

We've decided our kids will be permanently out of that system by mid-year and will be returning to a homeschool/online schooling system.

ii.) "Idear": Libs all try to sound like Kennedies...thought you'd appreciate that I speak your language.

3. When any other business losses business, it will often respond by laying off then un-needed personnel. Only heavily unionized shops don't operate in this way...um, you DO know that the publics are the most heavily uninonized business around, right? Here is how it works: when a school's budget from 2, 4, 6 years ago, projecting incorrectly, calls for hiring MORE teachers, that's exactly what they do, regardless of whether those teachers are needed. 'Splain me this dichotomy: the teachers are constantly screaming that if only class size was smaller, they'd be better able to teach. But when things like vouchers promise to decrease class size, they and their champions (you) shriek that classes are TOO small.

Personnel is always the largest expense. You think it's heating and AC, but it's not. There are also higher-ups who can/should be laid off: ass. principals, district-level administrators...they are not laid off either. Other than SOME language teachers and higher sciences and math, there is no shortage of teachers. If a school suddenly finds that it will have x-number more students than it did last year, it simply has to hire or re-hire a teacher or two. Just as any widget-maker would if its order increase. Your non-understanding of how this works speaks volumes about your socialist views. You believe the bread-maker makes bread because he LIKES you, huh?

Etc.: I am not going to re-read your every post in here. I am not a stalker. While I am clearly one of the most entertaining posters in here, if you've read every post of mine in here...you need to get a life. Seriously. Identifying you for what you are ideologically is not "name calling." What it IS, howmsoever, is as close to your simply admitting that that's what you are as I am likely to get. Liberals believe that being identified for what they are is pejorative (conservatives do not), but that's an intellectual failing or tactical approach of their own making. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care if it calls itself a ham sandwich...it's still a migratory waterfoul.

All opposition to vouchers is by its nature "shrieking." It comes from the left, and that's what lefties do, but other than that it always reveals itself to be, an unreasoning, unreasonbable, often hysterical, hyperbolic, mis-representational and frequently wholly untruthful view of the issue. Such as your insistence that proponents of vouchers are pillowcase-clad Nightriders only hoping to remove "coloreds" from the public screwels.

LOL...yes, the NEA puts money into ANY PTA race that looks to be going against them. You're not in Kansas anymore, but maybe you should be. And yes, I live in a very focal county and focal state, both for schools and lots of other industries (we are a very neatly divided population left-right), so that MAY color my perceptions, but as a laboratory for the NEA, as go we, so goes the nation. I am not an idle housewife. I don't have time to "provide leadership" and anyway, my kids will be out of school in a year or two...so then it's somebody else's problem (see: diffuse vs. concentrated interest).

Finally, your shrieking (lol) at me that my um...shrieking makes it hard for you to agree with me, is more evidence of both you ideological stance and your view of vouchers. As a lefty, you needs must identify my views as hysterical and unreasoned...it's a little thing called "projection" and your Playbook covers its use extensively. By the way A conversation with ONE miquetoast, turn-the-other-cheek-until-you-look-like-Linda-Blair-in-The Exorcist "conservative" who believes that we should try and get along with those attempting to enslave our children and destroy our society and our culture is hardly enough to prove that I am a secluded-compound rightwingnutjob, but you'll believe as your ideology (and the Playbook) insists you must, and on this issue that is that vouchers are bad because they force schools and teachers to compete in a free market (oh, the humanity!) system and because, of course, those who favor them do so while burning crosses on "coloreds" lawns.

Or am I mis-reading between the lines, once again?

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1. Anyway...sure, read between the lines all you want...do so ACCURATELY, though. I never said, textually or between the lines that I'd like to see poor, ethnic etc., kids thrown out of school. This, by the way, is an example of your bigotry. You falsely believe that any "conservative" MUST desire this...
This is rich, coming from you. Here's the logic you apparently used with me; correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Paul thinks that money shouldn't be transferred to charter schools.

2. Anyone who thinks that must be a member of a teachers' union.

3. Therefore, Paul is a teacher.

I daresay the real bigot is you, who thinks that nonconservatives must believe that conservatives believe that kids should be trashed. Oh, and look:

All opposition to vouchers is by its nature "shrieking." It comes from the left, and that's what lefties do, but other than that it always reveals itself to be, an unreasoning, unreasonbable, often hysterical, hyperbolic, mis-representational and frequently wholly untruthful view of the issue.
What the hell?


Oh goody! 'Nother Tokie stalker!
Apparently you think that anyone who calls you on your crap is a stalker. I congratulate you on your very contemporary way of dismissing criticism.

I note, by the way, that you have not apologized for your invalid assumptions.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Finally, your shrieking (lol) at me that my um...shrieking makes it hard for you to agree with me, is more evidence of both you ideological stance and your view of vouchers. As a lefty, you needs must identify my views as hysterical and unreasoned...it's a little thing called "projection" and your Playbook covers its use extensively. By the way A conversation with ONE miquetoast, turn-the-other-cheek-until-you-look-like-Linda-Blair-in-The Exorcist "conservative" who believes that we should try and get along with those attempting to enslave our children and destroy our society and our culture is hardly enough to prove that I am a secluded-compound rightwingnutjob, but you'll believe as your ideology (and the Playbook) insists you must, and on this issue that is that vouchers are bad because they force schools and teachers to compete in a free market (oh, the humanity!) system and because, of course, those who favor them do so while burning crosses on "coloreds" lawns.

Or am I mis-reading between the lines, once again?
Oh no, I'm sure Bluess would agree with each and every word you've written here. No problem at all.

~~ Paul

[bluess]

Oh goody! 'Nother Tokie stalker!

