Indiana School Employee: Education Reform = Nazi Ovens

Canceled2

Banned
Does anyone on here recall the outrage over some TEA Party activists using "Nazi" references and being called haters and such by the liberal left? Even when it was pointed out that Bush had all kinds of Nazi references aimed at him and his administration it was as if liberals had some sort of convenient mass amnesia about just how prevalent that sort of thing was...now again we have teachers and their unions resorting to the Nazi BS and nary a peep from liberals being in anyway outraged...hummmmmmmmmm


By Kyle Olson
Kyle is founder and CEO of Education Action Group Foundation, a non-partisan non-profit organization with the goal of promoting sensible education reform.


Last week, my organization praised the Indiana lawmakers for passing some of the nation’s most significant education reforms. In one of Education Action Group’s weekly newsletters, we said that Indiana’s new voucher program and its decision to lift the cap on charter schools will transform the state’s public education system, to the benefit of all Hoosier families and students. (An EAGtv report that details Indiana’s education reforms can be found here.)

Well, EAG’s audacity in celebrating the idea of school choice generated a number of hateful email responses – from unionized Indiana teachers.

The writers (all with the telltale “k12.in.us” in the email address) accused us of “attacking public education” and “bashing” teachers. One writer blamed us for demoralizing “those of us in the trenches and on the front lines of the classroom.”

Anyone who dares challenge the status quo of Big Education can expect such name calling.

But as unhinged as unionized teachers can become, one Indiana educator stooped to new lows.

An email from a teacher at East Allen County Schools said this:

“Why do you distribute this propaganda? Do you have a conscience? Do you really believe any of this? I am not a union member but feel that Mitch's agenda is killing Indiana. The education agenda is a holocaust against our children. Please understand I am speaking as a grandson of a Holocaust survivor. This is truly as bad or worse than what was done to the Jewish people only it is happening to innocent young people. It is frightening to me.”

(emphasis added)

According to this—ahem—educator, allowing children to attend a charter school is “WORSE THAN” placing children in ovens like the Nazis did.

Even more disturbing than this teacher’s irresponsible comments is the fact that he is allowed anywhere near a place of learning. It’s darn near criminal that he’s allowed to shape the minds of Indiana’s youth. (By claiming to be “a grandson of a Holocaust survivor,” this teacher believes he is immune from charges of insensitivity.)

Now, some readers are likely thinking that we’re using the words of one loony teacher to smear all union teachers, but we’re not.

The accomplishments of this new crop of education reform-minded governors (Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Michigan’s Rick Snyder, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, to name a few) have caused unionized teachers to lash out at anyone supporting a reform agenda. We’ve received numerous profanity-laced emails sent from teachers who feel threatened by accountability and choice.

The teacher unions’ public image is one of standing up for the interests of kids. They’re just well-meaning teachers who believe in the value of public education. Right.

In reality, the teacher unions are dominated by a group of angry leftists who care far more about their compensation packages and collective bargaining privileges than they do about educating children.

That might strike some as a harsh conclusion, but we’ve got the emails to prove it.
 
I can't help noticing that within a piece complaining about the crazy unions "dominated by a group of angry leftists" the section you've chosen to make bold contains the phrase "I am not a union member".
 
So the fuck what? It was sent from a school email address- That they, a teacher, claim they are not a union member means squat...but do try and make more disingenuous hay as it seems to be your specialty.
 
Does anyone on here recall the outrage over some TEA Party activists using "Nazi" references and being called haters and such by the liberal left? Even when it was pointed out that Bush had all kinds of Nazi references aimed at him and his administration it was as if liberals had some sort of convenient mass amnesia about just how prevalent that sort of thing was...now again we have teachers and their unions resorting to the Nazi BS and nary a peep from liberals being in anyway outraged...hummmmmmmmmm

By Kyle Olson
Kyle is founder and CEO of Education Action Group Foundation, a non-partisan non-profit organization with the goal of promoting sensible education reform.

Last week, my organization praised the Indiana lawmakers for passing some of the nation’s most significant education reforms. In one of Education Action Group’s weekly newsletters, we said that Indiana’s new voucher program and its decision to lift the cap on charter schools will transform the state’s public education system, to the benefit of all Hoosier families and students. (An EAGtv report that details Indiana’s education reforms can be found here.)

