T1B

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:41 pm**

BAN that dumbfuck for misusung the quote feature

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:50 pm**

Cuda wrote:I went to that school in 7th & 8th grades-it was the best six years of my life.

FTFY.

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:04 pm**

I think that most of ou are missing the real point here. It's Ok in most Amurrican schools for students to attend dressed like a NBA player's bastard child, armed, disrespecting the teaching staff, and forcing new words into regular english-language conversation like "Fuck Yoo, Nigga, dey's ho's is mine", but it's not right for the teaching staff to show proof that there are countries not like theirs, and peoples not like them?

it's about time your country was well and truly bitch-slapped back to the reality that the rest of the planet lives under.

What can you expect, I suppose when your C-in-C didn't even leave the country until he got the job. It's truly laughable!

So I laughed

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:23 pm**

The phantorino wrote:It's Ok in most Amurrican schools for students to attend dressed like a NBA player's bastard child, armed, disrespecting the teaching staff, and forcing new words into regular english-language conversation like "Fuck Yoo, Nigga, dey's ho's is mine",

Very nice. Obviously you get your "knowledge" of American schools from TV.

The phantorino wrote:but it's not right for the teaching staff to show proof that there are countries not like theirs, and peoples not like them?

Wow, you get all that knowledge from hanging frigging FLAGS in a room?

Get a grip, nutjob. The walls could be bare plaster and the teacher could still -if he does his job- get the students to grasp that there are cultures and nations other than the U.S.

The phantorino wrote:it's about time your country was well and truly bitch-slapped back to the reality that the rest of the planet lives under.

No thanks, We Americans like our well-deserved, pampered, overfed, over-entertained culture. I think that the benefits of this particular country and culture are why my grandparents left England and Italy back in the 1920's and specifically chose to settle here.

There are folks literally dying to get into the U.S. to get a piece of our lifestyle and live like "Amurricans."

Not too many other nations have that, but then again, since you get all your knowle....errr...stereotypes about the U.S. from TV, you probably didn't get that.

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:12 pm**

...and I laughed again

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:17 pm**

^^^ of course you did. Tards are easily amused

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:44 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Just more evidence of the need for school choice.
Private schools have far more latitude in making these type of idioic, arbitrary decisions than do public schools.
Actually what they have is accountability to the consumers

So do public schools, via elections of school board members.

If parents want their kids educated in this type of environment, fine. If not, their ability to obtain a decent education shouldn't depend on their income.

I don't necessarily disagree, but that's a nonissue in regarding this instance. There's nothing in a private school to prevent this type of arbitracy and idiotic interpretation of the state law by an administrator. At least in a public school, (A) the school board can step in, and (B) it is a matter a public domain via the board's posted meeting agenda. At a private school, this kind of shit can go on without it being in the public sphere (unless a lawsuit is filed), because there's no obligation -- and very little inclination in many cases -- to conduct business in public.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:06 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote: Private schools have far more latitude in making these type of idioic, arbitrary decisions than do public schools.
Actually what they have is accountability to the consumers
So do public schools, via elections of school board members.

Not as long as said board members are beholden to the very unions they are going to be 'negotiating' with.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:18 am**

Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Actually what they have is accountability to the consumers
So do public schools, via elections of school board members.
Not as long as said board members are beholden to the very unions they are going to be 'negotiating' with.

I don't know how it is in Kalifornia, but Okla. has some of the lowest-paid public teachers in the country. I understand the whole "unions are evil" argument regarding some other trade groups (Not that I agree, I can just see the arguments against them), but the teachers here make like 25-28K or something ridiculous. There's a significant problem in this state of teachers graduating from college and going to other states for jobs because the pay is better. When they ask for a 3-5 percent pay increase and get maybe 1.5 or a one-time bonus, I just don't see them having much political clout, especially compared to the oil and gas industry here. As far as voting, I imagine teachers as a group would probably vote for any candidate who would try to pay them more, regardless if they were unionized or not.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:34 am**

Also, the pay increases here, if any, come at the state level, not the local level.

Sorry, my tangent got off on a tangent.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:50 am**

"School choice" can be had at the college level, and God knows that there's no shortage of administrative stupidity at either public or private colleges/universities.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:02 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:"School choice" can be had at the college level, and God knows that there's no shortage of administrative stupidity at either public or private colleges/universities.

Actually school vouchers were the primary catalyst in the explosion of higher education in the aftermath of WWII. They called it the GI Bill.

