If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   When even liberals are calling it the Injustice Department, you might be going too far   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 161
    More: Obvious, Injustice Department, Too Far, History of education, racial segregations, Michael Gerson, private schools, University of Arkansas, desegregation  
•       •       •

2730 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Sep 2013 at 12:08 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 12:12:07 PM
Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?
 
2013-09-03 12:12:09 PM
The conservative movement against public schooling is geared solely toward two goals: 1) union busting and 2) funneling more public money to churches.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:23 PM
Yeah.... Private schools where Thomas Jefferson wasn't a President, Darwin died on The Beagle, and Jesus is the hall monitor.
 
2013-09-03 12:13:16 PM
Sometimes, the public school system just sucks.
 
2013-09-03 12:14:48 PM
I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?
 
2013-09-03 12:15:04 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


If only that was the actual question, and if only those were the only two answers. But, as someone noted before me, Republicans only have the ability to propose two answers, and they never allow the correct answer to be one of those two. If they let that happen, their party loses.
 
2013-09-03 12:18:39 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?


Nope. That's sll I saw.

Know what I didn't see?

*control F for "injustice department"*

0 of 0.
 
2013-09-03 12:19:15 PM
Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.
 
2013-09-03 12:19:48 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?


Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.
 
2013-09-03 12:20:50 PM

Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.



News Flash:  It's a liberal publication
 
2013-09-03 12:21:10 PM

quatchi: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Nope. That's sll I saw.

Know what I didn't see?

*control F for "injustice department"*

0 of 0.


Are you implying a fark headline exaggerated, bogusly inferred or was inaccurate? Alert the internet authorities.
 
2013-09-03 12:21:43 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


There is no such thing as a "democrat party."
 
2013-09-03 12:23:36 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash: It's a liberal publication


I was hoping for an explanation, not a balls-out lie, Zimmermann troll.
 
2013-09-03 12:24:42 PM
Because liberals have never clashed with the law or fought against injustice.  Clearly.
 
2013-09-03 12:25:32 PM
Public schools can't compete with private schools. What about "justice" for the teacher's unions?
 
2013-09-03 12:26:02 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


The one that donates more money to the democrat party.
Sorry poor kids, we have the money for your education but your parents don't get to decide where to spend it for the best education for you.  That decision is made by a union that sees more value in protecting its members and itself with taxpayer dollars.
 
2013-09-03 12:26:20 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?
 
2013-09-03 12:26:31 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


Depends.  What's the democrat party?  I've heard of the Democratic Party, but never the democrat party.
 
2013-09-03 12:27:35 PM
Injustice indeed.

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out:

2. Dragons were totally real

3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."

4. Africa needs religion:

5. Slave masters were nice guys:

6. The KKK was A-OK:

7. The Great Depression wasn't as bad as the liberals made it sound:

8. SCOTUS enslaved fetuses:

9. The Red Scare isn't over yet:

10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks:

11. Abstract algebra is too dang complicated:

12. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."

13. "Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world's richest nations."

14. Globalization is a precursor to rapture:
 
2013-09-03 12:28:31 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


I don't know. Never heard of them.

Can you give me more information on this party? Is it a national platform? The only parties I am aware of are the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Libertarian party, and the defunct Wigg party.
 
2013-09-03 12:29:28 PM

Cletus C.: Are you implying a fark headline exaggerated, bogusly inferred or was inaccurate? Alert the internet authorities.


I will most certainly do that.

But first to get over the disappointment of discovering a headline on Fark that was less than completely honest I think I will peruse a link I just noticed that promised a "smokin' hot" lady person.

That should no doubt cheer me up.
 
2013-09-03 12:29:58 PM

Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."


It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.
 
2013-09-03 12:30:31 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?


Give out vouchers, cut funding to public schools citing the fact that there are fewer students and the funding should go to pay for vouchers, close public schools, cut vouchers because they are socialism and the free market should take care of education children.

Profit.
 
2013-09-03 12:31:19 PM
Vouchers aren't the answer.

Fixing the goddamn public schools is.
 
2013-09-03 12:31:33 PM

Dr Dreidel: Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."

It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.


The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile.

It doesn't.  It just makes you sound like a mouthbreather.
 
2013-09-03 12:32:37 PM

Blathering Idjut: There is no such thing as a "democrat party."



Oh yes there is...  (links to midlly NFSW images, as democrats are pictured in it)
 
2013-09-03 12:32:54 PM

wildcardjack: Yeah.... Private schools where Thomas Jefferson wasn't a President, Darwin died on The Beagle, and Jesus is the hall monitor.


If that was the argument presented, I would probably side with the Justice Dept on this one. According to TFA, though, they're going with some cockamamie segregation thing.
 
2013-09-03 12:33:08 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?


Union busting and ensuring our children be infromed.
 
2013-09-03 12:33:13 PM

Tyee: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

The one that donates more money to the democrat party.
Sorry poor kids, we have the money for your education but your parents don't get to decide where to spend it for the best education for you.  That decision is made by a union that sees more value in protecting its members and itself with taxpayer dollars.


It figures you'd buddy up with the trolls.
 
2013-09-03 12:33:42 PM

Witty_Retort: The RIchest Man in Babylon: What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?

Union busting and ensuring our children be infromed.


But mostly profit.
 
2013-09-03 12:34:30 PM

Cletus C.: Sometimes, the public school system just sucks.


and taking money from them to pay for vouchers to subsidize for-profit private schools doesn't help the public schools at all.
 
2013-09-03 12:35:45 PM

meat0918: Witty_Retort: The RIchest Man in Babylon: What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?

Union busting and ensuring our children be infromed.

But mostly profit.


yeah they're given money by the people who profit from these schools.
but that's good.
teacher's unions supporting Democrats ,that's bad.
 
2013-09-03 12:36:24 PM

Rapmaster2000: Dr Dreidel: Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."

It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.

The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile.

It doesn't.  It just makes you sound like a mouthbreather.


And yet, people keep objecting loudly to it, so apparently it does stick it to some of them.  I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat.  "Democrat party!"  "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"  Well, Tommy, if you want Timmy to stop doing that, why don't you stop acting like it bothers you so much?
 
2013-09-03 12:36:58 PM

Hobodeluxe: meat0918: Witty_Retort: The RIchest Man in Babylon: What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?

Union busting and ensuring our children be infromed.

But mostly profit.

yeah they're given money by the people who profit from these schools.
but that's good.
teacher's unions supporting Democrats ,that's bad.


Can I go now?
 
2013-09-03 12:36:59 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash:  It's a liberal publication


And what isn't a liberal publication that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch in your opinion?

/oh help us, we're so oppressed by the liberal media! we have only the largest media mogol in the world to represent us!
 
2013-09-03 12:37:35 PM

Hobodeluxe: and taking money from them to pay for vouchers to subsidize for-profit private schools doesn't help the public schools at all.


It helps the kids, that is the point.
 
2013-09-03 12:37:36 PM

Rapmaster2000: The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile


There was a curious case a few years ago where some GOPer (I think in a blue state?) said he "honestly didn't know" that the proper name is the Democratic Party. He'd grown up with mouthbreathers (I assume?), and at this point, I expect every partisan from a red state (including the dingii they send to Congress) honestly thinks it's called the democrat party.

I've gotten over it from Congress, but unless you're angling to piss the libs off, it really has no use on Fark.
 
2013-09-03 12:37:37 PM
Ah yes, the liberal media.
 
2013-09-03 12:37:45 PM
The problem with vouchers is that it tacitly agrees that it is OK for some schools stink.  Wnen the public officials in each state insure that ALL public schools in their state are good, then they can gripe.  Until then, they need to get off their butts and do the jobs they take public money for doing.  The teacher unions sometimes just fight for the teachers, but nobody is looking out for the students.  Not the Governor, Legislature, Mayors, local school boards, etc.
 
2013-09-03 12:39:00 PM

Tyee: Hobodeluxe: and taking money from them to pay for vouchers to subsidize for-profit private schools doesn't help the public schools at all.

It helps the kids, that is the point.


How does stealing money from childrens' education to funnel most kids (except for the ones who have rich parents) into inferior schools help kids?
 