1. Anyway...sure, read between the lines all you want...do so ACCURATELY, though. I never said, textually or between the lines that I'd like to see poor, ethnic etc., kids thrown out of school. This, by the way, is an example of your bigotry. You falsely believe that any "conservative" MUST desire this...because after all, we don't want "them" in our country clubs and we don't want "them" mixing with our Aryan WASP children in the schools! But wait...don't all us fat, white, rich WASPs send our kids to expensive day schools?

In fact, I am very much opposed to any idea that would completly defund the schoolsm, whether those schools are populated entirely by my Aryan brothers and sisters who, because of their race, deserve even more funding, or by "coloreds" who don't need to be educated anyway. I have no problem with a wholesale re-organization of the public schools system, defunding the CURRENT unworkable, anti-educational mess, but we'd have to come up with something to replace it and yes, that takes money.

B. Well, this system DID have that problem, and in (later) talking to other parents their then-stated claim that we were the "only" parents experiencing these problems was a lie. Good that your schools are better, though I am guessing you suffer from another issue in your analysis of your local schools this way.

IV. Princi'pal': I should have said he was an acquaintance, and from speaking with him over the years I thought it would carry more weight, too. However, what he really turned out to be was a smarmy, self-serving bastard intent on toeing the company line at all costs--this is why he fought so hard to put our kids into the "correct" grade for "social" reasons (his argument to us), because the publics are loathe to admit that privates generally teach 2-3 years over their ability at grade level. It turns out he is one of those princi'pals' who is constantly shifted around the district as they wait out his tenure with them until his retirement. He's been moved to two different schools since then.

2. Not sure what you mean by "assistance with learning issues." Stossel found some interesting stats that he conected the dots with to reveal that the longer one stays in the public schools the stupider you become. This weekend, we had a big blowup with our daughters concerning their schooling and the one who has only just begun in the public school admitted that she is terrified by what she is seeing happening to her sister: her sister is being dumbed down. She says that she can see that her sister is losing her intellectual edge and that it has her scared to death. This, by the way, is EXACTLY what Stossel found, writ large for my wife and me in our own kids. You might say "well, not in OUR schools!" but Stossel addressed that too, noting that survey after survey shows that locally, parents say, "our LOCAL schools do a good job but nationally? They stink!" You seem reasonably bright...how can it be that on the micro level the schools are wonderful, but on the macro level they stink? Please explain? Also explain this curiosity: you say your local schools are wonderful...and yet...you homeschool?

We've decided our kids will be permanently out of that system by mid-year and will be returning to a homeschool/online schooling system.

ii.) "Idear": Libs all try to sound like Kennedies...thought you'd appreciate that I speak your language.

3. When any other business losses business, it will often respond by laying off then un-needed personnel. Only heavily unionized shops don't operate in this way...um, you DO know that the publics are the most heavily uninonized business around, right? Here is how it works: when a school's budget from 2, 4, 6 years ago, projecting incorrectly, calls for hiring MORE teachers, that's exactly what they do, regardless of whether those teachers are needed. 'Splain me this dichotomy: the teachers are constantly screaming that if only class size was smaller, they'd be better able to teach. But when things like vouchers promise to decrease class size, they and their champions (you) shriek that classes are TOO small.

Personnel is always the largest expense. You think it's heating and AC, but it's not. There are also higher-ups who can/should be laid off: ass. principals, district-level administrators...they are not laid off either. Other than SOME language teachers and higher sciences and math, there is no shortage of teachers. If a school suddenly finds that it will have x-number more students than it did last year, it simply has to hire or re-hire a teacher or two. Just as any widget-maker would if its order increase. Your non-understanding of how this works speaks volumes about your socialist views. You believe the bread-maker makes bread because he LIKES you, huh?

Etc.: I am not going to re-read your every post in here. I am not a stalker. While I am clearly one of the most entertaining posters in here, if you've read every post of mine in here...you need to get a life. Seriously. Identifying you for what you are ideologically is not "name calling." What it IS, howmsoever, is as close to your simply admitting that that's what you are as I am likely to get. Liberals believe that being identified for what they are is pejorative (conservatives do not), but that's an intellectual failing or tactical approach of their own making. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care if it calls itself a ham sandwich...it's still a migratory waterfoul.

All opposition to vouchers is by its nature "shrieking." It comes from the left, and that's what lefties do, but other than that it always reveals itself to be, an unreasoning, unreasonbable, often hysterical, hyperbolic, mis-representational and frequently wholly untruthful view of the issue. Such as your insistence that proponents of vouchers are pillowcase-clad Nightriders only hoping to remove "coloreds" from the public screwels.

LOL...yes, the NEA puts money into ANY PTA race that looks to be going against them. You're not in Kansas anymore, but maybe you should be. And yes, I live in a very focal county and focal state, both for schools and lots of other industries (we are a very neatly divided population left-right), so that MAY color my perceptions, but as a laboratory for the NEA, as go we, so goes the nation. I am not an idle housewife. I don't have time to "provide leadership" and anyway, my kids will be out of school in a year or two...so then it's somebody else's problem (see: diffuse vs. concentrated interest).

Finally, your shrieking (lol) at me that my um...shrieking makes it hard for you to agree with me, is more evidence of both you ideological stance and your view of vouchers. As a lefty, you needs must identify my views as hysterical and unreasoned...it's a little thing called "projection" and your Playbook covers its use extensively. By the way A conversation with ONE miquetoast, turn-the-other-cheek-until-you-look-like-Linda-Blair-in-The Exorcist "conservative" who believes that we should try and get along with those attempting to enslave our children and destroy our society and our culture is hardly enough to prove that I am a secluded-compound rightwingnutjob, but you'll believe as your ideology (and the Playbook) insists you must, and on this issue that is that vouchers are bad because they force schools and teachers to compete in a free market (oh, the humanity!) system and because, of course, those who favor them do so while burning crosses on "coloreds" lawns.