Well, EAG’s audacity in celebrating the idea of school choice generated a number of hateful email responses – from unionized Indiana teachers.

The writers (all with the telltale “k12.in.us” in the email address) accused us of “attacking public education” and “bashing” teachers. One writer blamed us for demoralizing “those of us in the trenches and on the front lines of the classroom.”

Anyone who dares challenge the status quo of Big Education can expect such name calling.

But as unhinged as unionized teachers can become, one Indiana educator stooped to new lows.

An email from a teacher at East Allen County Schools said this:

“Why do you distribute this propaganda? Do you have a conscience? Do you really believe any of this? I am not a union member but feel that Mitch's agenda is killing Indiana. The education agenda is a holocaust against our children. Please understand I am speaking as a grandson of a Holocaust survivor. This is truly as bad or worse than what was done to the Jewish people only it is happening to innocent young people. It is frightening to me.”

(emphasis added)

According to this—ahem—educator, allowing children to attend a charter school is “WORSE THAN” placing children in ovens like the Nazis did.

Even more disturbing than this teacher’s irresponsible comments is the fact that he is allowed anywhere near a place of learning. It’s darn near criminal that he’s allowed to shape the minds of Indiana’s youth. (By claiming to be “a grandson of a Holocaust survivor,” this teacher believes he is immune from charges of insensitivity.)

Now, some readers are likely thinking that we’re using the words of one loony teacher to smear all union teachers, but we’re not.

The accomplishments of this new crop of education reform-minded governors (Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Michigan’s Rick Snyder, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, to name a few) have caused unionized teachers to lash out at anyone supporting a reform agenda. We’ve received numerous profanity-laced emails sent from teachers who feel threatened by accountability and choice.

The teacher unions’ public image is one of standing up for the interests of kids. They’re just well-meaning teachers who believe in the value of public education. Right.

In reality, the teacher unions are dominated by a group of angry leftists who care far more about their compensation packages and collective bargaining privileges than they do about educating children.

That might strike some as a harsh conclusion, but we’ve got the emails to prove it.

The Nazi comparison is certainly over the top. That said, let's take a look at vouchers.

(Excerpt) Public school officials, however, say that funding lost to a voucher program would hurt them at a time when they already have been stung by state cuts.

Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp. Superintendent Vincent Bertram said he has "a number of concerns" about vouchers, "and they all center on equity."

Bertram said choices available to Indiana's economically neediest children would be limited under a voucher system, and nonpublic schools would still be able to choose who they admit.

If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, "who pays the (remainder) if the school doesn't pay? That child still doesn't have access," Bertram said. (End)
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/13/voucher-bill-stirs-school-debate/

If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays? That is the number one problem and the number two problem is non-public schools would still be able to choose who they admit.

The "problem" child, the one whose parent or parents don't give a damn, the child in most need of a dedicated educational instructor will be the loser. Why would a private school accept such a child? Why would the parent(s) pay extra to educate their child when they won't even spend time helping them with their homework?

The reason for public education, mandatory education, is because there are parents who don't care about their child's schooling.

We live in an unusual time where the only solution offered to government programs experiencing problems is to "privatize". What people fail to grasp is all the current government programs, from schools to Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid were, at one time, "private". In other words there weren't any government programs and government programs were instituted because "private" was not the answer.

(Excerpt) Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. (End)
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-e...2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html

Whether it's the 100+ years of public education or the 75+ years of SS people realized that "private" doesn't work. Forty-five years after Medicare/Medicaid there's still debate regarding the necessity of a full public health care plan because there are still people who are not covered.

Public/universal/government education, pension plans, health care....nowhere has "privatize" been the solution. "Private" was the problem but when an adjustment is required for a government program folks shout "privatize". Don't they realize everyone, every country, started out with private systems? Why is it even discussed?

As Mr. Bertram asks, "If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays?"

What happens to the child?

Any change must be all-inclusive or it's a step backward.
 
The Nazi comparison is certainly over the top. That said, let's take a look at vouchers.

(Excerpt) Public school officials, however, say that funding lost to a voucher program would hurt them at a time when they already have been stung by state cuts.

Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp. Superintendent Vincent Bertram said he has "a number of concerns" about vouchers, "and they all center on equity."

