Union Worker Protests In Wi

[85suited 0]

I can think of many reasons for parents being more satisfied with their children's education in Private Schools that have nothing to do with the quality of the teacher.Are the classes smaller in Private Schools ?Is the Private School's religious/moral teaching consistent with the beliefs of the parent ?Are there less problem children at the Private School since they will come from a higher income group and also from the fact that the Private School doesn't have to take children that they don't want to thus making the in class experience better ?Is there a general bias in people to perceive their level of satisfaction to be higher with something when they are paying for it themselves ?I'm not saying that the quality of the teachers isn't a factor in the satisfaction level but you can't use that statistic in the way that you're trying to.

It would be nice to have a choice in how my "tax' dollars were spent on education. I would love to "opt" out and use them for private school. I will move out of Chicago long before I send my kids thru that awful public school system

[custom36 4]

It would be nice to have a choice in how my "tax' dollars were spent on education. I would love to "opt" out and use them for private school. I will move out of Chicago long before I send my kids thru that awful public school system

Too bad there's no choice for the poor kids...

[85suited 0]

Too bad there's no choice for the poor kids...

Because doubling spending since 1970 on education has improved our scores?

[custom36 4]

Because doubling spending since 1970 on education has improved our scores?

And your answer is moving the kids that can afford it, while leaving the impoverished behind to fend for themselves?Forcing teachers to teach so kids can pass a standardized test probably didn't help.

[hblask 1]

Too bad there's no choice for the poor kids...

Oh, you mean like the choice that conservatives have been trying to give poor kids for the last three decades, only to be blocked by entrenched unions?Yeah, that would be nice.

[hblask 1]

And your answer is moving the kids that can afford it, while leaving the impoverished behind to fend for themselves?

This is such a ridiculous argument coming from the left. The rich *already* have choices, it is the poor that are trapped. It's the conservatives and libertarians who want to give the poor a choice, too. Look who is suing against every voucher and school choice program that crops up: the unions and the Democrats.You can only lie so long before the public catches on. The time is now.

[85suited 0]

And your answer is moving the kids that can afford it, while leaving the impoverished behind to fend for themselves?Forcing teachers to teach so kids can pass a standardized test probably didn't help.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf - Page 11You do realize Chicago Public schools arent underfunded?Those poor kids just aren't getting any attention or money

[85suited 0]

Too bad there's no choice for the poor kids...

Boehner to ‘revive’ school vouchershttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/j...uchers-program/

House Speaker John A. Boehner plans to meet President Obama’s call for bipartisanship and education reform with legislation that would “totally revive” the D.C. voucher program, which the president killed in 2009.

The three-sector funding approach, instituted under the Bush administration, won bipartisan congressional support in 2004. By 2009, when the Obama administration and Democrat-led 111th Congress began phasing out the federally funded scholarships, it had won over seven D.C. Council members who urged the Obama administration against pulling funding from the popular program.

The voucher program is helping an estimated 1,000 poor children attend the private or parochial school of their parents’ choosing with scholarships up to $7,500 — about half the public schools’ per-pupil spending.

But Democrats and union leaders oppose vouchers and have succeeded in beating back attempts to resurrect the program, including legislative efforts made in 2010 by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

[hblask 1]

I can think of many reasons for parents being more satisfied with their children's education in Private Schools that have nothing to do with the quality of the teacher.Are the classes smaller in Private Schools ?Is the Private School's religious/moral teaching consistent with the beliefs of the parent ?Are there less problem children at the Private School since they will come from a higher income group and also from the fact that the Private School doesn't have to take children that they don't want to thus making the in class experience better ?Is there a general bias in people to perceive their level of satisfaction to be higher with something when they are paying for it themselves ?I'm not saying that the quality of the teachers isn't a factor in the satisfaction level but you can't use that statistic in the way that you're trying to.

But the question is whether, by paying less, private schools attract worse teachers. Clearly they don't. Test results are better, parents are happier. If they were worse teachers, there would be *some* metric that shows that, and there just isn't.

[BaseJester 1]

I can think of many reasons for parents being more satisfied with their children's education in Private Schools that have nothing to do with the quality of the teacher.Are the classes smaller in Private Schools ?

I don't think this is a successful rebuttal. Private schools paying less per teacher can have more teachers and thus smaller classes assuming constant total salary.

Is the Private School's religious/moral teaching consistent with the beliefs of the parent ?Are there less problem children at the Private School since they will come from a higher income group and also from the fact that the Private School doesn't have to take children that they don't want to thus making the in class experience better ?

Yes, this. ^^^The public schools are educating children who are disruptive.The public schools are educating children who don't speak English.The public schools are educating children with all different kinds of disabilities.The public schools are educating children whose parents are actively hostile to education.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

And way to stay classy, demonstrators...

...we're not looking to create chaos. That is a flat out lie...

Oh.

[hblask 1]

I don't think this is a successful rebuttal. Private schools paying less per teacher can have more teachers and thus smaller classes assuming constant total salary.Yes, this. ^^^The public schools are educating children who are disruptive.The public schools are educating children who don't speak English.The public schools are educating children with all different kinds of disabilities.The public schools are educating children whose parents are actively hostile to education.

You should watch "Waiting For Superman" (it's available for free online now). There are schools that intentionally dive into the worst districts, and take the worse students. They crush -- absolutely crush -- the public schools that had been destroying children there for decades. Same students, same parents, same neighborhood.The unions are running out of excuses for why they are doing such a bad job. Parents have caught on. There is nowhere left to hide.