Or am I mis-reading between the lines, once again?

Tokie

TokenConservative:

You have again demonstrated your inability to:
- respond to a particular poster
- respond to a particular post
- refrain from personal attack
- state your argument
- provide content to support your argument
- follow the 'board behavior' you require from everyone else

As such, I see no reason to continue this silliness.

However, there were some posters having reasoned discussion regarding the school voucher issue, and if any of those are left I would be interested in the pro- and anti- arguments. Again, I have no leaning to either side and would appreciate hearing good arguments.

[Cleon]

...
All opposition to vouchers is by its nature "shrieking." It comes from the left, and that's what lefties do,...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[genesplicer]

3. When any other business losses business, it will often respond by laying off then un-needed personnel. Only heavily unionized shops don't operate in this way...um, you DO know that the publics are the most heavily uninonized business around, right? Here is how it works: when a school's budget from 2, 4, 6 years ago, projecting incorrectly, calls for hiring MORE teachers, that's exactly what they do, regardless of whether those teachers are needed. 'Splain me this dichotomy: the teachers are constantly screaming that if only class size was smaller, they'd be better able to teach. But when things like vouchers promise to decrease class size, they and their champions (you) shriek that classes are TOO small.



Tokie


I'll take this one. Schools and districts may make projections about what student population will be in the future, and they may use that to plan what classes and teachers they need, but the day-to-day operations is what drives the teacher population.

A real-world example from my school that puts "paid" to what Tokie said: My school had a preliminary population prediction done in May, based on incoming 6th graders from our elementary schools. This prediction is refined bases on paperwork submitted by parents by the first day of school in late August. We had hired based on predictions made in May. By September 14 (Census day) it was apparent that we had 38 students less than was predicted. Does this mean smaller classes for all of us? NO! It means a teacher got fired and our classes were adjusted upward as the students were distributed among us.

Does the union set how many teachers a school has? No. What they can negotiate is the maximum number of students a teacher may have in a single class. For example, my classes are only allowed to have 36 or fewer students. It is part of the agreement between the union and the district, negotiated by both as part of our labor contract.

They do not discuss a minimum number of students, but you can be certain that the district will make sure there are minimums in place. The smallest class I have ever had in my 17 years is 23. And that lasted only a couple of weeks until we got transfers. The district can adjust staffing as needed at school sites. If there are too many students in a particular school they will add teachers or move students to other schools. If there are not enough students, the district will fire or reassign teachers.

So, the district does not "Hire more teachers" even if they are not needed. They only hire enough to cover what they think they will need the next year, and if it turns out they predicted wrong, then they will have to scramble to hire more (which often happens) or fire a few extras (which sometimes happens). Districts tend to hire conservatively, estimating the MINIMUM teachers it will need and hiring based on that.


So do vouchers promise to reduce class size? No. They promise to reduce school size. I teach 170 out of 900 students at my school. If my school were reduced to only 200 students, that would mean my class load would go up, because I would have all of them, as I would be the only science teacher, the others being fired or reassigned to other schools.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The hiring/firing history at my town's grade and middle schools* follows along with what Genesplicer just said. To make it more complicated, our tax base includes only 2.2% businesses; the rest is homeowners. So that means that a failure to pass a tax override can result in massive layoffs, as happened in 1991. The school had to fire about eight teachers, and that had nothing to do with any reduction in student population.

~~ Paul

* Grades K through 8 on one campus. The high school is in a district with another town.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The school had to fire about eight teachers, and that had nothing to do with any reduction in student population.

~~ Paul

Want to bet that the administrators did not cut their pay?

You must understand the game that is played?

[NobbyNobbs]

You have not shown a single wisp of evidence for any of this...link? LIIIINNNKKKKKKKK!!!!??

Anyway...Since vouchers have only been around for a very short time, and no...it's not true that "no voucher school has or will ever release data about itself!!!!" we do have limited data. What we don't have, is limited data about how much better privates do than the publics. Now, you will shriek link--LIIINNNNKKKKKKKKKKK!!! But I won't provide one. Neither will I provide one for this assertion: the sun rises in the east.

Sorry....just the kinda hairpin I am.

Now on to our cases:

1. More than 1.2 million students drop out of (fail to graduate from) America's public schools.

2. 60% of these come from "low income" families

3. Only about half of American Latino and black kids graduate from a public school on time.

4. The vast majority of ALL kids graduating, are not ready for college. This is why nearly one-in-three college freshmen fail college placement tests and must take remedial courses in writing and simple math that should've been learned at some point in the previous 12 years of...dare I say it? Public schooling.

5. Only 56% of freshmen entering college manage to graduate in 4 years..most, today, take six years. That USED to be the number of years to get a Masters. We are here, talking about a Bachelors degree.

6. America has one of the lowest college completion rates in the world.

First, I wonder why a good Liberal like you, Hind, believe that it's okay that our poor and minority kids are so badly treated in the schools.

Second, while you will now shriek "this has nothing--NOTHIIIIINGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!--to do with it!!!," the reality is that this tells us something given that MOST kids go to public schools.

But you go ahead, champion the public schools and their unions and the status quo they so desperately fight to maintain.

I am sure that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually make the schools better. Maybe a better contract giving teachers more days off will help?

Tokie

Translation: Here's a bunch of statistics with no proof to back them up.


The $7500 per child DOES include that. I have run businesses all my life. The only kind of math I know is "real world" math. When my income drops, I cut back. When a school loses population, it needs to shutter rooms and stop heating and cooling them. When it loses population, it needs to lay off teachers, staff, janitors, etc., no longer needed. Oh...wait...there's the union issue, huh? Can't do that! When a school loses population, whether that's 2 kids or 3/4s of last year's, they need to RESPOND as would any other business. There are schools in older areas of my district that are running at 1/3 their capacity. They are hiring teachers.