It worked for vets, it would work for disadvantaged kids-if thewy weren't being held hostage to the unions.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:07 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote: So do public schools, via elections of school board members.
Not as long as said board members are beholden to the very unions they are going to be 'negotiating' with.
I don't know how it is in Kalifornia, but Okla. has some of the lowest-paid public teachers in the country. I understand the whole "unions are evil" argument regarding some other trade groups (Not that I agree, I can just see the arguments against them), but the teachers here make like 25-28K or something ridiculous. There's a significant problem in this state of teachers graduating from college and going to other states for jobs because the pay is better. When they ask for a 3-5 percent pay increase and get maybe 1.5 or a one-time bonus, I just don't see them having much political clout, especially compared to the oil and gas industry here. As far as voting, I imagine teachers as a group would probably vote for any candidate who would try to pay them more, regardless if they were unionized or not.

First of all, criticizing unions isn't the same as criticizing those who are required to join in order to be allowed to work. The problem with the teacher's unions is precisly that they are a virtual monopoly because of the lack of competition, the fact that they have inordinate influence of those elected to supervise their workplace, and the fact that the policies they adopt are detrimental to our children, and hence to our future.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:09 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:"School choice" can be had at the college level, and God knows that there's no shortage of administrative stupidity at either public or private colleges/universities.
Actually school vouchers were the primary catalyst in the explosion of higher education in the aftermath of WWII. They called it the GI Bill.

It worked for vets, it would work for disadvantaged kids-if thewy weren't being held hostage to the unions.

Except that vets who couldn't make the grade or misbehaved would be expelled, while students who don't cut it academically are kept in the system, as are many disruptive kids.

As soon as public schools are allowed to toss failing students and more easily expel kids for behavior issues, then the college comparison might better apply for your argument.

BTW, college professors ALSO have unions, so it's not as though you've escaped that issue.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:17 am**

Diogenes wrote:Actually school vouchers were the primary catalyst in the explosion of higher education in the aftermath of WWII. They called it the GI Bill.

There was an unprecedented economic boom following WWII. Would it work now? Could we pay for it and still have any sort of accountability?

MtLR, Dio hates ALL unions, as far as I know. I'm working an agreement in which I'll read a C.S. Lewis book as long as he reads Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:20 am**

Diogenes wrote:First of all, criticizing unions isn't the same as criticizing those who are required to join in order to be allowed to work.

Thank you for making that distinction. A lot of people don't "get" that point.

Diogenes wrote:The problem with the teacher's unions is precisly that they are a virtual monopoly because of the lack of competition,

The lack of competition is often the doing of each local district, which CHOOSES its union. Local teachers' groups can choose to dissociate with the national union and "go local," negotiating their own local contract, hiring their own attorney, etc. Our own local dicussed that very prospect at length when the NEA-NY decided to leave NEA and merge with NYSUT. After several meetings in which the pros and cons were debated, the membership strongly opted (over 90%) to affiliate with NYSUT and not "go local."

Individuals aren't allowed to not pay into the local/national union because they have directly derived benefits from the union (negotiated wages, healthcare).

Diogenes wrote:the fact that they have inordinate influence of those elected to supervise their workplace,

How? The voters in the community cast their own ballots based upon what they know about their neighbors who have chosen to run. The union has nothing to do with it. Secondly, the school board answers to the voters and to the state school boards' association, not to the union. The union does not set curriculum (the school board does that, based upon state standards).

Diogenes wrote:and the fact that the policies they adopt are detrimental to our children

Unproven and too broad. To state as you do that unions adopt policies that are "detrimental" means nothing, since you haven't named any policies that unions adopt that directly impact students.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:23 am**

I'm not only in favor of making it easier to expel disruptive students, I don't particulary think all kids need to spend 12 years in school. In some situations, they should go straight to vocational schols which will actually do them some good in the real world. As far as unions on the universitty level, again, it isn't the unions per se that are the problem, but the fact they have a monopoly on the education dollar, they can coerce membership as a prerequisite to teaching, and they have inappropriate influence over school boards who are supposed to supervise them.

A book you should read...

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:27 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Actually school vouchers were the primary catalyst in the explosion of higher education in the aftermath of WWII. They called it the GI Bill.
There was an unprecedented economic boom following WWII. Would it work now? Could we pay for it and still have any sort of accountability?

MtLR, Dio hates ALL unions, as far as I know. I'm working an agreement in which I'll read a C.S. Lewis book as long as he reads Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Yes, it would work. The schools that don't make the grade will rightfully fail and the kids will go where they can get a decent education. As far as 'hating all unions', where did you get that? I generally don't give a shit about those unions who work in the privite sector, it is the ones feeding off of the taxpayer who opperate in a way that would cause any corporation to get an anti-trust indictment I have a problem with.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:37 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:First of all, criticizing unions isn't the same as criticizing those who are required to join in order to be allowed to work.
Thank you for making that distinction. A lot of people don't "get" that point.

