Trump is assembling the richest administration

[wdmso]

I see each pick as a systematic approach to dismantle each agency one by one . There is no intent to have them be more efficient . but only to allow easier money flow to the top.. a Businesses approach

Its Like taking the teeth from a Dog then tell the public its still a good watch dog because it can still bark...

(but the thieves know the dog has no teeth)


Schools dont fail parents Fail their kids its not day care

[wdmso]

Let talk about Trump's pick for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos
see wants to privatize education ( her children never set foot in a public school)

2010, they even opened up their own charter school

She looking at profit hidden in choice But choice does not guarantee access

She feel competition is the answer for better schools

She feels she is owed

The DeVos family is a major funder of the Republican party. In a 1997 op-ed that DeVos wrote for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, she pointedly admitted, "my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party." She also said that she decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that they were buying influence and simply concede the point, admitting "we expect a return on our investment," to make America reflect their vision for it.

Pay to play written all over this one

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Let talk about Trump's pick for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos
see wants to privatize education ( her children never set foot in a public school)

2010, they even opened up their own charter school

She looking at profit hidden in choice But choice does not guarantee access

She feel competition is the answer for better schools

She feels she is owed

The DeVos family is a major funder of the Republican party. In a 1997 op-ed that DeVos wrote for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, she pointedly admitted, "my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party." She also said that she decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that they were buying influence and simply concede the point, admitting "we expect a return on our investment," to make America reflect their vision for it.

Pay to play written all over this one

"he feel competition is the answer for better schools'

Most people feel that way. WDMSO, please tell me why you are opposed to letting poor families choose to opt out of failing schools, and instead send their kids to schools that work? On what basis, exactly, are you opposed to that?

Giving those parents more choice, is giving them more freedom, it's giving their kids a better shot at realizing their dreams.

Only union fanatics, who care nothing bout anyone but themselves, , could possibly oppose school choice. Poor people in cities, LOVE school choice. They love it.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I see each pick as a systematic approach to dismantle each agency one by one . There is no intent to have them be more efficient . but only to allow easier money flow to the top.. a Businesses approach

Its Like taking the teeth from a Dog then tell the public its still a good watch dog because it can still bark...

(but the thieves know the dog has no teeth)

I see a couple possibilities here. I see picks that are unconventional selections for particular positions may be able to more easily get to the root of a department doing well or not doing well because the head does not drink the Koolaid. He said he was going to bring in "winners" to do certain things - maybe this is an example. Maybe the EPA needs more Egon Spengler and less Walter Peck

Originally Posted by wdmso

Schools dont fail parents Fail their kids its not day care

Agreed. These kids already have 2 strikes against them with often bad parents. Totally unfair. I used to disagree with some the over application of different subsidies being given to the kids but now I am not so sure. Though I do think the parents should need to do more in conjunction with these. Kids having kids.

But schools are failing kids as are the parents - something has to give in order for these kids to have an opportunity to excel.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"he feel competition is the answer for better schools'

Most people feel that way. WDMSO, please tell me why you are opposed to letting poor families choose to opt out of failing schools, and instead send their kids to schools that work? On what basis, exactly, are you opposed to that?

Giving those parents more choice, is giving them more freedom, it's giving their kids a better shot at realizing their dreams.

Only union fanatics, who care nothing bout anyone but themselves, , could possibly oppose school choice. Poor people in cities, LOVE school choice. They love it.

Who are the most which you speak ? charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts (look who funded the ballot question in MA for charter schools some NY hedge fund) they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be ... Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes ... all citizens should have the right to an good education but a free market based system is crazy and will start a new class system your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want ?

Guess who can start a charter school....Parents that are dissatisfied with their kids’ public education options but can’t afford the tuition of a private school can take matters into their own hands and start a charter school. or anyone !!! How is that a good Idea? how about we run the same model for police depts

Why hedge funds love charter schools
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fa65a4ddaa84

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Who are the most which you speak ? charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts (look who funded the ballot question in MA for charter schools some NY hedge fund) they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be ... Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes ... all citizens should have the right to an good education but a free market based system is crazy and will start a new class system your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want ?

"Who are the most which you speak ?"

That would be everyone who understands what happens when an organization has a monopoly, versus an organization that has competitors

"charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts "

Investors? Many, many charter schools are public schools. There are no "investors".

As I stated, it's often CHEAPER to send a kid to a private school, than it is to send them to a public school. So school vouchers, and school choice, often saves the town money. It also puts kids in better schools. Win-win.