Bertram said choices available to Indiana's economically neediest children would be limited under a voucher system, and nonpublic schools would still be able to choose who they admit.

If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, "who pays the (remainder) if the school doesn't pay? That child still doesn't have access," Bertram said. (End)
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/13/voucher-bill-stirs-school-debate/

If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays? That is the number one problem and the number two problem is non-public schools would still be able to choose who they admit.

The "problem" child, the one whose parent or parents don't give a damn, the child in most need of a dedicated educational instructor will be the loser. Why would a private school accept such a child? Why would the parent(s) pay extra to educate their child when they won't even spend time helping them with their homework?

The reason for public education, mandatory education, is because there are parents who don't care about their child's schooling.

We live in an unusual time where the only solution offered to government programs experiencing problems is to "privatize". What people fail to grasp is all the current government programs, from schools to Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid were, at one time, "private". In other words there weren't any government programs and government programs were instituted because "private" was not the answer.

(Excerpt) Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. (End)
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-e...2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html

Whether it's the 100+ years of public education or the 75+ years of SS people realized that "private" doesn't work. Forty-five years after Medicare/Medicaid there's still debate regarding the necessity of a full public health care plan because there are still people who are not covered.

Public/universal/government education, pension plans, health care....nowhere has "privatize" been the solution. "Private" was the problem but when an adjustment is required for a government program folks shout "privatize". Don't they realize everyone, every country, started out with private systems? Why is it even discussed?

As Mr. Bertram asks, "If vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays?"

What happens to the child?

Any change must be all-inclusive or it's a step backward.

You make a number of false premises-I'll deal with two.

First, Charter Schools, are public schools. Having lived in CA and having taken advantage of them while there I know how wonderful it was to have that kind of choice and support. As to voucher's someday being made availble to use at any school, private or public, would be even more excellent...

Second, public education's purpose, is supposed to be about providing an excellent "tax payer provided" education-not to rescue children from [parents who don't care].
 
You make a number of false premises-I'll deal with two.

First, Charter Schools, are public schools. Having lived in CA and having taken advantage of them while there I know how wonderful it was to have that kind of choice and support. As to voucher's someday being made availble to use at any school, private or public, would be even more excellent...

Regarding Charter Schools who decides whom is admitted and does the voucher cover the entire cost?

Second, public education's purpose, is supposed to be about providing an excellent "tax payer provided" education-not to rescue children from [parents who don't care].

If that was the case education would not be mandatory. In the past many parents would have insisted the child work the farm rather than attend school. The government imposed mandatory education effectively rescuing the child which, in the end, benefits all society.
 
I think we should go to the Belgian system of education where the money follows the child. It works so well that they outshine our students in every test after elementary school. I worry for my children.
 
Apple....you're a pinhead.....and although I was going to attempt to explain things to you, I've decided, its not worth the trouble...

Your reasoning is so convoluted and adolescent, no amount of explaining will help you.....its a pity you're allowed to freakin' vote.....their oughta be a law.....
Your stupid points that "if vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays?" or "that the child still won't have access" is irrelevant.....

If the vouchers don't cover the full cost, the parent pays the difference....and if the kid still won't have access, then so what .... nothing changes, the kid goes back to the same school as before vouchers....
and you're still an idiot.....:palm:
 
I think we should go to the Belgian system of education where the money follows the child. It works so well that they outshine our students in every test after elementary school. I worry for my children.

That is what happens now-the problem being that there is only one place for the child to go to....hence the need for choice.
 
Regarding Charter Schools who decides whom is admitted and does the voucher cover the entire cost?

If that was the case education would not be mandatory. In the past many parents would have insisted the child work the farm rather than attend school. The government imposed mandatory education effectively rescuing the child which, in the end, benefits all society.

Yes, the voucher covers the entire cost and then some. Compulsory education is not equal to being so that children are rescued from bad parents- before industrialization the farm provided the best source of income for children born on them- it is an unfair allegation that parents didn't care-
 
You make a number of false premises-I'll deal with two.

First, Charter Schools, are public schools. Having lived in CA and having taken advantage of them while there I know how wonderful it was to have that kind of choice and support. As to voucher's someday being made availble to use at any school, private or public, would be even more excellent...