Please explain that in "real math" terms?

Tokie

Ok, explain this in real math terms. Out of a class of 30, 5 kids get transferred. According to you, there need to be cutbacks. So what shall we cut? The heating bill? There's still 25 kids to keep warm. The lunch program? There's still 25 kids to feed. Fire the teacher? There's still 25 kids who need to learn science.

1. No. I have a very practiced ability to read between the lines; I was suggesting that YOU might try reading what others write rather than reading what you, in your bigotry, inist they must write in order to make you more comfortable.

Please point out an example of his bigotry. I must have missed it.

(Irony meter alert: I decided to double check the dictionary definition of bigotry, to help Tokie along. Here's what I found:

big·ot·ry –noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


Remind you of anyone?.....)

2. Your sarcasm needs work. It's not at all subtle. Read me...learn from a master.

That quite an ego you have there.

3. Hmmm...Well, I suppose I was a bit harsh then, but just because you have been unable to gleam from whatever collection of my works in here you've drawn together, my specific story, that's not my problem.

Communication is a two-way street. If someone does not comprehend you, it is just as much your problem as theirs.


5. I get the feeling you understand neither economics nor how budgeting works for schools. While there are seperate budgets established for personnel and facilities, the money all comes from the same pot. You don't have a mil levy tax that goes JUST to building maintenance (tho that's often what they tell you when pushing for it) or one JUST for teacher pay. Besides, if say, 10% of the kids in a public leave, that means the school has no need of 10% of its faculty and support staff (counselors, paraprofessionals, etc.). The saving from laying these now un-needed employees off, would easily cover the facilities costs.

Wrong, wrong, and...oh, yes....wrong.



Remember, Jerome, most liberals believe that "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is in the US Constitution.

Tokie

You mean....it isn't? :eek:


1. Anyway...sure, read between the lines all you want...do so ACCURATELY, though. I never said, textually or between the lines that I'd like to see poor, ethnic etc., kids thrown out of school. This, by the way, is an example of your bigotry. You falsely believe that any "conservative" MUST desire this...because after all, we don't want "them" in our country clubs and we don't want "them" mixing with our Aryan WASP children in the schools! But wait...don't all us fat, white, rich WASPs send our kids to expensive day schools?

In fact, I am very much opposed to any idea that would completly defund the schoolsm, whether those schools are populated entirely by my Aryan brothers and sisters who, because of their race, deserve even more funding, or by "coloreds" who don't need to be educated anyway. I have no problem with a wholesale re-organization of the public schools system, defunding the CURRENT unworkable, anti-educational mess, but we'd have to come up with something to replace it and yes, that takes money.

I really hope that's some more of your famous sarcasm.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Want to bet that the administrators did not cut their pay?
Interesting question, although irrelevant to Genesplicer's points. I'll see if I can find out.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can't find anything about the superintendent's salary, but the teachers agreed to accept a reduction in salary increase in 1991, the year after the tax override failed.

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Interesting question, although irrelevant to Genesplicer's points. I'll see if I can find out.

~~ Paul

I will give an example of how this type of thing generally works.

I live in one of the richest, and most heavily taxed states in the union. Currently the new Governor has called a special session of the legislator for the purpose of dramatically raising taxes (one party state). The reason that taxes need to be raised is the state constitution requires a balanced budget. The governor wants to raise the state budget by over 8% in his first year; if the budget was only increased by 3% there would be no need for tax increases.

Now the kicker; the governor is telling the citizens that if he does not get the tax increases he will have to fire teachers, police, and emergency workers!

Pawns in a political game of chess. Sick if you ask me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Want to bet that the administrators did not cut their pay?
I just paid a visit to the town hall to look up the Superintendent's salary:

1988: 31,658
1989: 33,407
1990: 35,085
1991: 35,175
1992: 36,582

So he took a flat salary in 1991 (the year the override failed) and a modest increase in 1992. Not quite the bastard you expected.


Now the kicker; the governor is telling the citizens that if he does not get the tax increases he will have to fire teachers, police, and emergency workers!
I'm not sure what the governor has to do with teachers, but, uh, what would you expect him to do if the budget is tight?

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I just paid a visit to the town hall to look up the Superintendent's salary:

1988: 31,658
1989: 33,407
1990: 35,085
1991: 35,175
1992: 36,582

So he took a flat salary in 1991 (the year the override failed) and a modest increase in 1992. Not quite the bastard you expected.

Thanks for looking that up. He still did get a raise whist firing employees.;)


I'm not sure what the governor has to do with teachers, but, uh, what would you expect him to do if the budget is tight?

~~ Paul

The budget is not tight. That is the point. If taxes stay exactly the same (one of the top taxed states already) the budget can be increased by 3%. The new governor wants to increase the state budget by 8%.

Do you not see the threatening of state funding for jobs as extortion?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thanks for looking that up. He still did get a raise whist firing employees.
I must be missing the ethic that organizations have whereby everyone agrees to accept big salary cuts to prevent layoffs. I'm sure it happens every now and again. Note also that it was not the Superintendent's fault that we chose to whack his budget.


The budget is not tight. That is the point. If taxes stay exactly the same (one of the top taxed states already) the budget can be increased by 3%. The new governor wants to increase the state budget by 8%.

Do you not see the threatening of state funding for jobs as extortion?
Are you sure it's this simple? The governor just feels like he needs that extra 5% for no particular reason? Pet projects for his brother-in-law?

Also, really, the whole extortion thing is a bit melodramatic. Any time someone has monetary control over you, you could label it extortion. What do you call it when you electorate refuse to give the governor his tax increase?

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you sure it's this simple?

