Democrats against education...

cawacko said:
Volunteering would help a child. Allowing choice in schools would help millions of children. I don't know how volunteer tutoring works from a time schedule perspective but I'm going to surmise its not usually on the two Saturday nights a month I go out drinking.
Click to expand...

So if you can't help all why bother?

OK
 
cawacko said:
Is it bothersome that I'm passionate about helping lower income minority children education wise in a free market way?
Click to expand...

You either don't understand what a free market is or you are happy with the status quo.

If you truly want to help someone grab one kid and tutor them.

Everything else is sophistry.

If you want a true free market approach, then push a free market approach.

You seem like a nice guy but you are the kind if republican that has gotten this country into the mess that it is in. You talk about conservative principles in the abstract but you aren't willing to fight for them. In your desire to be liked and not called names you fold like a cheap suit and cave to the left. You think that you are going to outsmart the left by trying to water down their leftism and you call it "compromise" and you pat yourself on the back and head off to the bar to be lauded as a "a good righty" by the lefties. Meanwhile your positions do as much to harm this country as anything the left does.

The time for trying to tweek left wing fuck ups is over. It is time to dismantle it.

When I hear people like you say "it won't be privitized" that tells me you either don't believe in the free market or you are too chicken to fight for what you believe.

But that is my opinion. Have a blessed day
 
cawacko said:
The Economist wrote an excellent piece on this. Clearly each party has interest groups they are beholden to. For Democrats it's the unions and specifically the teachers union. In this case the people getting hurt are the lower income minority children who the party claims to care about most.



Killing the golden goose

Charter schools are working, but New York’s mayor wants to stop them


OF THE 658 schools in Chicago, only 126 are charter schools—publicly funded but independently run and largely free of union rules. Fifteen more are due to open this year. More notable, though, is that four of the most recently-approved charters are in areas where the city recently decided to close 49 public schools—the largest round of such closures in America’s history.

Most of the closed schools served poor black children, and were in parts of the city with a shrinking population. The city government argued that these schools were under-used, and that closing them would save $233m that could be reinvested. So it has been: in new science labs, computers, wireless, libraries, art rooms and air conditioning in the charters that took in children from the closed schools.

Charters have worked well in Chicago. Most parents like them, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Board of Education are behind them. The Noble Network, which already runs 14 charter high schools, has just been given permission to open two new ones. Around 36% of the 9,000, mostly poor, children enrolled with Noble can expect to graduate from college, compared with 11% for this income bracket city-wide.

A 2013 study by Stanford University found that the typical Illinois charter pupil (most of them in Chicago) gained two weeks of additional learning in reading, and a month in maths, over their counterparts in traditional public schools. One city network of charters, Youth Connection, is credited with reducing Chicago’s dropout rate by 7% in a decade. Overall, however, the city’s public schools are in a sorry state: 51,000 out of 240,000 elementary-school pupils did not meet state reading standards in 2013.

Some will always argue that charters cream off the brighter children and leave sink schools, deprived of resources, behind. The teachers’ unions hate charter schools because they are non-unionised. So they remain a rarity nationwide, with only 5% of children enrolled in them. But a PDK/Gallup poll last year found that 70% of Americans support them. Small wonder: a study of charter high schools in Florida found that they boosted pupils’ earning power in later life by more than 10%.

Intriguingly, alongside the growth in popularity of charter schools, support is weakening for the sorts of restrictive labour rules that have long been demanded by teachers’ unions in public schools. A survey in 2013 by the Chicago Tribune and the Joyce Foundation found that locals want good teachers to be paid more and the least effective to be shown the door. Almost half of them thought teachers should not even be allowed to strike. Most also wanted it to be easier for charters to expand, especially in areas with bad schools.

According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), enrollment has grown by 80% in the past five years. The keenest cities are New Orleans (79% of children in charters), Detroit (51%) and the District of Columbia (43%). Newark is keen to expand its system. Los Angeles and New York, the biggest school districts, are enrolling the largest numbers.