2013-09-03 12:39:18 PM

Tyee: Hobodeluxe: and taking money from them to pay for vouchers to subsidize for-profit private schools doesn't help the public schools at all.

It helps the kids, that is the point.


It doesn't help the kids who are still stuck in the failing school.
 
2013-09-03 12:40:54 PM

Mr. Titanium: The problem with vouchers is that it tacitly agrees that it is OK for some schools stink.  Wnen the public officials in each state insure that ALL public schools in their state are good, then they can gripe.  Until then, they need to get off their butts and do the jobs they take public money for doing.  The teacher unions sometimes just fight for the teachers, but nobody is looking out for the students.  Not the Governor, Legislature, Mayors, local school boards, etc.


The teachers fight for the students. The teachers' unions are made up of teachers. Far from the scumbag right-wing lies about them, unionized teachers are the best advocates and the best defense students have available by a wide margin. Anyone trying to bust or denigrate teachers' unions wants schools to fail their students.
 
2013-09-03 12:42:14 PM

Wooly Bully: Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash: It's a liberal publication

I was hoping for an explanation, not a balls-out lie, Zimmermann troll.


So is that your shtick? You lie and troll? WP is a well know liberal newspaper.

Gotta give you credit though, you're trolling better in this thread than the Kerry one.
 
2013-09-03 12:42:24 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Ah yes, the liberal media.


If the media is so very liberal why does every newspaper in the country have a business section, but not a one of them has a labor section?
 
2013-09-03 12:43:19 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?


Why does anyone care?  As long as the same amount of money is going into the system and kids are getting educated, why all the outrage?  Give poor parents a choice of where to send their kids.

I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools.  My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone.  If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.
 
2013-09-03 12:44:36 PM

Super Chronic: I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat. "Democrat party!" "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"


Right, because when someone points out that this is idiotic they somehow become responsible for the idiocy.
 
2013-09-03 12:47:31 PM

Mrbogey: Gotta give you credit though, you're trolling better in this thread than the Kerry one.


Well at least this time you aren't copying and pasting from NewsBusters.
 
2013-09-03 12:47:38 PM
http://theadvocate.com/home/4274144-125/report-la-teacher-unions-weak

Yes, those incredibly powerful Louisiana Teacher's Unions, contributing .18% of all donations to state elections!
 
2013-09-03 12:49:09 PM

Wooly Bully: Super Chronic: I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat. "Democrat party!" "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"

Right, because when someone points out that this is idiotic they somehow become responsible for the idiocy.


I agree that ideally, it should be ignored.
 
2013-09-03 12:49:45 PM

KyngNothing: http://theadvocate.com/home/4274144-125/report-la-teacher-unions-weak

Yes, those incredibly powerful Louisiana Teacher's Unions, contributing .18% of all donations to state elections!


Lying pieces of shiat need someone to blame. In spite of the fact that only 7% of the US workforce is organized and other countries with much higher penetration are doing better, right-wing trash like to blame every problem in the country on organized labor, because apparently freedom and self-determination are evil.
 
2013-09-03 12:50:36 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democratic party will defend?


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 12:50:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Mr. Titanium: The problem with vouchers is that it tacitly agrees that it is OK for some schools stink.  Wnen the public officials in each state insure that ALL public schools in their state are good, then they can gripe.  Until then, they need to get off their butts and do the jobs they take public money for doing.  The teacher unions sometimes just fight for the teachers, but nobody is looking out for the students.  Not the Governor, Legislature, Mayors, local school boards, etc.

The teachers fight for the students. The teachers' unions are made up of teachers. Far from the scumbag right-wing lies about them, unionized teachers are the best advocates and the best defense students have available by a wide margin. Anyone trying to bust or denigrate teachers' unions wants schools to fail their students.


I have a new hypothesis about why young people hate unions so much.

Yeah, a lot of right wing lies, but also, the teacher's strikes.  They planted seeds of doubt in many children's minds.

CSB time: Back in the late 90's, before I knew her, my wife, she actually walked up to the picket line and made her math teacher go over a problem because the scab babysitter they hired in the interim didn't know how to do math.

I think she is more pissed at the voters in Oregon for passing Measure 5, I know I am.  There are rumors it might have enough support to get a repeal or modification back on the ballot.

End CSB
 
2013-09-03 12:51:07 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


pffffffffft neither, because "Where else they gonna go?"TM
 
2013-09-03 12:53:03 PM
Because liberals always do with a.m. radio talking heads tell them to do!! Hurr.
 
2013-09-03 12:53:45 PM

Rapmaster2000: Wooly Bully: Super Chronic: I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat. "Democrat party!" "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"

Right, because when someone points out that this is idiotic they somehow become responsible for the idiocy.

I agree that ideally, it should be ignored.


Speaking as a parent, I know that "ignore it" is often the best policy. And that's generally true for dealing with internet trolls, as well.

But "respected voices" like politicians and journalists shouldn't get away with that crap without at least being ridiculed.
 
2013-09-03 12:56:44 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: The conservative movement against public schooling is geared solely toward two goals: 1) union busting and 2) funneling more public money to churches.


If you follow the money pretty much all new funding to education goes to the bureaucracy and not to the classroom in the form of books, computers, and teacher's salaries.  I'm atheist so I don't want money to go to churches.  At the same time I'd be happy to have the education budgets in this country decimated the way any large organization removes tiers of management after a while.  Flatten out the system and put more, higher paid teachers out there with fewer kids per classroom.
 
2013-09-03 12:57:00 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Blathering Idjut: There is no such thing as a "democrat party."
Oh yes there is...  (links to midlly NFSW images, as democrats are pictured in it)



Plonk.
 
2013-09-03 12:58:14 PM

AngryDragon: I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools. My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone. If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem


And I think I can count possibly only on one hand the number of my non-weekend baseball and soccer games my folks attended. They both worked to the bone - my mom gave birth to my brother 45 minutes after getting home off a 12-hour shift at the hospital - to send us to the private school they wanted to. My parents weren't "absentee", but between 7am and 7pm, unless they drove the carpool, good luck. In central Jersey, the public schools aren't crap, neither are they crap in the DC suburbs.

Two of my grandparents were teachers - union teachers. Their pensions helped pad their retirement incomes (not huge, but not nothing) and just about covered funeral costs, thanks for asking.

Putting more of a strain on the "education" budget by adding money for vouchers, when everybody knows that it's one of the first things to get cut (and not the vouchers, make those evil unioners pay some), is the absolute wrong thing to do. Make it a separate line-item, or make it statutorily the first part of the Ed budget to get cut, but for god's sake what is the point of paying for schools and then paying people NOT to attend them?

// never once heard them biatch about paying taxes to public schools
// oh, but my brother went to a public school for 7th grade, so they got their money's worth
 
2013-09-03 12:59:31 PM

AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?

Why does anyone care?  As long as the same amount of money is going into the system and kids are getting educated, why all the outrage?  Give poor parents a choice of where to send their kids.

I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools.  My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone.  If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.


The problem is actually quite simple.

Vouchers largely go to religious institutions.

This has both the primary effect of advancing a particular religion(Louisiana being a great example getting a Muslim school to drop their application because it's sole intention is the advancement of Christianity), as well as a secondary effect of excessive entanglement.

Vouchers are also going to lead to the government saying "Hey, if you want this money, you have to teach this" or "You have to follow this regulation, rule, or law if you want the money".
 
2013-09-03 01:00:14 PM

Dr Dreidel: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.


The voucher is only worth 64% of the cost the state would pay to teach the child in the public school. That leaves a lot more resources for the children who do stay in public schools.
 