Diogenes wrote:The problem with the teacher's unions is precisly that they are a virtual monopoly because of the lack of competition,
The lack of competition is often the doing of each local district, which CHOOSES its union. Local teachers' groups can choose to dissociate with the national union and "go local," negotiating their own local contract, hiring their own attorney, etc. Our own local dicussed that very prospect at length when the NEA-NY decided to leave NEA and merge with NYSUT. After several meetings in which the pros and cons were debated, the membership strongly opted (over 90%) to affiliate with NYSUT and not "go local."

Individuals aren't allowed to not pay into the local/national union because they have directly derived benefits from the union (negotiated wages, healthcare).

Diogenes wrote:the fact that they have inordinate influence of those elected to supervise their workplace,
How? The voters in the community cast their own ballots based upon what they know about their neighbors who have chosen to run. The union has nothing to do with it. Secondly, the school board answers to the voters and to the state school boards' association, not to the union. The union does not set curriculum (the school board does that, based upon state standards).

Diogenes wrote:and the fact that the policies they adopt are detrimental to our children
Unproven and too broad. To state as you do that unions adopt policies that are "detrimental" means nothing, since you haven't named any policies that unions adopt that directly impact students.

A) As long as the unions membership or dues paying is a requirement to teach, it is a monopoly. As long as those who can't afford privite school are required to go to union schools, there is no real competition.

B) The unions influence the elections through direct election spending and electioneering. If a candidate doesn't to the union line, he had better be independently wealthy or he is probably toast.

C) Opposition to vouchers. Opposition to charter schools. Opposition to merit pay. Protection of substandard teachers. Insistance on lower class sizes (read-more new hires, more dues) over quality teachers.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:46 am**

Diogenes wrote:Yes, it would work. The schools that don't make the grade will rightfully fail and the kids will go where they can get a decent education. As far as 'hating all unions', where did you get that? I generally don't give a shit about those unions who work in the privite sector, it is the ones feeding off of the taxpayer who opperate in a way that would cause any corporation to get an anti-trust indictment I have a problem with.

Fair enough. Perhaps if we lived in the opposite states of where we do now, we might both see things a bit differently.

Diogenes wrote:I'm not only in favor of making it easier to expel disruptive students, I don't particulary think all kids need to spend 12 years in school. In some situations, they should go straight to vocational schols which will actually do them some good in the real world.

It's a good idea, on paper. The tough part comes in trying to implement something like that.

For example, I sure as hell wouldn't want the "administrator" in the Colorado school at the top of this thread determining which students are "disruptive," being that he has no fucking clue as to what flags hanging in a geography classroom mean.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:59 am**

Diogenes wrote:A) As long as the unions membership or dues paying is a requirement to teach, it is a monopoly.

It is only a requirement to teach at public schools, and that is a STATE law, not a local one. The same requirement exists for other jobs (e.g., corrections, police).

Diogenes wrote:As long as those who can't afford privite school are required to go to union schools, there is no real competition.

The kids don't have an inalienable right to attend a non-union school or non-public school. Get over it.

Diogenes wrote:B) The unions influence the elections through direct election spending and electioneering.

So fucking what? So does every corporation, small company with wnough $$$, so do private citizens. It's called "democracy," and despite what that nutjob McCain thinks, it has always been that way and shouldn't change.

Diogenes wrote:If a candidate doesn't to the union line, he had better be independently wealthy or he is probably toast.

The same (needing lots of $$$) can be said for ANY elected office. You still haven't proven your point.

Diogenes wrote:C) Opposition to vouchers.

Vouchers steal money from districts. When the student comes back to the district, the funds that left with him don't come back.

Diogenes wrote:Opposition to charter schools.

I don't have a problem with charter schools, as long as they are held to the exact same level of accountability as NCLB requires public schools.

Diogenes wrote:Opposition to merit pay.

There has yet to be anyone who has ever explained to me how you would implement merit pay in a fair way. Passing rate? How do you make it fair across subject areas? How do you compensate for the varying skills that students come in with? How do you compensate for the varying socioeconomic realities the kids bring in with them? I've heard a lot of blowhards yammering on about "merit pay" without putting forth a single realistic explanation on HOW it would be done. They keep going to the "widgets" model.

Diogenes wrote:Protection of substandard teachers.

Define "substandard." I know that in my district that the process is not as convoluted as John Stossel shows in the NYC school district example. Then again, NYC is a thing unto itself.