[ShakeZuma 585]

"Waiting For Superman" (it's available for free online now).

link?

[Balloon guy 158]

Forcing teachers to teach so kids can pass a standardized test probably didn't help.

I didn't want to derail your thread, but we talked about debating NCLB before and kind of skipped over it.But taking the above statement I have to ask: Why?I took a test in school all the time, the tests were designed to determine if I had learned the subject. Failing those test could have resulted in my being held back.So what is different from the NCLB tests that Ted Kennedy and his staff designed that Bush pushed through?Every single teacher I ever had taught stuff that was going to be 'on the test' which I assume is exactly the same as teaching to the test?

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think this is a successful rebuttal. Private schools paying less per teacher can have more teachers and thus smaller classes assuming constant total salary.Yes, this. ^^^The public schools are educating children who are disruptive.The public schools are educating children who don't speak English.The public schools are educating children with all different kinds of disabilities.The public schools are educating children whose parents are actively hostile to education.

I was in a pretty good middle class school in the 9th grade. I was disruptive, they kicked me out of the school district.Now to punish the bad kids they pass them and give them high school diplomas when they can barely read.I got off easier.

[Balloon guy 158]

You should watch "Waiting For Superman" (it's available for free online now). There are schools that intentionally dive into the worst districts, and take the worse students. They crush -- absolutely crush -- the public schools that had been destroying children there for decades. Same students, same parents, same neighborhood.The unions are running out of excuses for why they are doing such a bad job. Parents have caught on. There is nowhere left to hide.

Dennis Miller was really upset that this documentary didn't even get an Oscar nod.It really makes you wonder when a doc this good gets completely passed over by the liberal media the way this one was.

[BaseJester 1]

You should watch "Waiting For Superman" (it's available for free online now). There are schools that intentionally dive into the worst districts, and take the worse students. They crush -- absolutely crush -- the public schools that had been destroying children there for decades. Same students, same parents, same neighborhood.The unions are running out of excuses for why they are doing such a bad job. Parents have caught on. There is nowhere left to hide.

I'm aware of it, but I'm not sure it's worth my time. It's easy to find anecdotes that support a position (e.g., Michael Moore movies). I'm sure there are many situations in which the charter school is far superior to the competing public school, but also the opposite. If state or federal standards or policies are hurting a particular public school, then it's probably hurting other public schools as well.

[BaseJester 1]

I was in a pretty good middle class school in the 9th grade. I was disruptive, they kicked me out of the school district.

Were you disruptive all the way up to grade 8? Would the rules have allowed them to kick you out earlier?

Now to punish the bad kids they pass them and give them high school diplomas when they can barely read.

This sounds like grouchy old man/conservative radio talk. I don't think graduating functionally illiterate students is a trend. Citations?

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm aware of it, but I'm not sure it's worth my time. It's easy to find anecdotes that support a position (e.g., Michael Moore movies). I'm sure there are many situations in which the charter school is far superior to the competing public school, but also the opposite. If state or federal standards or policies are hurting a particular public school, then it's probably hurting other public schools as well.

Yea..cause the one thing you can count on in all forms of government is consistency.

[Balloon guy 158]

Were you disruptive all the way up to grade 8? Would the rules have allowed them to kick you out earlier?

I don't understand how that matters to anything.

This sounds like grouchy old man/conservative radio talk. I don't think graduating functionally illiterate students is a trend. Citations?

You're right, kids are coming out fully educated. We are just hoping to get the same great results for less money.Of course this is always lied about when teacher want more money:20 percent of high school seniors can be classified as being functionally illiterate at the time they graduate.

[BaseJester 1]

Yea..cause the one thing you can count on in all forms of government is consistency.

I'm going to assume this is a meaningless soundbite until you make an actual point.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm going to assume this is a meaningless soundbite until you make an actual point.

A point to what?You're vague dismissal with no facts to back it up?I didn't see any reason to have a point to respond to that.

[brvheart 1,752]

Maybe in So. Cal. We generally get snow November - May. When I was a kid we had Memorial Day snowstorms.

Did you live in Alaska?I'm from Iowa, home of the midwest's nexus of hell (when it comes to weather), and the very latest I've ever remembered a snowstorm was April.What is the town you're from, what's the elevation, and what years did these frequent end-of-May snowstorms occur. I need to look up the weather history for your area.

[brvheart 1,752]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. By that logic, every worker in America has their job through immoral means since there are people in other countries who would do the job for less and work in worse conditions. No wonder we keep shipping jobs overseas if this is how libertarians like the Koch brothers think.Basing wages on what the most desperate person would take is hilarious.Also, can we stop with the myth of all these terrible teachers? There are probably the same percentage of terrible teachers as there are terrible employees in other fields and two teachers got fired this year at my wife's schools. It's just not as bad as people make it out to be.

...EDIT: oops. I guess someone already responded. Cane: You really really really need to pick up an Econ 101 book at some point. Maybe work through some practice problems.ps. Your field works exactly the same way.

[85suited 0]

Maybe in So. Cal. We generally get snow November - May. When I was a kid we had Memorial Day snowstorms.

May 1947 snowhttp://www.crh.noaa.gov/grb/?n=may1947snowonly one that I can find in google