2013-09-03 01:00:26 PM
OH look it's a subby whose knowledge fo the Washington Post stopped with Watergate and still thinksthe paper that employs Howard Jurtz, Jennifer Rubin, Mark Gerson, and Erik Erikson is a "Liberal" paper  (which it hasn;t been since Lally Weymouth took over from Donald Graham as publisher)

this is all you need to know about why the DOJ is suing...
There's no denying the state's racist history of school segregation or its ugly efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s to undermine desegregation orders by helping white children to evade racially integrated schools. These efforts included funneling public money to all-white private schools."

 given that its PERFECTLY reasonable to question anythin LA does in this area.  Futhermore this argument misses the point entirely:

Since most of the students using vouchers are black, it is, as State Education Superintendent John White pointed out to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "a little ridiculous" to argue that the departure of mostly black students to voucher schools would make their home school systems less white

No, not "less white"  just less "black" as poor black kids get shoveled out of the Public school system so the disparity they have in performance on test scores and other measures no longer affects LA's school rnaking and Department of Education funding.   Meanwhile the voucher schools will have no standards or over sight.  Jindal himself has already said he's be perfectly fine with such schools teaching, say , young earth creationism exclusively in "science" classes
 
2013-09-03 01:01:35 PM

meat0918: AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?

Why does anyone care?  As long as the same amount of money is going into the system and kids are getting educated, why all the outrage?  Give poor parents a choice of where to send their kids.

I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools.  My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone.  If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.

The problem is actually quite simple.

Vouchers largely go to religious institutions.

This has both the primary effect of advancing a particular religion(Louisiana being a great example getting a Muslim school to drop their application because its(the voucher program) sole intention is the advancement of Christianity), as well as a secondary effect of excessive entanglement.

Vouchers are also going to lead to the government saying "Hey, if you want this money, you have to teach this" or "You have to follow this regulation, rule, or law if you want the money".


Clarified that a bit.
 
2013-09-03 01:01:51 PM

AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

What is the Republican end-game with vouchers?  Do we end up sending everyone to private schools?  Do we get rid of public schools completely?

Why does anyone care?  As long as the same amount of money is going into the system and kids are getting educated, why all the outrage?  Give poor parents a choice of where to send their kids.

I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools.  My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone.  If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.


What happens to all the kids who can't get a voucher, or can't afford to pay the difference?  They just get screwed?  Unless you plan to send every kid to a private school you're screwing all the kids stuck in the [now more] underfunded/under-performing public schools.
 
2013-09-03 01:02:26 PM

Super Chronic: Rapmaster2000: Dr Dreidel: Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."

It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.

The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile.

It doesn't.  It just makes you sound like a mouthbreather.

And yet, people keep objecting loudly to it, so apparently it does stick it to some of them.  I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat.  "Democrat party!"  "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"  Well, Tommy, if you want Timmy to stop doing that, why don't you stop acting like it bothers you so much?


so . . . the aristocrat-ics?
 
2013-09-03 01:02:32 PM
Voucher programs aren't about race, but about funneling taxpayer money to either religious schools who want to retain the rights to discriminate based on race and religion, OR fake out of state "for-profit management" scams.

With just a little research, you'd find out that the Justice Department is getting involved because ongoing fraud.  Of the 117 schools participating in the voucher program only 5 could document where the voucher money was spent.  One school:

"... has no real classrooms and employs uncertified teachers who simply stick students in front of DVDs for instruction. "

"... charged the state $6,300 for each of its 93 voucher students but charged just $530 per person for its 109 non-voucher students. "

"...funneling money to its sponsoring church, handing over $40,235 to the sectarian organization ".

https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2013-church-state/people-e ve nts/la-voucher-schools-ignoring-state-laws

As it stands the state has no idea how much other fraud is going on because schools are refusing to be account for the voucher money.
 
2013-09-03 01:03:08 PM
This op ed was written by a libertarian, not a liberal. Sometimes newspapers publish opinions that differ from their typical journalistic slant.
 
2013-09-03 01:03:22 PM
1. Create a charter school
2. Continue the destruction of public schools through mismanagement and underfunding.
3. Create rules that will give PUBLIC money to the PRIVATE schools that you created which are less beholden to Federal guidelines.
4. Profit
 
2013-09-03 01:04:31 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


There have been Charter schools, which are essentially cvoucher schools by a different name, up and running in many places for years now, including DC and other places with chronically underperforming public schools.  Show me one place where they have ever made things better by any measurable standard.  As we saw in Indiana recently, even when Charter Schools do Get high marks from state education boards it's often because their owners are weathly political donors who get their rankings changed through corruption.
 
2013-09-03 01:04:39 PM

AngryDragon: I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools. My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone. If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.


Everyone pays taxes for public schools. Even people without children.
Why should your family be exempt?
 
2013-09-03 01:05:44 PM
Subby is clearly having trouble reconciling reality with what he learns from Rush and Glenn, regarding "liberals".
 
2013-09-03 01:06:26 PM

Chagrin: Dr Dreidel: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.

The voucher is only worth 64% of the cost the state would pay to teach the child in the public school. That leaves a lot more resources for the children who do stay in public schools.


Yeah and if I squeeze 46% more blood out of this rock, you're going to be covered in red. The budgets were already decimated. Taking ANY money out of a school system where kids can't take books home because they only have one set for multiple classes isn't helping anyone but the private schools.
 
2013-09-03 01:06:33 PM
Al Frankin and others already called the DOJ that or the Department of Vengeance over Holder praising one of his goons for driving Aaron Swartz to kill himself
 
2013-09-03 01:07:58 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash:  It's a liberal publication


News flash...not for the last 20 years.   Do try to keep up.
 
2013-09-03 01:08:13 PM

Without Fail: AngryDragon: I had the choice of private school or Detroit public schools. My parents took an extra job to send me to private school because DPS was already a war zone. If a voucher system had existed we could have gone to a private school without having absentee parents for 4 years.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Everyone pays taxes for public schools. Even people without children.
Why should your family be exempt?


How is choosing where to direct your education dollars being made exempt?
 
2013-09-03 01:09:07 PM

Chagrin: Dr Dreidel: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.

The voucher is only worth 64% of the cost the state would pay to teach the child in the public school. That leaves a lot more resources for the children who do stay in public schools.


That link is about special ed students, a great example of how the public school system is inadequate.

And if the vouchers save us 33% per student even for the poor kids, I still say it's a bad idea. For the reason I just mentioned - people are more willing to cut the other parts of the Ed budget than vouchers. Let the private sector handle that. Get a scholarship or some church money or a 3rd and 4th job, or go to public school.

Maybe if parents who thought being scared of public schools was "caring for their kids" didn't keep their kids out of public schools, they wouldn't be so bad. Maybe having as many or more administrators in the system as actual teachers (the point of schools in the first place) is a bad idea as well. Maybe we should focus on fixing the schools we do pay for, rather than promoting schools we don't.
 
2013-09-03 01:10:18 PM
Injustice Department?

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 01:10:30 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: What happens to all the kids who can't get a voucher, or can't afford to pay the difference?  They just get screwed?  Unless you plan to send every kid to a private school you're screwing all the kids stuck in the [now more] underfunded/under-performing public schools


Give them all vouchers.  If you are admitting that being "stuck" in a public school is the equivalent of being "screwed", why not afford the opportunity to everyone?  Again, my choices were private school or DPS.  EVERY student should have had the option to get out of that hellhole.
 
2013-09-03 01:10:41 PM

Chagrin: Dr Dreidel: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.

The voucher is only worth 64% of the cost the state would pay to teach the child in the public school. That leaves a lot more resources for the children who do stay in public schools.


No it doesn't.  Schools get paid per student.  Less students == less money.
 
2013-09-03 01:11:54 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


Except those really are not the sides. It's more properly funding public schools versus skimming money from public schools to line the pockets of for-profit charter school organizations and using tax dollars to teach religious crap like creationism.
 
2013-09-03 01:16:01 PM

Chagrin: Dr Dreidel: Uranus Is Huge!: I see some concern trolling about giving taxpayer money to Jesus Day Camps instead of poor public schools. Did I miss something?

Seems only fair that we should first spend our money on fixing public schools and spend a remainder on vouchers rather than on promoting and filling the alternative schools while neglecting the 1-in-10 poor black kids (and thousands of others) who aren't lucky or interested enough to get a voucher.

The voucher is only worth 64% of the cost the state would pay to teach the child in the public school. That leaves a lot more resources for the children who do stay in public schools.