Diogenes wrote:Insistance on lower class sizes (read-more new hires, more dues) over quality teachers.

Anyone who honestly thinks that the lower class size issue is about generating more money for unions is a flat-out retard. I've taught classes of 30 kids, 20 kids, and 10 kids. It's a hell of a lot easier (and I get more done) with fewer kids. Fewer disruptions, easier to give kids more concentrated/focused help, more meaningful remediation (I work with a lot of ESL and classified kids). It's common frigging sense.

The problem with a lot of the conservative proposals to reform education is that, in their own way, as short-sighted and politically-motivated as the liberal proposals. The private sector and free markets don't do everything better than government. I don't want the free market deciding food safety (we tried that and it killed people), elevator inspections, running jails, or educating the bulk of America's kids (including my own). Most of the folks who whip out "free markets" as the panacea for education haven't got a clue about teaching actual kids. Kids don't come off an assembly line within specific parameters for us to work on. Every time some numbnut pulls out the "business model" bullshit in a discussion of public education, I know right off the bat that a torrent of uninformed crap is about to be spewed my way.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:18 am**

[MtLR] Yard [/MtLR]

Carry on

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:02 am**

RadioFan wrote:For example, I sure as hell wouldn't want the "administrator" in the Colorado school at the top of this thread determining which students are "disruptive," being that he has no fucking clue as to what flags hanging in a geography classroom mean.

Actually he knows exactly what they mean- that the teacher in question is deliberatly flouting a state law he disagrees with for ideological reasons.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:24 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:It is only a requirement to teach at public schools, and that is a STATE law, not a local one. The same requirement exists for other jobs (e.g., corrections, police).

And you don't think that the NEA (or whatever union you are affiliated with) and AFL-CIO have anything to do with it being state law? The police and corrections officers unions also have a monopoly, only they don't effect how our children are being prepared for life.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The kids don't have an inalienable right to attend a non-union school or non-public school. Get over it.

Or a right to a decent education. And no.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:So fucking what? So does every corporation, small company with wnough $$$, so do private citizens. It's called "democracy," and despite what that nutjob McCain thinks, it has always been that way and shouldn't change.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The same (needing lots of $$$) can be said for ANY elected office. You still haven't proven your point.

The differance is, the unions in this case are influencing the elections of their supposed 'supervisors'. It is an absolute conflict of interest, and detrimental to the public welfare.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Vouchers steal money from districts. When the student comes back to the district, the funds that left with him don't come back.

"Steal money". First of all, it is likely that the kid will go to a school in the same district, so it isn't being taken from anything but failing schools. Secondly, if the kids aren't getting educated, it is the unions doing the stealing. Vouchers are a way to ensure the money is actually getting a return.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I don't have a problem with charter schools, as long as they are held to the exact same level of accountability as NCLB requires public schools.

Most unions do.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Define "substandard." I know that in my district that the process is not as convoluted as John Stossel shows in the NYC school district example. Then again, NYC is a thing unto itself.

If kids aren't getting educated, then the school should either reform or close.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Anyone who honestly thinks that the lower class size issue is about generating more money for unions is a flat-out retard.

If you don't think that increasing dues is the main thing the unions are interested, you're probably a well-programmed union member.

Nice Dr. D impersonation though.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:46 am**

MtLR is a great read, btw

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:06 am**

Here in the Neck's North Side.

Clovis Unified School District
Public Schools
645 m Budget
5000 employees... Non Union

They have a 13 million dollar budget surplus and are giving an across the board a 6% raise in every department

That's how you get quality educators, outstanding schools, world class sports facilities, and respect from the parents.
People skillfully doing their jobs and giving a a shit about the kids education from the top down. What a novel concept.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:27 am**

Vouchers are a joke. Once the vouchers are given out the private schools will raise their tuition by the amount of the voucher, leaving the poor families in the same position they were in the first place (unless you're proposing a cap on what private schools can charge, which I doubt).

Y2K;
You're going to have to provide more info than just that it's non-union to show why it works. What are the teachers paid there? How much is spent on each classroom? Chances are that both of those areas are well funded. What most republicans don't get is that the best way for management to keep unions out is to treat employees fairly. Paying teachers poorly while giving them huge class sizes with little funding for classroom supplies is going to bring the unions in every time.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:18 pm**

Diogenes wrote:And you don't think that the NEA (or whatever union you are affiliated with) and AFL-CIO have anything to do with it being state law? The police and corrections officers unions also have a monopoly, only they don't effect how our children are being prepared for life.