"they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be"

Can you get through a single post, without responding to something which nobody ever said? Nobody said they are a silver bullet. But it HELPS. Good schools are better than crappy schools. Do you disagree?

"Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes"

Very, very few people deny that we need a safety net. What conservatives complain about, is waste, abuse, and fraud in welfare programs.

For the 3rd (?) time, school choice can SAVE money, which could enable towns to lower taxes. You see WDMSO, when you spend less, you don't need as much coming in.

So as far as I can tell from your response, you oppose school choice for the following reasons...

(1) You don't want investors getting rich (invalid argument in most cases, as most private schools are not for profit)

(2) You say the alternative schools aren't guaranteed to be perfect. Well, nothing is perfect. Is it a silver bullet when your state spends more on prison guards? No, it's not. But I bet you support that.

(3) you say cities cannot afford it...but as I said, it can lower costs for cities. Give people the option of sending their kids to cheaper, yet better, schools.

"a free market based system is crazy "

As opposed to giving cities a monopoly, which has been swell in the cities.


"will start a new class system"

That's not what we have now in our cities?

"your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want"

we have that today. What school choice does, is reduce the difference in education quality. I am interested in giving people at the bottom, a better chance. You would rather stick with the status quo. Shocker, since you are in a public union.

Ask a poor person who lives in a city with crappy schools, yet who is raising kids who want to learn, if they'd rather send their kids to a private school in the suburbs. Ask the mayor of the city, if he would like to see education spending decrease, while giving better education to some kids.

You have put forth weak arguments.






.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Who are the most which you speak ?"

That would be everyone who understands what happens when an organization has a monopoly, versus an organization that has competitors

"charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts "

Investors? Many, many charter schools are public schools. There are no "investors".

As I stated, it's often CHEAPER to send a kid to a private school, than it is to send them to a public school. So school vouchers, and school choice, often saves the town money. It also puts kids in better schools. Win-win.

"they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be"

Can you get through a single post, without responding to something which nobody ever said? Nobody said they are a silver bullet. But it HELPS. Good schools are better than crappy schools. Do you disagree?

"Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes"

Very, very few people deny that we need a safety net. What conservatives complain about, is waste, abuse, and fraud in welfare programs.

For the 3rd (?) time, school choice can SAVE money, which could enable towns to lower taxes. You see WDMSO, when you spend less, you don't need as much coming in.

So as far as I can tell from your response, you oppose school choice for the following reasons...

(1) You don't want investors getting rich (invalid argument in most cases, as most private schools are not for profit)

(2) You say the alternative schools aren't guaranteed to be perfect. Well, nothing is perfect. Is it a silver bullet when your state spends more on prison guards? No, it's not. But I bet you support that.

(3) you say cities cannot afford it...but as I said, it can lower costs for cities. Give people the option of sending their kids to cheaper, yet better, schools.

"a free market based system is crazy "

As opposed to giving cities a monopoly, which has been swell in the cities.


"will start a new class system"

That's not what we have now in our cities?

"your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want"

we have that today. What school choice does, is reduce the difference in education quality. I am interested in giving people at the bottom, a better chance. You would rather stick with the status quo. Shocker, since you are in a public union.

Ask a poor person who lives in a city with crappy schools, yet who is raising kids who want to learn, if they'd rather send their kids to a private school in the suburbs. Ask the mayor of the city, if he would like to see education spending decrease, while giving better education to some kids.

You have put forth weak arguments.






.

And you have put forth no arguments on how charter schools help

Why dont you open one.. you can if they are so great and divert more money to the private sector from the public sector which you blame for everything

charter schools are public schools. really see below
In New York state, the charters went to court to fight audits by the state comptroller; they argued that they are nonprofit educational institutions, not public agencies. They said that only their authorizers had the power to audit them, not public officials. The state law was amended to give the comptroller the authority to audit their use of public monies.


n Chicago and in Philadelphia, charter schools fought efforts by their teachers to unionize on grounds that they were not public schools and thus were not subject to state labor laws. The charter school in Chicago argued in court that it was a private school, not a public school, and thus not subject to the same laws as public schools.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a charter school in Arizona was a private nonprofit corporation, not a state agency, when it was sued by an employee who had been discharged. In this case, a federal court agreed with the charter school that charters are not public schools when it comes to the rights of their employees.