Here's a tip: Public schools have to take everyone. This includes special needs students. The average student is in a class with 30 students and one teacher. Special needs students are in a class with 6 students and 2 teachers, who are higher paid on top of that due to the need for better education. Students getting vouchers cost less than 64% of the average cost of students, because voucher schools don't take the expensive kids.
 
2013-09-03 01:18:26 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


Definitive proof that liberals are racist!

Well done.

By the way, no one who refers to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" can expect to be taken seriously.
 
2013-09-03 01:18:36 PM

Super Chronic: And yet, people keep objecting loudly to it, so apparently it does stick it to some of them.  I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat.  "Democrat party!"  "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"  Well, Tommy, if you want Timmy to stop doing that, why don't you stop acting like it bothers you so much?



I'll remember that next time someone complains about Rush Limbaugh being called the DeFacto leader of the GOP.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:08 PM

AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: What happens to all the kids who can't get a voucher, or can't afford to pay the difference?  They just get screwed?  Unless you plan to send every kid to a private school you're screwing all the kids stuck in the [now more] underfunded/under-performing public schools

Give them all vouchers.  If you are admitting that being "stuck" in a public school is the equivalent of being "screwed", why not afford the opportunity to everyone?  Again, my choices were private school or DPS.  EVERY student should have had the option to get out of that hellhole.


They are getting screwed if the public schools are underfunded and poorly managed.  Taking MORE money out of will only exacerbate the problem.

Again I ask, what about the people for whom the voucher is not enough?  Unless the voucher is going to cover 100% of private school tuition and associated fees (including transportation, free/reduced lunches, etc) how is that a solution?  Are you proposing the State of LA should pay 100% of the cost for every student to attend the private school of their choice?  Do you really think that is tenable financially?  Would the private schools even ACCEPT all these students?  Would you REQUIRE these private schools to accept any student that applies?
 
2013-09-03 01:21:18 PM

Tyee: democrat party


DRINK!

/Plonked NW some weeks ago
 
2013-09-03 01:21:57 PM

Wooly Bully: Super Chronic: I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat. "Democrat party!" "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"

Right, because when someone points out that this is idiotic they somehow become responsible for the idiocy.


You're the real racist.
 
2013-09-03 01:28:14 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: They are getting screwed if the public schools are underfunded and poorly managed.  Taking MORE money out of will only exacerbate the problem.

Again I ask, what about the people for whom the voucher is not enough?  Unless the voucher is going to cover 100% of private school tuition and associated fees (including transportation, free/reduced lunches, etc) how is that a solution?  Are you proposing the State of LA should pay 100% of the cost for every student to attend the private school of their choice?  Do you really think that is tenable financially?  Would the private schools even ACCEPT all these students?  Would you REQUIRE these private schools to accept any student that applies?


Underfunding and mismanagement are two entirely different problems.

Provide a voucher for each student equal to the amount of tuition the state provides for a public school student.  If the parents want to go to a private school, they pay the difference.  That's why it's a voucher.  If there is excess, it stays in the public system.  Since they are already spending the money per student, it shouldn't be that much of a hardship.  Yes they should accept anyone who applies up to their class size.  Yes they would be required to do so in order to have the vouchers valid.  The public schools then have to compete for their student dollars, ostensibly by cleaning up their acts from a management perspective.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.
 
2013-09-03 01:29:01 PM

Magorn: Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash:  It's a liberal publication

News flash...not for the last 20 years.   Do try to keep up.


A "liberal publication" is one that is not part of the right wing echo chamber.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:59 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: A "liberal publication" is one that is not part of the right wing echo chamber.


Thanks, now I get it! Just trying to understand the memes here.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:09 PM

czei: Voucher programs aren't about race, but about funneling taxpayer money to either religious schools who want to retain the rights to discriminate based on race and religion, OR fake out of state "for-profit management" scams.

With just a little research, you'd find out that the Justice Department is getting involved because ongoing fraud.  Of the 117 schools participating in the voucher program only 5 could document where the voucher money was spent.  One school:

"... has no real classrooms and employs uncertified teachers who simply stick students in front of DVDs for instruction. "

"... charged the state $6,300 for each of its 93 voucher students but charged just $530 per person for its 109 non-voucher students. "

"...funneling money to its sponsoring church, handing over $40,235 to the sectarian organization ".

https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2013-church-state/people-e ve nts/la-voucher-schools-ignoring-state-laws

As it stands the state has no idea how much other fraud is going on because schools are refusing to be account for the voucher money.


I doubt that they really give a shiat, as the companies running these charter schools will continue to line the LA lawmakers pockets quite handily so that the state looks the other way.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:37 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Wooly Bully: Maybe someone can explain what "liberals" have to do with the Washington Post, because that one just had me scratching my head.


News Flash:  It's a liberal publication


Some lame troll is letting his own personal biases show, and it ain't me or  Wooly Bully
 
2013-09-03 01:37:59 PM

AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: They are getting screwed if the public schools are underfunded and poorly managed.  Taking MORE money out of will only exacerbate the problem.

Again I ask, what about the people for whom the voucher is not enough?  Unless the voucher is going to cover 100% of private school tuition and associated fees (including transportation, free/reduced lunches, etc) how is that a solution?  Are you proposing the State of LA should pay 100% of the cost for every student to attend the private school of their choice?  Do you really think that is tenable financially?  Would the private schools even ACCEPT all these students?  Would you REQUIRE these private schools to accept any student that applies?

Underfunding and mismanagement are two entirely different problems.

Provide a voucher for each student equal to the amount of tuition the state provides for a public school student.  If the parents want to go to a private school, they pay the difference.  That's why it's a voucher.  If there is excess, it stays in the public system.  Since they are already spending the money per student, it shouldn't be that much of a hardship.  Yes they should accept anyone who applies up to their class size.  Yes they would be required to do so in order to have the vouchers valid.  The public schools then have to compete for their student dollars, ostensibly by cleaning up their acts from a management perspective.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.


Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education.

And in the end statistically, they still score about on par with public school systems while not even attempting to address most of the bullshiat public school systems have to deal with. But, there is a farking problem there.
 
2013-09-03 01:40:31 PM

AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: They are getting screwed if the public schools are underfunded and poorly managed.  Taking MORE money out of will only exacerbate the problem.

Again I ask, what about the people for whom the voucher is not enough?  Unless the voucher is going to cover 100% of private school tuition and associated fees (including transportation, free/reduced lunches, etc) how is that a solution?  Are you proposing the State of LA should pay 100% of the cost for every student to attend the private school of their choice?  Do you really think that is tenable financially?  Would the private schools even ACCEPT all these students?  Would you REQUIRE these private schools to accept any student that applies?

Underfunding and mismanagement are two entirely different problems.

Provide a voucher for each student equal to the amount of tuition the state provides for a public school student.  If the parents want to go to a private school, they pay the difference.  That's why it's a voucher.  If there is excess, it stays in the public system.  Since they are already spending the money per student, it shouldn't be that much of a hardship.  Yes they should accept anyone who applies up to their class size.  Yes they would be required to do so in order to have the vouchers valid.  The public schools then have to compete for their student dollars, ostensibly by cleaning up their acts from a management perspective.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.


And still you don't answer the basic question: What do you say to the students whose family can't afford the difference?  Tough luck?

And really, do you genuinely believe that the public schools suffer no ill-effects from having say, half their funding yanked because half the students can afford a private school?

Why isn't the answer to fix the public schools?

/no new, fix old
 
2013-09-03 01:40:48 PM
We should keep transferring public education dollars to private schools because a handful of kids might benefit.

Charter/private schools are a money grab scheme that comes at the expense of every other kid that doesn't get to go.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:34 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Blathering Idjut: There is no such thing as a "democrat party."


Oh yes there is...  (links to midlly NFSW images, as democrats are pictured in it)


That's brilliant!  I mean...you could NEVER do that by photoshopping Republican faces in that picture.  I mean, it would IMPOSSIBRU!
 
2013-09-03 01:44:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: my mom gave birth to my brother 45 minutes after getting home off a 12-hour shift at the hospital


Sounds like she should have just stayed at the hospital. She wouldn't have had to deal with the traffic and would have been able to lie down sooner.

/I gots me a public edumacation.
 