Positive. I have lived in this state my entire life and follow politics almost religiously.


The governor just feels like he needs that extra 5% for no particular reason? Pet projects for his brother-in-law?

Something like that. There are no large scale proposals or pressing needs espoused. He just needs 8% more money to do what the last governor did last year.

Also, really, the whole extortion thing is a bit melodramatic. Any time someone has monetary control over you, you could label it extortion. What do you call it when you electorate refuse to give the governor his tax increase?

~~ Paul

Is it really melodramatic? If you do not give me money I will take your job.

[jsfisher]

I must be missing the ethic that organizations have whereby everyone agrees to accept big salary cuts to prevent layoffs. I'm sure it happens every now and again. Note also that it was not the Superintendent's fault that we chose to whack his budget.


There is also a question of from what level were these "big salary cuts" being taken. How much were the teachers already making?

There is also a vocabulary game that gets played. I have seen local teacher unions here claiming unfair massive salary cuts in proposed new contracts. In fact, the proposed contract still had hefty raises in them, just not as hefty as first demanded.

As for the superintendent, mid-$30's does not seem like all that much for a normal sized school district in the early 1990's.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Something like that. There are no large scale proposals or pressing needs espoused. He just needs 8% more money to do what the last governor did last year.
So without that increase there will be cuts in services? Sorry, I don't feel like I'm getting the whole story here.


Is it really melodramatic? If you do not give me money I will take your job.
Those are two different "you": the taxpayers and the government employees.

If you don't work harder, you will lose your job. If you don't get us to earn more money, you will lose your job. If you can't sell more cars, you will lose your job. If you don't boost the economy by spending more money, you will lose your job. If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to prison.

Money and "extortion" go hand in hand.

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So without that increase there will be cuts in services? Sorry, I don't feel like I'm getting the whole story here.

You are getting the full story. This is the type of thing that happens in a one-party, very rich state.

[Tokenconservative]

Then that makes anybody who proposes or defends any idea a "shill" and you are simply engaging in meaningless name calling.
The fact that you cannot allow for the possibility that people could not come to a reasoned belief different than yours is a weakness. Voucher initiatives don't pass because many people, believe it or not, are happy with their local school districts and don't want to change. This is especially true in well-to-do communities who have excellent public schools. Orange County, California is a prime example. Affluent and conservative, it voted down vouchers because their public schools are some of the nation's best and they don't want to have them screwed with for political reasons.


This point has been addressed several times, and all that has been offered in return are platitudes and/or anecdotes. The issues brought forth by myself and others--such as the cost of those currently in private schools--have been ignored.

Fordama


Well, being a liberal you are indeed far more familiar with platitudes, slogans, cant and parroted screeds than I, to be sure.

But perhaps if you were to actually form an original question, rather than simply shrieking "the schools will be impoverished!!!" I might be able to formulate an answer... not one you will accept, of course, but there it is anyway.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, you have such a deep understanding of my child's needs; and apparently have completely SKIPPED my point - all children need to be educated, and that's why the public school system exists.

I was rather under the impression from things you have written in other threads that you actually homeschooled, and was quite distressed by the under-education that your children experienced once they were placed in the public/parochial school system. I'm not sure from your varied stories if your children are in private school. So, what happened? Once your children could no longer be homeschooled, homeschoolers all became inept, egotistical morons?

Your accounting does not include facilities maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't matter that there are two less children in a particular school, or even twenty. The base costs for electricity, cooling, heat, cleaning, grounds keeping, and non-teaching staff remain the same. Additionally, schools must maintain insurance policies of various sorts - none of these policy premiums is reduced by the reduction of students.

That's called Real World Math. Try it some time.


Hmmm....well, no, in fact, that's not why the public schools came into existence, and today, they certainly don't exist to educated kids...unless you belived that leftist indoctrination is "education," but then, you are a liberal and it all depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

I have no idea in hell where you'd get the impression _I_ believe that about homeschoolers. Every homeschooled kid I've met I've been very impressed with, and have always been impressed by those parents who decide to sacrifice to do this. The woman I described, who sounds very much like you, suggested that since MY kids were such dummies, they really didn't need the higher level of education a home or even charter or private school situation might provide and that I was doing a great disservice to both my kids and our society by not warehousing them for 12 years in the PS system.

You, being liberal, of course believe that anyone who homeschools out of religious conviction is, in fact, a secluded-compound, rightwingnut who is teaching THEIR kids to hate, while as a liberal homeschooler (and there is a surprisingly high, though very quiet number of these nationwide) are teaching your kids not only the very highest levels of the three Rs and fine and other liberal arts, but also teaching them to be diverse, loving souls (if you believe in the soul), as well.

You are a saint, whereas the Christian-religious homeschooler is a demon.

My kids were homeschooled K-8/9, mostly. We had them at a private ele. for about 1/2 year, homeschooled them for a couple or three months to get them back up to the level at which they could rejoin their classes at the private after that unfortunate experience. The youngest wanted to try the local public HS and has been there 1-1/2 years now. The oldest joined her there this year.

At the "Holiday" (don't want to offend you further!) break, we will be moving them back to a homeschool/online system,hopefully for the remainder of their k-12 education, because it's clear that even tho they are in mostly AP and Honors classes, their public school is, as my oldest has broken down in tears and told us "making (us) dumber and dumber every day."

Your accounting is horrifically flawed and indicates that you don't understand basic economics, school funding or how a voucher system works.

The per-pupil cost is what it is. IF, as you say, the school will also be losing $$ to pay for facilities and suchlike, then it remains a net INCREASE for the PS when a child is no longer there because then ALL of the per-pupil payout to the school can go to things like heat and AC and washing the floors.