Or they were. But New York’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, a union-backed Democrat, wants to hobble charters. First, he intends to curb their growth. On January 31st Carmen Fariña, his schools chancellor, announced a plan to divert $210m earmarked for charter schools to help pay for pre-kindergarten teaching. She also announced that, in future, every expansion plan will be reviewed—even those that are long settled, such as the plan of Success Academies, with the largest network in the city, to open ten more schools in August.

Mr de Blasio wants to charge charters rent if they are sharing space with the 1.1m pupils in district schools. Because charters receive no state funding for facility costs and rents in the Big Apple are so high, Michael Bloomberg, Mr de Blasio’s predecessor, allowed them free use of under-utilised space in traditional public schools. Of the 183 charters in New York City, 115 are “co-located”, sharing canteens, libraries and gyms. If they were suddenly charged rent, many would struggle. The 68 charters not sharing space with a district school have to fork out an average of $515,137 for facilities each year. The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, calculates that charging rent could force 71% of co-located charters into deficit.

These new policies are likely to be unpopular. New York City’s charter schools generally outperform their neighbouring district schools. In some cases charters have not merely closed the racial achievement gap, but actually reversed it. Most New Yorkers want more of them.

Parents, particularly those in high-risk areas, want choice. Demand for charter-school places outstrips available slots; entry is by lottery, and some 50,000 children are on waiting lists. Before the election, 20,000 parents, children and teachers marched across the Brooklyn Bridge to City Hall in support of charter schools. Many in the charter world hope Mr de Blasio will back down, though the rhetoric from City Hall is not encouraging.

As controversy swirls, pupils in Bronx 2, a charter school in the South Bronx, are getting on with their education. Some are step-dancing. Down the hall, seven-year-olds lead group discussions in reading class. One little fellow ably explains what the word “regret” means. Bronx 2, part of the Success Academies network, serves black and Latino children from mostly low-income families. Its pupils did extraordinarily well in the 2013 state examinations—97% passed mathematics and 77% passed English. The school ranked third in the state, even beating children in well-heeled Scarsdale, a well-to-do New York City suburb. Bronx 2 shares space with PS 55, a traditional district public school where only 3% of pupils passed English and only 14% passed maths.


http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ew-yorks-mayor-wants-stop-them-killing-golden
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that the Democrats are beholden to the Teacher's Union. The Dems are the only ones who will give them voice to learn what's really going on in schools today. Attacking the unions in these instances is in my view just a very lazy approach to problem solving. Teacher's unions don't write the curriculum and don't write policy: the school boards and the states do. And because of federal funding, they have programs as well. Charter schools are private schools that write their own rules and students and the real problem parents, don't follow those rules then they're out. No I think you ought to do more research.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I don't know how you can say that the emocrats are beholden to the Teacher's Union. The Dems are the only ones who will give them voice to learn what's really going on in schools today. Attacking the unions in these instances is in my view just a very lazy approach to problem solving. Teacher's unions don't write the curriculum and don't write policy: the school boards and the states do. And because of federal funding, they have programs as well. Charter schools are private schools that write their own rules and students and the real problem parents, don't follow those rules then they're out. No I think you ought to do more research.
Click to expand...

Wow. With respect dude you need to do a lot more research. You clearly don't understand the relationship between the teachers union and the Democratic Party. And you clearly don't understand charter schools if you are calling them public.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sure...if you want to generalize but let's get to specifics. Why should I support Charter Schools in my state in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of them have failed while only a handful have succeeded?

For example 17 Charter schools have failed here in Columbus in just one year alone. Why should we, the taxpayers, continue to spend good money after bad?

https://www.google.com/#q=ohio+charter+schools+failing
Click to expand...

Same here.