2013-09-03 01:46:30 PM
Great, some financially motivated, and totally unaccountable private business will do better than a public school. The problem with vouchers is the lack of any oversight on the people who fund this non-sense, namely the tax payer. With public schools I can elect board members, and can get grievances addressed regardless of if I have a kid that goes there or not. And if I am paying for it your damn straight I should get a say in how an entity is handling the money. Vouchers are an anti-civil society policy. Conservatives are using bullshiat arguments to hide the fact that they want to make government less responsible or accountable. It is an unamerican policy.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:21 PM
Who would of thought that the Washington Post, a subsidiary of Kaplan Education (a for profit education testing and operator of predatory for-profit schools) would be in favor of vouchers?

Profits from Kaplan have basically been subsidizing the money losing Washington Post.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:32 PM

Stabone33: Dr Dreidel: my mom gave birth to my brother 45 minutes after getting home off a 12-hour shift at the hospital

Sounds like she should have just stayed at the hospital. She wouldn't have had to deal with the traffic and would have been able to lie down sooner.

/I gots me a public edumacation.


Heh. Well, she returned to the hospital 45 minutes after getting home.

// and I'm pretty sure her water didn't break during rounds
 
2013-09-03 01:55:05 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: And still you don't answer the basic question: What do you say to the students whose family can't afford the difference?  Tough luck?

And really, do you genuinely believe that the public schools suffer no ill-effects from having say, half their funding yanked because half the students can afford a private school?

Why isn't the answer to fix the public schools?


Isn't that what you're saying to them now?  You're kid is in a failing public school but you can't afford to send him/her to a better one, so tough luck?

If you can't throw out the troublemakers, you can't fire the teachers, and the schools are increasingly focused on test scores instead of educating children, what fix are you proposing?
 
2013-09-03 01:57:01 PM

HairBolus: Who would of thought that the Washington Post, a subsidiary of Kaplan Education (a for profit education testing and operator of predatory for-profit schools) would be in favor of vouchers?

Profits from Kaplan have basically been subsidizing the money losing Washington Post.


I can't believe you're the first to point that out. I'm a little ashamed to have forgotten about it myself.

That thing should have come with a disclaimer longer than the article itself. Interests don't get more conflicting than that.
 
2013-09-03 01:57:50 PM

TimonC346: Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education


Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done.  No oversight, no voucher money.  Simple.  The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous.  Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:01 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Blathering Idjut: There is no such thing as a "democrat party."


Oh yes there is...  (links to midlly NFSW images, as democrats are pictured in it)


I believe you are now either the 2nd or 3rd person that I've put on ignore. I've seen plenty of derp in my day, but you're just uninspired, lazy, and have contributed nothing of value to a single thread I've seen you in. I will enjoy no longer seeing your drivel.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:28 PM

AngryDragon: If you can't throw out the troublemakers, you can't fire the teachers, and the schools are increasingly focused on test scores instead of educating children, what fix are you proposing?


Don't refer to poor children as troublemakers, pay teachers more to attract talent, and don't tie test scores to school funding, would be a good start.
 
2013-09-03 02:01:17 PM
Oh, and probably get rid of several layers of administrators who do next to nothing in the actual process of educating children.
 
2013-09-03 02:02:54 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: AngryDragon: If you can't throw out the troublemakers, you can't fire the teachers, and the schools are increasingly focused on test scores instead of educating children, what fix are you proposing?

Don't refer to poor children as troublemakers, pay teachers more to attract talent, and don't tie test scores to school funding, would be a good start.


So do it.  What are we waiting for?  Vouchers are a private-sector solution to a public sector problem that no one seems to want to talk about much less solve.  If government isn't going to act at least let the citizens do what's in their best interest.
 
2013-09-03 02:03:24 PM
I thought that the conservatives started opposing this voucher program once the muslim schools started getting voucher money.
 
2013-09-03 02:07:22 PM

lockers: Great, some financially motivated, and totally unaccountable private business will do better than a public school.


You really don't know how business works, do you?
 
2013-09-03 02:09:00 PM
AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: And still you don't answer the basic question: What do you say to the students whose family can't afford the difference?  Tough luck?

And really, do you genuinely believe that the public schools suffer no ill-effects from having say, half their funding yanked because half the students can afford a private school?

Why isn't the answer to fix the public schools?

Isn't that what you're saying to them now?  You're kid is in a failing public school but you can't afford to send him/her to a better one, so tough luck?


The difference is I'm not proposing we slash their funding.  I suggest we work to improve them.

If you can't throw out the troublemakers, you can't fire the teachers, and the schools are increasingly focused on test scores instead of educating children, what fix are you proposing?

I do not know what the answer is, there are plenty of smart people with all kinds of ideas about how to fix our schools- and I agree, some reining in of the Teacher's Unions is in order.  To blame them for the "teach to the test" mentality is insane- that falls squarely on the shoulders of elected officials pushing standardized testing as the cure-all.  A lot of the problems they face has nothing to do with public/private education- poor parenting, no positive role models, poverty, hunger, etc.  These problems don't just magically vanish because you send someone to a private school...  Many students who are failing in public schools will likely fail in a private school for the same reasons.  The difference is, the public school HAS to keep them, the private school does not.  shiatty grades because your parents neglect you/don't feed you properly?  Tough shiat, you're dragging down our private school's averages- you're gone.

The reason private schools look so appealing is exactly why they'd never work as a public school alternative on a large scale- they don't HAVE to take everyone.  They CAN kick students out.  If you force them to accept all the students the public schools are mandated to teach/deal with, they will quickly find themselves in the same situation.

And all of this says nothing about addressing special education.  What happens to those kids?

I don't have the answers to how to fix what is a societal problem in many ways, but I do know that shifting the money around to a private school isn't the answer.  Same issues, different building.
 
2013-09-03 02:09:12 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Tyee: democrat party

DRINK!

/Plonked NW some weeks ago


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-03 02:12:06 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


School vouchers versus anything else:  Guess which one the republic party will defend?
 
2013-09-03 02:13:23 PM
If there's one thing I'm sure of, it is that improving the education of poor black children is the number one priority of the state government of Louisiana.  I mean...what else could it be?
 
2013-09-03 02:14:15 PM

TimonC346: AngryDragon: The RIchest Man in Babylon: They are getting screwed if the public schools are underfunded and poorly managed.  Taking MORE money out of will only exacerbate the problem.

Again I ask, what about the people for whom the voucher is not enough?  Unless the voucher is going to cover 100% of private school tuition and associated fees (including transportation, free/reduced lunches, etc) how is that a solution?  Are you proposing the State of LA should pay 100% of the cost for every student to attend the private school of their choice?  Do you really think that is tenable financially?  Would the private schools even ACCEPT all these students?  Would you REQUIRE these private schools to accept any student that applies?

Underfunding and mismanagement are two entirely different problems.

Provide a voucher for each student equal to the amount of tuition the state provides for a public school student.  If the parents want to go to a private school, they pay the difference.  That's why it's a voucher.  If there is excess, it stays in the public system.  Since they are already spending the money per student, it shouldn't be that much of a hardship.  Yes they should accept anyone who applies up to their class size.  Yes they would be required to do so in order to have the vouchers valid.  The public schools then have to compete for their student dollars, ostensibly by cleaning up their acts from a management perspective.

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.

Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school educa ...


Bingo.   And there is another wrinkle as well to consider:  You often hear how much a school systems spends ON AVERAGE per student.   But that Average is as misleading as Wal Mart's clain they pay ON AVERAGE about $12  because it blends the horde of minimum wage workers with the CEO who is getting $23 million a year.

Same thing with Education.  Thanks tot he Federal IDEA Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) schols are REQUIRED to mainstream diabled individuals into regular classrooms whenever possible. So, if you have a kid with, say, severe CP  who requires a personal nurse to attend him, so he can go to class witht he rest of the kids?   Then the school has to hire a nurse for him , and pay that salary (say 50K a year) which then gets figured into their "per student average"

Now since privte schools will be able to pick and choose who they want to admit, they can avoid kids like that, or kids who need a special wheelchair transport bus, or even just kids with behavioral problems or organic brain difficulties that make it hard for them to learn .  Those will all get warehoused inthe now chronically underfunded shell of the public school system, while private schools will get tons of unneeded funding, and appaer to be suceeding because they don;t have to deal with any of the problem chidlren
 
2013-09-03 02:15:33 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?