Let me suggest that you do not, under any circumstances homeschool your kids with this sort of "Real World" math.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You are getting the full story. This is the type of thing that happens in a one-party, very rich state.
But then you should be annoyed with the previous governor, not the new one, right? And not because he inflated the budget per se, but about specific budget increases with which you do not agree. I'm sure you and I could find many budget items to laugh at.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, being a liberal you are indeed far more familiar with platitudes, slogans, cant and parroted screeds than I, to be sure.

... unless you belived that leftist indoctrination is "education," but then, you are a liberal and it all depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

You, being liberal, of course believe ...
This is some sort of sickness with you, isn't it?

~~ Paul

[genesplicer]

The per-pupil cost is what it is. IF, as you say, the school will also be losing $$ to pay for facilities and suchlike, then it remains a net INCREASE for the PS when a child is no longer there because then ALL of the per-pupil payout to the school can go to things like heat and AC and washing the floors.

Let me suggest that you do not, under any circumstances homeschool your kids with this sort of "Real World" math.

Tokie

Tokie,

I have explained this before and you gloss over it every time.

Let's say that a school happens to get $6,000 per student and the school has 100 students. That's $600,000. Now, let's say the state offers a $2,000 voucher, so 50 sets of parents take their kids out of school.

Here is what Tokie believes:
These 50 kids will get a total of $100,000, leaving $500,000 for the school, a net increase, because the school now has $500,000 to teach 50 kids.

Here is the reality:

Schools are paid by the student. 50 kids equals $300,000. Fixed operating costs like maintenence remain the same, so the amount left for direct student needs drops. This would not be much of a problem, but let me throw the moneywrench into it. Here is how the law would work if it passed in California, the way it has been proposed:

A school district is paid per child that attends the district. We get no money for kids who do not actually attend the district, whether on interdistrict transfer, in private school or homeschooled. Here's the kicker. The way the voucher law was proposed, the kids who would have been assigned to a school in our district get a voucher from our district. That means that we are getting paid per child for each kid that actually attends, but we have to pay out $2,000 for each kid who potentially would attend, but is instead in private school or homeschooled.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But then you should be annoyed with the previous governor, not the new one, right? And not because he inflated the budget per se, but about specific budget increases with which you do not agree. I'm sure you and I could find many budget items to laugh at.

~~ Paul

No,no. The previous governor had a balanced budget.

The new governor just wants 8% more money to increase the state budget by 8%. The tax increase is all for new spending increases not even new programs.

State law requires a balanced budget.

The majority of the tax increases are also regressive. Typical liberal democrat. Tax the poor to keep them in poverty and they will need the governmnet to care for them.

[NobbyNobbs]

No,no. The previous governor had a balanced budget.

The new governor just wants 8% more money to increase the state budget by 8%. The tax increase is all for new spending increases not even new programs.

State law requires a balanced budget.

The majority of the tax increases are also regressive. Typical liberal democrat. Tax the poor to keep them in poverty and they will need the governmnet to care for them.


This could be easily solved with a link to the former budget and a link to the new proposed budget.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This could be easily solved with a link to the former budget and a link to the new proposed budget.

Thats the thing. There is no new budget.

The governor called a special session of the legislator to vote on the increased taxes and will only present a budget after the taxes are increased.

No one is even stating why there needs to be increased regressive taxes outside of the fact that they want to increase the budget by 8%.

A budget that does not currently exist!

[NobbyNobbs]

Thats the thing. There is no new budget.

The governor called a special session of the legislator to vote on the increased taxes and will only present a budget after the taxes are increased.

No one is even stating why there needs to be increased regressive taxes outside of the fact that they want to increase the budget by 8%.

A budget that does not currently exist!


There is certainly more to this story. Got a link to an article or two?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No,no. The previous governor had a balanced budget.

The new governor just wants 8% more money to increase the state budget by 8%. The tax increase is all for new spending increases not even new programs.
What is a "new spending increase" that is not a "new program"? Do you mean he wants more money for existing programs? Just for kicks, or because the increase is needed to maintain the scope of existing programs?


No one is even stating why there needs to be increased regressive taxes outside of the fact that they want to increase the budget by 8%.
I just can't believe it's this arbitrary. Why would the legislature vote when they don't know what's happening?


The majority of the tax increases are also regressive. Typical liberal democrat. Tax the poor to keep them in poverty and they will need the governmnet to care for them.
If you say so. I've never seen a discussion of the regressivity of taxes that wasn't laced with hidden agendas.


There is certainly more to this story. Got a link to an article or two?
Me, too.

~~ Paul

[NobbyNobbs]

You are getting the full story. This is the type of thing that happens in a one-party, very rich state.

What state are you from? I'd be happy to do some research.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What state are you from? I'd be happy to do some research.

Keep in mind when you are reading about this circumstance "structural deficit" means money they want to (not required to) spend in the future.


Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.taxes13nov13,0,2535604,print.story?coll=bal_ tab01_layout)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What is a "new spending increase" that is not a "new program"? Do you mean he wants more money for existing programs? Just for kicks, or because the increase is needed to maintain the scope of existing programs?

Yep, he thinks he was voted in to make a socialist haven.


I just can't believe it's this arbitrary. Why would the legislature vote when they don't know what's happening?

Because it is a one-party state.


If you say so. I've never seen a discussion of the regressivity of taxes that wasn't laced with hidden agendas.

What would you call a sales tax increase and a new tax on car repair?

A 20% sales tax increase will harm the poor.

A new 6% tax on car repair will harm the poor as the rich generally have newer cars not needing repair.

The hidden agenda is from the politicians that claim to help the poor whist taxing them into dependence.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What would you call a sales tax increase and a new tax on car repair?
If it's an across-the-board sales tax increase, then the rich will contribute, because they buy expensive stuff.