"A new national Stanford University study of charter school performance shows that charter schools in Pennsylvania, on average, turn in the second worst performance in the country. Pennsylvania taxpayers sent poor-performing charter schools and cyber-charter schools in Pennsylvania more than $700 million at the direct expense of the Commonwealth’s public school districts."

http://www.hangerforgovernor.com/sa..._worst_in_the_nation_killing_public_education
 
christiefan915 said:
Same here.

"A new national Stanford University study of charter school performance shows that charter schools in Pennsylvania, on average, turn in the second worst performance in the country. Pennsylvania taxpayers sent poor-performing charter schools and cyber-charter schools in Pennsylvania more than $700 million at the direct expense of the Commonwealth’s public school districts."

http://www.hangerforgovernor.com/sa..._worst_in_the_nation_killing_public_education
Click to expand...

This is the same study we have been discussing. No one is saying that all charter schools are successful. Just as all public schools are not failures. But take a good hard look at the performance. The study indicates that the charter schools that serve low income/minority areas are the ones that tend to outperform their counterparts. The study says the charter schools serving predominantly asian/white students tend to perform on par with public schools.

http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS 2013 Final Draft.pdf

Page 88 number 4
 
Teflon Don said:
You either don't understand what a free market is or you are happy with the status quo.

If you truly want to help someone grab one kid and tutor them.

Everything else is sophistry.

If you want a true free market approach, then push a free market approach.

You seem like a nice guy but you are the kind if republican that has gotten this country into the mess that it is in. You talk about conservative principles in the abstract but you aren't willing to fight for them. In your desire to be liked and not called names you fold like a cheap suit and cave to the left. You think that you are going to outsmart the left by trying to water down their leftism and you call it "compromise" and you pat yourself on the back and head off to the bar to be lauded as a "a good righty" by the lefties. Meanwhile your positions do as much to harm this country as anything the left does.

The time for trying to tweek left wing fuck ups is over. It is time to dismantle it.

When I hear people like you say "it won't be privitized" that tells me you either don't believe in the free market or you are too chicken to fight for what you believe.

But that is my opinion. Have a blessed day
Click to expand...

Right or wrong the policies I support are what I believe to be the best policies. I don't support the policies I do because I think it will win me friends. My liberal Aunt thinks I'm a far right wing cracker. You think I'm a soft Republican. Liberals may say they like me one day then call me a racist the next. I don't support what I do trying to win their support.

No national Republican had come out and said we need to privatize all of America's schools. The closest any Republican comes is to say they want to eliminate the Dept of Education. I've yet to see that happen.

I disagree with the idea that you either privatize all schools essentially tomorrow or don't bother with anything. To me the biggest issue is choice. If someone wants to send their kid to a government school them that is their choice. If a parent wants to send their child to a different school (but don't have the money for private school) they should have that option.

That's the way to change imo.
 
cawacko said:
Wow. With respect dude you need to do a lot more research. You clearly don't understand the relationship between the teachers union and the Democratic Party. And you clearly don't understand charter schools if you are calling them public.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the respect; thank you. My own cousin was public school teacher in New York for 26 years. She just retired and I have had this conversation not just with her but my college profewssors as well. Yes the Teacher's Union does support the Democratic Party llike all unions have come to do, because, as I said, the Dems are the only ones who give labot a voice. The Dems don't help much, but they do give voice. Now if you want to say that unions demand too much from the Dems, then you also have to say that corporate and the banks demand too much of the Republicans as well. If you are going to say that the Dems are under some sort of control, then you have to say the same thing about the Republicans . . . I am very very well versed with the Teacher Democratic relationship and it is certianly not what you are attempting to portray: remember, I said that parents were one of the largest problems that today's public schools have.

As for charter school; they are private schools open to the public in public school areas. More importantly for them however, because they are cost based and private they get to make up their own rules and you will follow them or you're out. All private schools work like that.

The great disadvantage for public schools is that politics sets the rules and the parents little darlings are never guilty of doing anything bad and homework went out the window with a lot of music and art classes; geography and a lot of other stuff that was cut from the budgets.