Living up to the stereotype, chief.  Keep on t-rolling!
 
2013-09-03 02:16:40 PM

coeyagi: Neighborhood Watch: Teachers unions vs poor black kids.

Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

Living up to the stereotype, chief.  Keep on t-rolling!


You can ignore him now, you know. He's not even fun to argue with.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:30 PM

jjorsett: lockers: Great, some financially motivated, and totally unaccountable private business will do better than a public school.

You really don't know how business works, do you?


Let me try...   private "education management" businesses lobby the state legislature (i.e. donate money to key state politicians) so that school accountability laws don't apply to them.  For example, in NC the recent flurry of legislation said that charter schools and private schools:

1. Are immune from state law concerning teachers, so that teachers not only don't have to have a college degree or teaching certificate, but don't need a background check.  That's right, there's no requirement for background checks for even obvious things like child abuse.

2. Are immune from state and federal testing rules.  This means there is no way to compare test scores from public and charter schools because the later can just chose a test that's easy instead of taking the nation-wide common-core test.  On top of that, private schools don't have to report scores at all, so there's no way for parents to actually check and see how they compare to public school.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:59 PM

Magorn: Bingo.   And there is another wrinkle as well to consider:  You often hear how much a school systems spends ON AVERAGE per student.   But that Average is as misleading as Wal Mart's clain they pay ON AVERAGE about $12  because it blends the horde of minimum wage workers with the CEO who is getting $23 million a year.

Same thing with Education.  Thanks tot he Federal IDEA Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) schols are REQUIRED to mainstream diabled individuals into regular classrooms whenever possible. So, if you have a kid with, say, severe CP  who requires a personal nurse to attend him, so he can go to class witht he rest of the kids?   Then the school has to hire a nurse for him , and pay that salary (say 50K a year) which then gets figured into their "per student average"

Now since privte schools will be able to pick and choose who they want to admit, they can avoid kids like that, or kids who need a special wheelchair transport bus, or even just kids with behavioral problems or organic brain difficulties that make it hard for them to learn .  Those will all get warehoused inthe now chronically underfunded shell of the public school system, while private schools will get tons of unneeded funding, and appaer to be suceeding because they don;t have to deal with any of the problem chidlren


Also this.
 
2013-09-03 02:20:31 PM

jjorsett: lockers: Great, some financially motivated, and totally unaccountable private business will do better than a public school.

You really don't know how business works, do you?


www.biography.com
"Do you?" -Ken Lay

images.forbes.com
"Do you?" -Michael Milken

i.i.cbsi.com
"Do you?" -Joseph Cassano

somethingtochew.files.wordpress.com
"Do you?" -Rebekah Brooks
 
2013-09-03 02:20:59 PM

Super Chronic: Rapmaster2000: Dr Dreidel: Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."

It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.

The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile.

It doesn't.  It just makes you sound like a mouthbreather.

And yet, people keep objecting loudly to it, so apparently it does stick it to some of them.  I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat.  "Democrat party!"  "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"  Well, Tommy, if you want Timmy to stop doing that, why don't you stop acting like it bothers you so much?


What a great strategy! Let's apply that to other areas of our lives:

If you want your roommate to clean their dirty dishes, instead of asking them to, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

If you want your co-worker to remember your last name instead of mumbling pathetically, you shouldn't tell him your last name, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

If you want your child to stop screaming in the supermarket, instead of taking them outside and giving them food\water\naptime, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

Yep! The key to solving all of life's problems is to just ignore them and wait for them to go away. I'm so glad you've told us this!

/If the answer can be paraphrased as 'well, it's your fault for finding it offensive', it's probably a dumbass answer.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:12 PM

Magorn: Meanwhile the voucher schools will have no standards or over sight.  Jindal himself has already said he's be perfectly fine with such schools teaching, say , young earth creationism exclusively in "science" classes


Motherfarking THIS. Also, one of the schools approved for that sweet, sweet government money consisted largely of a DVD Jesus curriculum. Remember when your teacher was hungover and showed a video to shut the class up? It's like that, but nearly full-time. They were approved but the Muslims sparked an outrage.

These schools are not held to the same scrutiny as public ones. Now to be fair, a lot of these schools truly do offer a superior education. I went to Catholic school for a couple of years and yes, they do teach actual science and other forms of critical thinking. They just threw religion classes into the mix but kept them separate. It's still technically wrong to give tax monies to these institutions but at least it's not as harmful as these schools that seem to have been founded by Oral Roberts.

I am very, very proud to live in blue New Orleans, for all her faults. The rest of this state and her voters? Go fark yourselves with a rake. When you need psychiatric care, good luck navigating the list of available beds Jindal didn't scrap or privatize. Medicaid expansion at minimal cost to the state? LOL. Lawsuit demanding that Big Oil chip in for their share of the damage they've done to the wetlands, which serve as a buffer for hurricanes? Your man Jindal will publicly decry it because hey, protecting his interests is far more important than yours, citizen.

If it weren't for New Orleans - easily one of most idiosyncratic and fun cities in America - I'd have run screaming from this place long ago. Though I'd likely sneak back in for the food now and then.
 
2013-09-03 02:24:33 PM

Kuta: This op ed was written by a libertarian, not a liberal. Sometimes newspapers publish opinions that differ from their typical journalistic slant.



It was written by the WP Editorial Board and that, my friend, is liberal.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:04 PM

AngryDragon: TimonC346: Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education

Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done.  No oversight, no voucher money.  Simple.  The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous.  Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.


And now you have the government telling religious private schools what to do.  I'm sure that is 100% constitutional ;)
 
2013-09-03 02:37:04 PM

meat0918: AngryDragon: TimonC346: Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education

Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done.  No oversight, no voucher money.  Simple.  The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous.  Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.

And now you have the government telling religious private schools what to do.  I'm sure that is 100% constitutional ;)


Then the private school doesn't have to accept the voucher money. Problem solved.
 
2013-09-03 02:37:36 PM

AngryDragon: TimonC346: Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education

Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done.  No oversight, no voucher money.  Simple.  The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous.  Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.


They do--but every student is entitled to equal access to education. A tiered education system is being attempted again now, but it constantly runs a risk of becoming a tracking like system, which in the end just kept dumber kids somewhat below their grade level peers, and socially apart from them.

The system you are proposing with oversight is basically what the current public education is, man.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:35 PM

Mrbogey: So is that your shtick? You lie and troll? WP is a well know liberal newspaper.


Not to people who actually, you know, read it.

It hasn't been "Liberal" for decades.

/Been reading the Post since the `70s.
//Being "Mostly Objective" isn't "Liberal", although most "liberals" are "mostly objective"...
 
2013-09-03 02:46:23 PM

AngryDragon: Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done. No oversight, no voucher money. Simple. The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous. Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.


That is...kinda sorta my suggestion.
If parents and the kids don't care, put them in a baby-sitter's room with spongebob on the tv all day. Get them out of the rooms with kids who may actually care. Don't count them for NCLB or other accountability tests. Also, no sports for them.
I would also tier government assistance tied to your education level. Only got a Spongebob certificate? You only get x% amount of assistance. Want more? Get your GED, get job training, oh look, you're qualified for a job.
Also....
AngryDragon: You're kid is in a failing public school but you can't afford to send him/her to a better one, so tough luck?
:)
 
2013-09-03 02:47:14 PM

Neighborhood Watch: News Flash: It's a liberal publication


Not for decades.
 
2013-09-03 02:49:14 PM

GoldSpider: meat0918: AngryDragon: TimonC346: Here is the issue Charters have over public schools: Public schools cannot kick people out. At the very least, they cannot unless the student is violent and considered a danger to either the school or the students at large. In private schools, provided by vouchers, they have the distinct advantage: Academic Minimums. If you don't make it? Good bye. There is no political accountability to whom is being ushered out, there is very little real legal recourse considering there is no guarantee to private school education

Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done.  No oversight, no voucher money.  Simple.  The fact that public schools cannot eject a student until they are a danger to the rest of their classmates is ridiculous.  Perhaps the solution is to create a tiered public system so you HAVE somewhere to send the troublemakers that isn't jail.