Second, public education's purpose, is supposed to be about providing an excellent "tax payer provided" education-not to rescue children from [parents who don't care].

Yes of course. all you Righties want vouchers, you just don't want inner city kids using them to go to the same private school snobatoriums you want to send your kids to.
 
That is what happens now-the problem being that there is only one place for the child to go to....hence the need for choice.

No, it is not what happens now. In Belgium if you choose to send your child to Muslim or Catholic eduction, the money for their education follows them. This, except in some very few places where a portion of the money follows them, doesn't happen here.
 
Apple....you're a pinhead.....and although I was going to attempt to explain things to you, I've decided, its not worth the trouble...

Your reasoning is so convoluted and adolescent, no amount of explaining will help you.....its a pity you're allowed to freakin' vote.....their oughta be a law.....
Your stupid points that "if vouchers do not cover the full cost of a year of tuition, who pays?" or "that the child still won't have access" is irrelevant.....

If the vouchers don't cover the full cost, the parent pays the difference....and if the kid still won't have access, then so what .... nothing changes, the kid goes back to the same school as before vouchers....
and you're still an idiot.....:palm:

And you've solved nothing. Typical Repub/Con illogic.

No child left behind but if we have to leave some children behind, so what? That's your logic.

Money taken out of the public system harms all the children who are left behind in the system. If charter schools and private schools save money, great! Let's give everyone vouchers and make sure there's a place for everyone. Otherwise, they do not solve the problem.

It's the same thinking with medical care. They say competition/privatization saves money, however, there are people who will not get medical care. Expand medicaid/medicare and the problem still exists. Some people will be left behind.

The same old, tired and failed ideas. As I noted earlier everything, from SS to welfare to medical care to education, every thing has, at one time, been private and over the years people have realized governments have to get involved. Privatizing does not solve the problem. We know that because every thing started out being private and failed miserably.

While government programs have their problems we know there are less people starving than there were before SS and welfare programs were implemented. We know more children go to school and there is less illiteracy than there was before education was compulsory. And we know more people will receive medical coverage as various ObamaCare initiatives come on line.

Get with the programs, Bravo! :)
 
No, it is not what happens now. In Belgium if you choose to send your child to Muslim or Catholic eduction, the money for their education follows them. This, except in some very few places where a portion of the money follows them, doesn't happen here.

Yes, Damo, that's what I said. The money is tied to the child in the US as well...the problem is that the LAWS do not allow a parent to choose-but instead the state chooses. At least with Charter schools the parents have some choice....though it is still a public one.
 
Yes, the voucher covers the entire cost and then some. Compulsory education is not equal to being so that children are rescued from bad parents- before industrialization the farm provided the best source of income for children born on them- it is an unfair allegation that parents didn't care-

How many parents spend time helping their children with home work?

If the vouchers cover the entire cost AND there are sufficient spaces for all the children then it's a great idea. Otherwise, it becomes a raffle determining whose children will get a good education which is absurd in this day and age.
 
Yes, Damo, that's what I said. The money is tied to the child in the US as well...the problem is that the LAWS do not allow a parent to choose-but instead the state chooses. At least with Charter schools the parents have some choice....though it is still a public one.

Again, you are misunderstanding. In the case of Belgium you are not required to send your child to one of the schools run by the government monopoly. The money follows the child to private and religious schools as well, this healthy competition makes the teachers and schools responsible to the parents and ensures an incredible amount of innovation. It works well, they outperform the US in every test after elementary school grades (in those grades the US tests well, even above many of the better educational systems).

They spend less money overall, and they net better results.
 
Again, you are misunderstanding. In the case of Belgium you are not required to send your child to one of the schools run by the government monopoly. The money follows the child to private and religious schools as well, this healthy competition makes the teachers and schools responsible to the parents and ensures an incredible amount of innovation. It works well, they outperform the US in every test after elementary school grades (in those grades the US tests well, even above many of the better educational systems).

They spend less money overall, and they net better results.

And you are missing the point that I agree- The fact of the matter is that the money right now in the US "follows" the child. The problem is that the LAWS only allow that money to follow them into public programs (if you home-school a child a district get s zip)- Charter schools are still public programs- and ALL of the child's money follows the child into them though they do not require teachers to be in a union.
 
Back
Top