Having said that; between the lousy parents and the lousy politics the teacher's are caught right in the middle: again, as I said, they don't write policy and they don't create the curriculum. All that they can try and do is to have an effect on the politics as a voting block, and since the Republicans are trying to destroy them, as well as public emlpoyee and private industry unions, why shouldn't the teachers be dealing with the only political entity in the country that has enough juice to work for them?
 
jet57 said:
I appreciate the respect; thank you. My own cousin was public school teacher in New York for 26 years. She just retired and I have had this conversation not just with her but my college profewssors as well. Yes the Teacher's Union does support the Democratic Party llike all unions have come to do, because, as I said, the Dems are the only ones who give labot a voice. The Dems don't help much, but they do give voice. Now if you want to say that unions demand too much from the Dems, then you also have to say that corporate and the banks demand too much of the Republicans as well. If you are going to say that the Dems are under some sort of control, then you have to say the same thing about the Republicans . . . I am very very well versed with the Teacher Democratic relationship and it is certianly not what you are attempting to portray: remember, I said that parents were one of the largest problems that today's public schools have.

As for charter school; they are private schools open to the public in public school areas. More importantly for them however, because they are cost based and private they get to make up their own rules and you will follow them or you're out. All private schools work like that.

The great disadvantage for public schools is that politics sets the rules and the parents little darlings are never guilty of doing anything bad and homework went out the window with a lot of music and art classes; geography and a lot of other stuff that was cut from the budgets.

Having said that; between the lousy parents and the lousy politics the teacher's are caught right in the middle: again, as I said, they don't write policy and they don't create the curriculum. All that they can try and do is to have an effect on the politics as a voting block, and since the Republicans are trying to destroy them, as well as public emlpoyee and private industry unions, why shouldn't the teachers be dealing with the only political entity in the country that has enough juice to work for them?
Click to expand...

The dems don't help much? Seriously?
 
140312deWallaceRGB20140312021745.jpg


Democrats never learn from the past.
 
Superfreak said:
how many millions wasted on public schools that fail?
Click to expand...

Overall I'd say it was at least billions... probably, over time, it has been trillions that have been wasted. Too often we see the "it's for the kids" mentality that throws good money after bad into the pit of despair that has become the larger portion of public schools. But heck, we can't even suggest modeling it after far more successful programs elsewhere... what would happen to the teacher's tenure?!!!

Some Charter schools are unsuccessful, so the Democrats' mentality? Close them all! Don't take the good ideas from successful charter magnet schools... Don't even suggest that!
 
cawacko said:
The Economist wrote an excellent piece on this. Clearly each party has interest groups they are beholden to. For Democrats it's the unions and specifically the teachers union. I
Click to expand...

For conservatives it's about ensuring that parents and students who genuinely want an education are able to receive one.
 
The Dude said:
The non degreed conservatards are the most vocal against the education system.
Irony
Click to expand...

So is your argument that educated liberals are for the educational status quo and its years of failures in educating lower income minority students are ok with you?
 
liberals are for properly funding education.

You idiots are for killing anything that has to do with public education.


pretending your not is bullshit
 
"throwing money at the problem"


remember that one?


did you assmunches EVER use that phrase when discussing the military?


No because its a full blown idiot lie line.


its a liars way of saying FUCK EDUCATION
 
Taft2016 said:
For conservatives it's about ensuring that parents and students who genuinely want an education are able to receive one.
Click to expand...

If parents were truely on the ball a public school would answer their needs. The trouble is that parents are lazy and want their kids parented at school.
 
StormX said:
140312deWallaceRGB20140312021745.jpg


Democrats never learn from the past.
Click to expand...

Charter schools are being used as a tool to dismantle public education and throw of the costs to the parents. There are many many private schools in existence today that would ove to increase their student bodies. So, I'm afraid you're not very informed on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top