And now you have the government telling religious private schools what to do.  I'm sure that is 100% constitutional ;)

Then the private school doesn't have to accept the voucher money. Problem solved.


The problem is not solved.  If they do accept those vouchers, you still have government entanglement in a religious institution.  Whether or not it is excessive would probably have to be demonstrated in court.

Where is that line drawn?  Can you kick out a student that is no longer of the faith?  What if their parents change religion?  What about admissions requirements?  Does the government get to start dictating those if you accept voucher money?
 
2013-09-03 02:49:16 PM

Mrbogey: So is that your shtick? You lie and troll? WP is a well know liberal newspaper.


By the editorial board, who's education editor gave us the gem
The Big Easy's school revolution
 
2013-09-03 02:57:03 PM

meat0918: Vouchers aren't the answer.

Fixing the goddamn public schools is.


via competition and incentive.
 
2013-09-03 02:59:20 PM

STRYPERSWINE: meat0918: Vouchers aren't the answer.

Fixing the goddamn public schools is.

via competition and incentive.


Sweden: please explain your thoughts in detail.
 
2013-09-03 02:59:48 PM

neversubmit: Injustice indeed.

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

1. Dinosaurs and humans probably hung out:

2. Dragons were totally real

3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."

4. Africa needs religion:

5. Slave masters were nice guys:

6. The KKK was A-OK:

7. The Great Depression wasn't as bad as the liberals made it sound:

8. SCOTUS enslaved fetuses:

9. The Red Scare isn't over yet:

10. Mark Twain and Emily Dickinson were a couple of hacks:

11. Abstract algebra is too dang complicated:

12. Gay people "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."

13. "Global environmentalists have said and written enough to leave no doubt that their goal is to destroy the prosperous economies of the world's richest nations."

14. Globalization is a precursor to rapture:


Shouldn't the fundies be in favor of the UN and global warming and stuff? I thought the rapture was the goal because that means they get taken up. In other words its someone else's problem. If the anti christ runs for president, wouldn't a good fundie vote for him because its part of god's plan?
 
2013-09-03 03:02:39 PM

czei: Voucher programs aren't about race, but about funneling taxpayer money to either religious schools who want to retain the rights to discriminate based on race and religion, OR fake out of state "for-profit management" scams.


Wonder how Neil Bush is doing nowadays....
 
2013-09-03 03:04:47 PM

Witty_Retort: By the editorial board, who's education editor gave us the gem


"Whose".

/Public School Graduate
 
2013-09-03 03:10:54 PM

PsiChick: Super Chronic: Rapmaster2000: Dr Dreidel: Blathering Idjut: Neighborhood Watch: Guess which one the democrat party will defend?

There is no such thing as a "democrat party."

It's a useful term - by using it, the speaker reveals themselves as someone whose opinions on matters political (including matters of policy like climate change, labor law, foreign relations...) are irrelevant.

And yes, I know that something like half to all Republicans in Congress use the term as well.

The only reason I can find for the existence of it, is that its proponents think that this really sticks it to the libs and is therefore worthwhile.

It doesn't.  It just makes you sound like a mouthbreather.

And yet, people keep objecting loudly to it, so apparently it does stick it to some of them.  I swear, it's like driving with a couple of petulant kids in the backseat.  "Democrat party!"  "Quit it! Daaaaad, Timmy said 'democrat party' again! Make him stop!"  Well, Tommy, if you want Timmy to stop doing that, why don't you stop acting like it bothers you so much?

What a great strategy! Let's apply that to other areas of our lives:

If you want your roommate to clean their dirty dishes, instead of asking them to, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

If you want your co-worker to remember your last name instead of mumbling pathetically, you shouldn't tell him your last name, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

If you want your child to stop screaming in the supermarket, instead of taking them outside and giving them food\water\naptime, you should stop acting like it bothers you so much!

Yep! The key to solving all of life's problems is to just ignore them and wait for them to go away. I'm so glad you've told us this!

/If the answer can be paraphrased as 'well, it's your fault for finding it offensive', it's probably a dumbass answer.


Yes, because those things are all exactly the same as conduct that someone engages in for the sole reason of bothering you and for no other reason.  If you can't see the difference, then the dumbass answer is yours.
 
2013-09-03 03:20:03 PM

AngryDragon: Oversight of who is being ushered out can be easily done. No oversight, no voucher money.


Republicans are fighting government oversight tooth-and-nail when they do try to put in privatization.
 
2013-09-03 03:30:55 PM

Super Chronic: /If the answer can be paraphrased as 'well, it's your fault for finding it offensive', it's probably a dumbass answer.

Yes, because those things are all exactly the same as conduct that someone engages in for the sole reason of bothering you and for no other reason.  If you can't see the difference, then the dumbass answer is yours.


If someone's willing to annoy you for the sole reason of annoying you, what makes you think they're going to stop if you don't show interest?
 
2013-09-03 03:33:53 PM

Super Chronic: for the sole reason of bothering you


Well, that's not the sole reason. The other one is to make morons - their "base" - wet themselves with glee.
 
2013-09-03 03:41:00 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Kuta: This op ed was written by a libertarian, not a liberal. Sometimes newspapers publish opinions that differ from their typical journalistic slant.


It was written by the WP Editorial Board and that, my friend, is liberal.


NO ONE RESPOND FURTHER TO THIS DRIVEL, THIS TROLLBOT IS STUCK ON LOOP
 
2013-09-03 03:43:36 PM

Wooly Bully: Super Chronic: for the sole reason of bothering you

Well, that's not the sole reason. The other one is to make morons - their "base" - wet themselves with glee.


Yes.  And why do you think it does that?  Because they know that the phrase will cause Democrats to object.  There is nothing inherently offensive about the phrase "Democrat party," unless you're an English teacher; the glee is all due to the response it causes.  Absent such a response, I don't think even the Republican base would find any joy in saying "hey, let's get the other party's name slightly wrong, that'd be fun!"
 
2013-09-03 03:45:08 PM

STRYPERSWINE: meat0918: Vouchers aren't the answer.

Fixing the goddamn public schools is.

via competition and incentive.


Yeah that is working really well for Sears now, and that is part of an industry that isn't necessarily retarded to be profit driven. Profit-driven education is, by its nature, farking retarded. The moment you make it about how much money people can make and not about how well students are doing, you just create busywork for useless education middle management justifying their redundant jobs.
 
2013-09-03 03:53:11 PM

Super Chronic: Wooly Bully: Super Chronic: for the sole reason of bothering you

Well, that's not the sole reason. The other one is to make morons - their "base" - wet themselves with glee.

Yes.  And why do you think it does that?  Because they know that the phrase will cause Democrats to object.  There is nothing inherently offensive about the phrase "Democrat party," unless you're an English teacher; the glee is all due to the response it causes.  Absent such a response, I don't think even the Republican base would find any joy in saying "hey, let's get the other party's name slightly wrong, that'd be fun!"


Sure, they enjoy it if someone gets annoyed about it. But they'll say stupid things like that among themselves when they know won't get a response, too, and then smile as if they were being clever. You can't underestimate the immaturity of people like this, or somehow ascribe it to other people's oversensitivity. They just want to be dicks, period, and that deserves everyone's scorn.
 
2013-09-03 04:06:03 PM
Just send everyone to the over achieving private schools, and give them all the money the public schools would have received. We'll call them Publicly Accessible Private Schools, or Public Schools for short.
 
2013-09-03 04:15:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: KyngNothing: http://theadvocate.com/home/4274144-125/report-la-teacher-unions-weak

Yes, those incredibly powerful Louisiana Teacher's Unions, contributing .18% of all donations to state elections!

Lying pieces of shiat need someone to blame. In spite of the fact that only 7% of the US workforce is organized and other countries with much higher penetration are doing better, right-wing trash like to blame every problem in the country on organized labor, because apparently freedom and self-determination are evil.


