student loan forgivemess

[wdmso]

Parents want school choice

Some do Jim some … And the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them

But keep thinking it’s about unions and politics

I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers …

To bad all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools ..

Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility…. You have Ron and other politicians who have lied and convinced theses gullible parents that their smarter than the teachers . And suggesting their villains .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Parents want school choice

Some do Jim some … And the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them

But keep thinking it’s about unions and politics

I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers …

To bad all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools ..

Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility…. You have Ron and other politicians who have lied and convinced theses gullible parents that their smarter than the teachers . And suggesting their villains .

Where to begin...

"the majority who want school choice have the money to send their kids to private schools or religious schools. They just want the state city or town to subside them"

That's a very pro-left, self serving statement. Please support it. Please back that up with data, or admit you made it up because it serves your agenda...

"I guess no kids from public schools ever get into Harvard or MIT on their merit or being taught by good teachers … "

As always, you respond to something I never came close to saying. I never said public schools send zero kids to the Ivy League. Please respond to what I'm saying. Why do you constantly respond to radical nonsense that no one ever even came CLOSE to saying?

"all those hard working plumbers and electricians cooks and Walmart workers who the Republicans claim are getting screwed by Biden giving their kids 10k in debt relief. 99.9 % of them graduated from public schools"

That's probably true, I'd agree most who enter the trades are graduates of public school. But most arent graduating from disgusting, failing, inner city public schools. Not all public schools are failing sh*tholes, but some are, and we all know which ones they are, and that's where parents who are doing the right thing, should be offered a choice.

"keep thinking it’s about unions and politics"

So it's just a coincidence that the democrat position on this issue is to protect teachers unions from a tiny speck of competition, and that teachers unions give huge money to democrats. That's just a coincidence? Or do you deny that teachers unions give money to democrats?

"Schools and teachers don’t fail kids in school parents fail them at home. thinking education isn’t their responsibility"

I agree! Most educational success (not all, but most) is determined in the home. But if you agree with that, why do you support democrats who mock traditional family values, and give all their effort and money to teachers, instead of to programs that support strong families?

In addition , there are some schools that are so bad, that even good parents have a tough time getting a good outcome for their kids. These are the places where there should be choice.

You guys keep whining about subsidizing education. But with poor people, you're already subsidizing their public school education. If there's an opportunity to subsidize better schools at a lower cost, why would you rather that your money go to worse schools that are more expensive? We're subsidizing their e3ducation either way. Why not provide then with the best possible opportunities?

You are paying for their schooling already. Why not have your money provide them with the best schooling available, especially if its cheaper?

Politics. That's why. Why else would you choose to keep those kids in stinky schools that are more expensive than the good schools?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Politics. That's why. Why else would you choose to keep those kids in stinky schools that are more expensive than the good schools?

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is not politics. It is the recognition that the private schools don't have to deal with the "problems" of the public schools and will cherry pick the "good" students. The ones whose parents want their kids to learn and will assist the kids and the schools in trying to be successful, will get their kids to school every day, on time, with clean clothing, the ones who can somewhat afford lunches, are not handicapped (and those extra costs associated w/them), who will ask about their homework and make sure the kids does it, will not automatically take the kid's side when the kid is disciplined, will make sure the kids don't bring guns to school, etc. etc. These are the kids that are frequently in the private schools. The public schools can't pick and choose and are "stuck" with the "bad" kids.

So it is easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop and leave the "dregs" to the private schools and then claim the private schools do a better job.

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn, yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You did a good job explaining why private schools are better (clearly, they can refuse to accept troublemakers). What you failed to do, is explain why it isn't then a good idea to get the conscientious students out of Hartford schools, and into good private schools. Sounds like you concede private schools are better places for kids who actually want to learn,yes, for the most part yet you'd deny that opportunity to the poor students in Hartford who are trying to get an education. Why? Why say "no" to them? If it's not politics (acting on behalf of teachers and the union), why deny letting them go to a better and cheaper school? I don't get it.BC it will make the public schools worse skimming off the "cream of the crop"


"easy to be successful as a private school when you can skim off the cream of the crop"

OK, I went to Notre Dame High in West Haven. It wasn't Miss Porters, or Avon Old Farms, Paul. We didn't only have the "cream of the crop". I concede we didn't have a lot of kids with deadbeat parents, but we had plenty of poor kids, plenty of C students. Those teachers I had, didn't have it "easy". They worked their butts off. And they all had second jobs in the summer to pay the bills.

Agree - mainly bc I went there also. I don't know that we had "poor" kids. Prob. blue collar. Most teachers (public and private) have summer jobs in the summer. Atleast the younger ones.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Agree - mainly bc I went there also. I don't know that we had "poor" kids. Prob. blue collar. Most teachers (public and private) have summer jobs in the summer. Atleast the younger ones.

You went to ND? Great! I liked it there. We had plenty of poor kids when I was there. Not abject poverty, but not middle class either.

Paul, can you explain how the public schools are made worse, if the few kids who actually want to learn, are sent somewhere where they can learn?

You're saying you're willing to punish those few heroic families, for what, exactly? What's the upside of forcing those kids to remain where they are? It keeps some more public teachers employed (which is a big reason why liberals oppose school choice), but what's the point of education? To give children the best chance of realizing their dreams? Or something else?

The troublemakers left behind in public school, obviously won't care if a few dedicated students leave.

So who does it hurt, and how does it hurt them, to send those few kids to a better school?