A tax on car repair is just plain idiotic. What the hell is wrong with Maryland? :D

Before I get sucked into this vortex, I'd like to see the breakdown of state and local tax payments by income level. Everyone moans and groans about the rich and federal taxes until you point out what percent of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5%.

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

I just paid a visit to the town hall to look up the Superintendent's salary:

1988: 31,658
1989: 33,407
1990: 35,085
1991: 35,175
1992: 36,582

So he took a flat salary in 1991 (the year the override failed) and a modest increase in 1992. Not quite the bastard you expected.


I'm not sure what the governor has to do with teachers, but, uh, what would you expect him to do if the budget is tight?

~~ Paul

1981-1992....hmmm....you are aware that both your start and end dates were, not to put too fine a point on it, a helluva long time ago, right?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

This is some sort of sickness with you, isn't it?

~~ Paul

Not at all...I am not a liberal.

I'm fine.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

I have explained this before and you gloss over it every time.

Let's say that a school happens to get $6,000 per student and the school has 100 students. That's $600,000. Now, let's say the state offers a $2,000 voucher, so 50 sets of parents take their kids out of school.

Here is what Tokie believes:
These 50 kids will get a total of $100,000, leaving $500,000 for the school, a net increase, because the school now has $500,000 to teach 50 kids.

Here is the reality:

Schools are paid by the student. 50 kids equals $300,000. Fixed operating costs like maintenence remain the same, so the amount left for direct student needs drops. This would not be much of a problem, but let me throw the moneywrench into it. Here is how the law would work if it passed in California, the way it has been proposed:

A school district is paid per child that attends the district. We get no money for kids who do not actually attend the district, whether on interdistrict transfer, in private school or homeschooled. Here's the kicker. The way the voucher law was proposed, the kids who would have been assigned to a school in our district get a voucher from our district. That means that we are getting paid per child for each kid that actually attends, but we have to pay out $2,000 for each kid who potentially would attend, but is instead in private school or homeschooled.


Here is how this sort of thing works in the real world:

You make widgets. You emply 100 line workers who make them for you. Last year your sales were 100,000 widgets. This year, you project sales of only 50,000 widgets. While you still have a widget plant to maintain, with various fixed costs (though you will be able to cut back on orders of raw materials) you do not need 100 people to make 50,000 widgets. You only need 50 people. So, you lay off 50. Too bad for them, yes...but them's the breaks in business.

Same applies to schools. They cut their student body by 30%, they no longer need to employ the same number of teachers, paras, admin and other staff. So, some need to be laid off. "Raw materials" (text books, paste, round-tipped scissors, etc.) will also be cut back for further savings. Despite your hysterical insistence that the kids will be freezing to death at their desks, fixed costs such as energy and maintenance will not be impacted. Also, unlike the widget-maker, the school will, despite having lost 1/3 of it's student population, continue to recieve more than 1/2 of the per-pupil payment (some more, depends on things like ESL, "free" meals, and other handouts from Fed and state) despite the fact that the student is no longer there.

CA accounting may be different than the rest of the world, and is certainly different from the way they were doing it in Utah, and the way I've seen it proposed everywhere. My guess: NEA operatives made up the proposal you are outlining as a means of doing an end-run around vouchers in your state: make it so nutty, it cannot possibly succeed in a popular vote.

Very canny and creative of them. They cannot afford to lose CA, TX, FL or NY. And entirely in keeping with the way they've acted in other states where vouchers have come to a vote.

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If it's an across-the-board sales tax increase, then the rich will contribute, because they buy expensive stuff.

A sales tax is regressive. This is disputed by none.

A tax on car repair is just plain idiotic. What the hell is wrong with Maryland? :D

When a liberal state does not have many poor it needs to move the middle class into that category to create more dependents.

Before I get sucked into this vortex, I'd like to see the breakdown of state and local tax payments by income level. Everyone moans and groans about the rich and federal taxes until you point out what percent of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5%.

~~ Paul


I have created the ability for myself to not allow tax increases to effect my life style, thus I am not personally harmed much by tax increases. I am concerned by the state crushing the poor and moving the middle class to a dependent circumstance.

[Tokenconservative]

Interesting how quickly this topic had to be forced off-topic.....

And how no mod has stepped in screaming "stay on topic!!!"

I wonder why.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1981-1992....hmmm....you are aware that both your start and end dates were, not to put too fine a point on it, a helluva long time ago, right?

Hello?

Is this thing on?
Yes, I'm quite aware of it. My post followed logically from my original remark:

So that means that a failure to pass a tax override can result in massive layoffs, as happened in 1991. The school had to fire about eight teachers, and that had nothing to do with any reduction in student population.
and Jerome's questions about it.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A sales tax is regressive. This is disputed by none.
Such as the gas guzzler tax, for example? :D

As a percentage of gross income, sales tax certainly appears regressive. That's one of the reasons that necessities such as food are usually not subject to sales tax. And who is the greater beneficiary of the state returning sales tax to towns and individuals?

Also, I'm willing to bet that "sales tax is regressive" is a glib simplification of the complex underlying economics.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Here is how this sort of thing works in the real world:

You make widgets. You emply 100 line workers who make them for you. Last year your sales were 100,000 widgets. This year, you project sales of only 50,000 widgets. While you still have a widget plant to maintain, with various fixed costs (though you will be able to cut back on orders of raw materials) you do not need 100 people to make 50,000 widgets. You only need 50 people. So, you lay off 50. Too bad for them, yes...but them's the breaks in business.

Same applies to schools.
Flawed analogy.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Flawed analogy.

True: Teachers do not have to preform well to keep their job.

[Tokenconservative]

Flawed analogy.

A snezlegup.

And if you don't have to show HOW it's a flawed analogy, I don't have to explain snezlegup.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

True: Teachers do not have to preform well to keep their job.