Hah!!! Guess which party is overtly hostile to freedom and self-determination???

You are the epitome of a useful idiot.
 
2013-09-03 04:31:44 PM

DeArmondVI: Neighborhood Watch: Blathering Idjut: There is no such thing as a "democrat party."


Oh yes there is...  (links to midlly NFSW images, as democrats are pictured in it)

I believe you are now either the 2nd or 3rd person that I've put on ignore. I've seen plenty of derp in my day, but you're just uninspired, lazy, and have contributed nothing of value to a single thread I've seen you in. I will enjoy no longer seeing your drivel.


i added him to the green text club myself, always worth a laugh (AT not with)
 
2013-09-03 04:37:31 PM

oryx: Public schools can't compete with private schools. What about "justice" for the teacher's unions?


Oh bull. That's a myth. Public schools have to take EVERYONE who comes through the doors. Private schools can pick and choose - and they tend to choose the cream of the crop and send anyone who causes trouble back to the public schools.

Stop perpetuating a falsehood.
 
2013-09-03 05:17:39 PM

Kimothy: Public schools have to take EVERYONE who comes through the doors.



The reverse of that is also true.  You are forced, by law, to be indoctrinated in a government school unless you can afford to opt out of it.  Liberals, and their unions,  love that.  Unfortunately, the poor black kids referred to in the link must remain slaves to government force - they haven't the available cash that democrat politicians have to free their kids from the chains of failed & unsafe government schools.

This voucher system, though not perfect (what is?), was/is a way for poor black kids to have a better chance at life.  Directed by our precious little king, Eric Withholder and the Injustice Department intend to DESTROY that chance.

Those nationwide political races gotta' have that union money, doncha' know... and that's all that matters.
 
2013-09-03 05:17:43 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Mr. Titanium: The problem with vouchers is that it tacitly agrees that it is OK for some schools stink.  Wnen the public officials in each state insure that ALL public schools in their state are good, then they can gripe.  Until then, they need to get off their butts and do the jobs they take public money for doing.  The teacher unions sometimes just fight for the teachers, but nobody is looking out for the students.  Not the Governor, Legislature, Mayors, local school boards, etc.

The teachers fight for the students. The teachers' unions are made up of teachers. Far from the scumbag right-wing lies about them, unionized teachers are the best advocates and the best defense students have available by a wide margin. Anyone trying to bust or denigrate teachers' unions wants schools to fail their students.


The schools are already failing their students and have been for decades.  Teachers' unions didn't make a difference then, why would they now?  Clearly the status quo is a model for failure.
 
2013-09-03 05:41:26 PM
When have they NOT called it the Injustice Department?
 
2013-09-03 06:49:17 PM

Lsherm: A Dark Evil Omen: Mr. Titanium: The problem with vouchers is that it tacitly agrees that it is OK for some schools stink.  Wnen the public officials in each state insure that ALL public schools in their state are good, then they can gripe.  Until then, they need to get off their butts and do the jobs they take public money for doing.  The teacher unions sometimes just fight for the teachers, but nobody is looking out for the students.  Not the Governor, Legislature, Mayors, local school boards, etc.

The teachers fight for the students. The teachers' unions are made up of teachers. Far from the scumbag right-wing lies about them, unionized teachers are the best advocates and the best defense students have available by a wide margin. Anyone trying to bust or denigrate teachers' unions wants schools to fail their students.

The schools are already failing their students and have been for decades.  Teachers' unions didn't make a difference then, why would they now?  Clearly the status quo is a model for failure.


Doesn't explain VA's failing schools. In fact, some of the states with the poorest performance of students are those without public-sector unions.
 
2013-09-03 06:54:50 PM
It's amusing to me how liberals only care about poor black children. Not poor children.

Racists.
 
2013-09-03 07:10:23 PM

utahraptor2: It's amusing to me how liberals only care about poor black children. Not poor children.

Racists.


Yes, but Republicans care deeply about poor children.  They want them to have enriching educational opportunities, like scrubbing the toilets once the Commie union janitors are fired.
 
2013-09-03 07:39:09 PM

wildcardjack: The Beagle


Darwin didn't die, but Pringle Stokes did.
 
2013-09-03 08:23:10 PM

vygramul: Doesn't explain VA's failing schools. In fact, some of the states with the poorest performance of students are those without public-sector unions.


Uh, Virginia has a teacher's union.  They've been squawking about home schooling lately.
 
2013-09-03 09:02:51 PM

Lsherm: vygramul: Doesn't explain VA's failing schools. In fact, some of the states with the poorest performance of students are those without public-sector unions.

Uh, Virginia has a teacher's union.  They've been squawking about home schooling lately.


They have a union the way Canada has a military. Please. What they have is a professional association that's like belonging to the Society for Behavioral Medicine.
 
2013-09-03 09:20:44 PM

meat0918: Vouchers aren't the answer.

Fixing the goddamn public schools is.


thre's nothing wrong with the schools. it's the parents stupid.
essetnially, all vouchers do is let kids take their kids out of schools with paretns that don't give a f*ck, but it helps immensly.
 
2013-09-03 10:15:10 PM

flondrix: I thought that the conservatives started opposing this voucher program once the muslim schools started getting voucher money.


They did.

 http://livingstonparishnews.com/news/article_6c2da5fe-c1e5-11e1-ae3 b-0 019bb2963f4.html

http://www.wbrz.com/news/voucher-funding-plan-included-debate-over-r el igion/
 
2013-09-03 10:31:23 PM
Ctrl-F Kaplan

HairBolus: Who would of thought that the Washington Post, a subsidiary of Kaplan Education (a for profit education testing and operator of predatory for-profit schools) would be in favor of vouchers?

Profits from Kaplan have basically been subsidizing the money losing Washington Post.


And I see I have nothing to do here...
 
2013-09-04 02:26:05 AM
Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. The board includes: Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl; Jo-Ann Armao , who specializes in education and District affairs; Jonathan Capehart, who focuses on national politics; Lee Hockstader, who writes about political and other issues affecting Virginia and Maryland; Charles Lane, who concentrates on economic policy, trade and globalization; Stephen Stromberg, who specializes in energy, the environment, public health and other federal policy; and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. Op-ed editor Autumn Brewington and letters editor Michael Larabee also take part in board discussions.

Yeas on this piece of crap?
Nays?

No?

At least one of you cashed the check, heroes.
 
2013-09-04 02:42:08 AM

Bear in mind, right-wing looters are actually so proud of this tactic they advertise it.

Least government intervention
Most freedom

No government schools
Parents pay for only the education they choose
Private and home schools monitored, not regulated
Tuition tax credits
Tuition vouchers
Private and home schooling moderately regulated
Charter schools
Public‐school choice
State‐mandated curricula
Private and home schooling highly regulated;
parents pay twice
Home schooling illegal
Private schools illegal
Compulsory indoctrination in government schools

Most government intervention
Least freedom
 
2013-09-04 06:38:04 AM
Obama is the enforcer of laws. Just enforcing the segregation laws.
 
2013-09-04 09:52:38 AM

BuckTurgidson: Bear in mind, right-wing looters are actually so proud of this tactic they advertise it.

Least government intervention
Most freedom

No government schools
Parents pay for only the education they choose
Private and home schools monitored, not regulated
Tuition tax credits
Tuition vouchers
Private and home schooling moderately regulated
Charter schools
Public‐school choice
State‐mandated curricula
Private and home schooling highly regulated;
parents pay twice
Home schooling illegal
Private schools illegal
Compulsory indoctrination in government schools

Most government intervention
Least freedom


It's also somewhere they are completely violating supply-side economics. They like to pretend that GDP growth is king, and that anything that harms is to be deprecated. Yet one of the few things government can do to improve GDP is a robust education program. Instead, they want to make the education programs worse and less funded, impairing it. They don't want GDP growth if the direct beneficiaries are the workers and management just gets money because of improved productivity. They only want GDP growth if management is the direct beneficiary, the workers don't benefit, and the unemployed are added to the rolls of wage-slaves churning out what Marx called "surplus value". It's almost as if Marx's distorted view of capitalism became a blueprint.
 
Displayed 161 of 161 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report