[scottw]

Wayne...you've never actually been to a Charter school have you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And you have put forth no arguments on how charter schools help

Why dont you open one.. you can if they are so great and divert more money to the private sector from the public sector which you blame for everything

charter schools are public schools. really see below
In New York state, the charters went to court to fight audits by the state comptroller; they argued that they are nonprofit educational institutions, not public agencies. They said that only their authorizers had the power to audit them, not public officials. The state law was amended to give the comptroller the authority to audit their use of public monies.


n Chicago and in Philadelphia, charter schools fought efforts by their teachers to unionize on grounds that they were not public schools and thus were not subject to state labor laws. The charter school in Chicago argued in court that it was a private school, not a public school, and thus not subject to the same laws as public schools.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a charter school in Arizona was a private nonprofit corporation, not a state agency, when it was sued by an employee who had been discharged. In this case, a federal court agreed with the charter school that charters are not public schools when it comes to the rights of their employees.

"And you have put forth no arguments on how charter schools help "

Let me get this straight. You are saying that if you take 100 kids who want to learn, there is no difference in educational outcome, regardless of whether they attend public school in Hartford, or a private school in the suburbs. You really, truly, genuinely believe that?

If that's true, all those people who choose where to live based on school quality, must be pretty stupid.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...-like-congress

From the article...

"a United States Department of Education report that found students in the nation's capital that were provided with vouchers allowing them to attend private school through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had made statistically significant gains in reading achievement."

"Why dont you open one"

You are missing the point. The private schools are already there. We don't need to build them. Many private schools have space for more kids, and many public school students would love to go to the private schools, but can't afford it.

Charter schools aren't necessarily different from public schools. The fact that they didn't want to unionize, doesn't mean it's not a public school. Individual charter schools may function as private, but they don't have to. And private schools are not necessarily for-profit. Many are non-profit, because many are Catholic.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Schools dont fail parents Fail their kids its not day care

it's really both...

Parents fail their kids by not holding them accountable for their performance at school, not getting involved in or even caring about what's going on in school, and not setting boundaries on school nights and school work.

But parents aren't to blame for 30 year old text books, crumbling buildings and infrastructure, teaching to a test, and 40 kids to a class. Those kinds of problems fall on the School district and the communities that support them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

it's really both...

Parents fail their kids by not holding them accountable for their performance at school, not getting involved in or even caring about what's going on in school, and not setting boundaries on school nights and school work.

But parents aren't to blame for 30 year old text books, crumbling buildings and infrastructure, teaching to a test, and 40 kids to a class. Those kinds of problems fall on the School district and the communities that support them.

Good post.

Nor are responsible parents at fault if the teachers are forced to spend 99% of their time disciplining the wild kids, leaving no time to teach the small number of kids who are actually there to learn.

This is low hanging fruit, a problem with a laughably simple solution. This isn't splitting the atom.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

it's really both...

Parents fail their kids by not holding them accountable for their performance at school, not getting involved in or even caring about what's going on in school, and not setting boundaries on school nights and school work.

But parents aren't to blame for 30 year old text books, crumbling buildings and infrastructure, teaching to a test, and 40 kids to a class. Those kinds of problems fall on the School district and the communities that support them.

No ..but Political parties who would rather spend billions on wars and military spending Are to blame .. they turn a blind eye towards infrastucture all over the country leaving it to the states and cities and towns to struggle with increase costs lower tax base .... because the see that spending as a form of Socialism rather than securing americas future ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No ..but Political parties who would rather spend billions on wars and military spending Are to blame .. they turn a blind eye towards infrastucture all over the country leaving it to the states and cities and towns to struggle with increase costs lower tax base .... because the see that spending as a form of Socialism rather than securing americas future ..

hh..so the party that wants to let families choose which school is best for them, is to blame.

First you said bad parents are to blame, now you are saying Republicans are to blame.

"they turn a blind eye towards infrastucture all over the country "

For Obama's first 2 years as POTUS, his party controlled the legislature. I guess he turned a blind eye too.

Trump is proposing to spend a trillion dollars on badly needed infrastructure improvements. Where do you get your information from?

"the see that spending as a form of Socialism rather than securing americas future "

Please support your claim that conservatives are opposed to spending on infrastructure?

One false stereotype after.

Do yourself a favor...instead of listening to Rachael Maddow tell you what conservatives believe, you might try listening to a rational, intelligent, influential conservative. Listen to what he says, not to what MSNBC claims he says. Try Charles Krauthammer, a thoughtful, articulate conservative. Read his columns, you will see how badly you are being misinformed, by whoever you get your information from.