Well...that works, yes...but I'll eat my hat if that's what he meant.

But you are 100% correct. In fact, some of the BEST teachers are FIRED for being "too good" at their jobs. Look at Jaime Escalante.

By the way...I was fired as a 5th grade teacher for teaching my class math beyond the level at which the district curriculum said they "should" go. Of course, they really don't even want the kids to go that far. I was teaching maybe 1/3 of my class of 25 to the low-7th grade level.

Hoo boy! You shoulda heard the tenured, union-member 6th grade teachers howl!

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By the way...I was fired as a 5th grade teacher for teaching my class math beyond the level at which the district curriculum said they "should" go. Of course, they really don't even want the kids to go that far. I was teaching maybe 1/3 of my class of 25 to the low-7th grade level.
You were, of course, doing this without it being detrimental to the other kids.

I call incomplete anecdote.

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You were, of course, doing this without it being detrimental to the other kids.

I call incomplete anecdote.

~~ Paul

You should read John Taylor Gatto, New York teacher of the year, he has almost 30 years of anecdotes.

Ohh, and he also presents a great deal of research to go with his testimony.

[joobie]

In fact, some of the BEST teachers are FIRED for being "too good" at their jobs. Look at Jaime Escalante.

jaime escalante quit.

:)

[Pyrts]

Want to bet that the administrators did not cut their pay?

No takers! ;)

And I bet their pension fund contributions didn't get reduced, either.

[Tokenconservative]

jaime escalante quit.

:)

After he came to national attention he was "persuaded" to seek employment elsewhere.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No takers!

And I bet their pension fund contributions didn't get reduced, either.
Uh, Pyrts, you must have missed my response:

I just paid a visit to the town hall to look up the Superintendent's salary:

1988: 31,658
1989: 33,407
1990: 35,085
1991: 35,175
1992: 36,582

So he took a flat salary in 1991 (the year the override failed) and a modest increase in 1992. Not quite the bastard you expected.

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

You were, of course, doing this without it being detrimental to the other kids.

I call incomplete anecdote.

~~ Paul

Leave it to a liberal teacher (wait...what? Is there another kind!?) to see the glass as half-empty.

Yeah...to the detriment of the others who, when I took over the class from a 1st year teacher who had a nervous breakdown, were doing math at about the 2nd grade level. I'd have a hard time believing you've ever been in front of a classroom save for the fact that this is exactly how all "teacher" think: if EVERY child cannot be taught at the highest level then NO child should be.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You should read John Taylor Gatto, New York teacher of the year, he has almost 30 years of anecdotes.
I have no doubt that some dumbing down is going on, that there is pressure to conform, etc., etc. I'm just wary of glib explanations for why. In particular, if the military-industrial complex wants me to conform in order to be a good worker, then why would they also want me to be dumb?

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

I have no doubt that some dumbing down is going on, that there is pressure to conform, etc., etc. I'm just wary of glib explanations for why. In particular, if the military-industrial complex wants me to conform in order to be a good worker, then why would they also want me to be dumb?

~~ Paul

LOL...and there it is, the patented, Playbook libbie response.

It's not the "military-industrial" complex that even cares. It's leftists. They like stupid people. Much easier to control stupid people with bread and circuses.

And that's just what the schools are for. Making stupid people.

Which is why as John Stossel found, the longer you are in a public school, the dumber you get.

Tokie

[joobie]

After he came to national attention he was "persuaded" to seek employment elsewhere.

he quit. and to paraphrase: you sir, are no jaime escalante.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Leave it to a liberal teacher (wait...what? Is there another kind!?) to see the glass as half-empty.
Can I ask you a point-blank question: Do you believe that I am a teacher?


It's not the "military-industrial" complex that even cares. It's leftists. They like stupid people. Much easier to control stupid people with bread and circuses.

And that's just what the schools are for. Making stupid people.

Which is why as John Stossel found, the longer you are in a public school, the dumber you get.
Oh sorry, I must have read the wrong playbook. I read the one where industrialists, 150 years ago, decided that they needed more educated workers, so pushed for mandated schooling. Entirely reasonable at first blush. The goal was to produce more worldly workers with greater knowledge of technology. So I was wondering why they would want people to be dumb.


LOL...and there it is, the patented, Playbook libbie response.
There you go again. Notice how I said "If the military-industrial complex ...". I was responding to Jerome's suggestion to read Gatto. I believe Gatto has an issue with industrialists' influence on schooling.

You don't seem to be able to have a conversation without jumping to conclusions about the politics of the people having the conversation.

~~ Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have no doubt that some dumbing down is going on, that there is pressure to conform, etc., etc. I'm just wary of glib explanations for why. In particular, if the military-industrial complex wants me to conform in order to be a good worker, then why would they also want me to be dumb?

~~ Paul

The purpose is to educate selectively for specific tasks. Thinkers are un-needed for bureaucracy.

Think button pusher, or a cog within a machine.

[jsfisher]

The purpose is to educate selectively for specific tasks. Thinkers are un-needed for bureaucracy.

Think button pusher, or a cog within a machine.


If there is any dumbing down in the education system (and I suspect there has been), I think the misguided desire to push every student through high school and beyond is a prime contributor. Some vast bureaucratic conspiracy just doesn't cut it. Bureaucracies just aren't that capable.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If there is any dumbing down in the education system (and I suspect there has been), I think the misguided desire to push every student through high school and beyond is a prime contributor. Some vast bureaucratic conspiracy just doesn't cut it. Bureaucracies just aren't that capable.

The bureaucracy is the creation not the creator.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The purpose is to educate selectively for specific tasks. Thinkers are un-needed for bureaucracy.
So the school system is one giant vocational school? I did not know that.

~~ Paul