In NY the closed shop for teaching, corrections, etc. is most likely a concession to the egregious Taylor Law (which prohibits specific public employees, like teachers, cops, corrections officers, etc.) from going on strike, as well as a recognition that it would be unfair for individuals to gravy-train benifts that were negotiated by dues-paying union members.

Diogenes wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The kids don't have an inalienable right to attend a non-union school or non-public school. Get over it.
Or a right to a decent education.

Actually, in NY, a "sound basic education" is considered a right of children. It's even in the NYS constitution.

Diogenes wrote:The differance is, the unions in this case are influencing the elections of their supposed 'supervisors'. It is an absolute conflict of interest, and detrimental to the public welfare.

How is it a "conflict of interest" to voice your support for whom you'd rather see elected and for which boss you'd rather work under? The vote still comes down to the hundreds or thousands of folks who roll into the booths - it's not like the teachers' union is stuffing the ballot box. Besides, many teachers send their own kids to the school districts in which they teach and have the right -as parents and citizens- to campaign for, voice their preference for, and vote for whomever they see fit.

Is it also a "conflict of interest" in your opinion when teachers and students help advise school boards select new superintendents through their "stakeholders groups?" That's a pretty common practice, one that we just went through. The B of E listened to the feedback from each of the stakeholder groups and then made their own decision, based partly on the recommendations.

Diogenes wrote:"Steal money". First of all, it is likely that the kid will go to a school in the same district, so it isn't being taken from anything but failing schools.

In rural areas, like my own, there is only ONE public school at the high school level per district. That's pretty common in upstate NY. So, when a student from Mt. Morris High School takes his voucher $$$ in September across the valley to Geneseo High School and then, in January, goes back to Mt. Morris HS (voluntarily or otherwise) Geneseo doesn't refund the money to Mt. Morris, which now has to bear the costs of educating the kid, while Geneseo keeps the money the kid brought in September.

A very cynical person might even suggest that vouchers could be used by unscrupulous administrators to lure parent money to their district with the intent of bouncing several of the less desirable kids to keep their voucher money while artificially driving up their own test scores and selectivity.

But, no, that'd never happen. The private sector is too squeaky-clean and honest for that to EVER happen.

Diogenes wrote:If kids aren't getting educated, then the school should either reform or close.

If you can honestly prove that it's the school's fault, then fine. The fact remains that the best teachers in the world can only do so much for a kid whose parents refuse to be academically supportive, for kids who absolutely will not work, for kids whose parents are never home or are drunks, druggies, etc. I have my students for 84 minutes a day, five days a week. I've had numerous conversations with parents who have responded to my pointing out their kid's not doing homework with a "well, that's not MY problem - that's YOUR job." Mmmm - nope. My job is to assign meaningful homework, assess it, give meaningful feedback to the student, and to report to specific adults, including the parents, the quality (or lack thereof) of that student's work to help find solutions. If a parent won't be part of the solution and the kid isn't willing to work, then I'll do what I can but I shouldn't be blamed for the kid's failure.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Anyone who honestly thinks that the lower class size issue is about generating more money for unions is a flat-out retard.
If you don't think that increasing dues is the main thing the unions are interested, you're probably a well-programmed union member.

And if you honestly think that generating dues $$$ is the main impetus for unions, then my argument stands - you are a flat-out retard. Your argument that smaller classes are nothing but a sneaky way of increasing union dues is idiotic. By that same logic, I suppose that members of law enforcement, like corrections officers, support stricter enforcement and longer jail terms for criminals primarily because it fills the prisons, requiring more guards to be hired, thus generating more dues for their union. And that the reason that medical professionals are recommending more vaccinations, checkups, tests, is because the nursing unions want to create a shortage of nurses, demand more hiring, and thus increase THEIR dues collections.

Diogenes wrote:Nice Dr. D impersonation though.

Actually, when Dr. Detroit and I had a discussion on pretty much this same topic, he was closer to YOUR anti-union paranoia than my stand. He also made unfair, broad extrapolations about most teachers and teachers' unions based on his own limited knowledge of the subject (i.e., his own school district).

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:17 pm**

Y2K;
You're going to have to provide more info than just that it's non-union to show why it works.
In a nutshell... High expectations and holding all accountable from top to bottom. Teachers don't require a third party Union Rep to fleece their checks and district money so they can line their own pockets. They vote for their own reps and handle things themselves.... another novel concept. We have stupid shit like strict dress codes and all the schools revolve arount this ridiculous "Pillars Of Responsibility" concept.

What are the teachers paid there?
The start at about 32 grand if I'm not mistaken and have always had a 5 yr probation for "tenure" status.

How much is spent on each classroom? Chances are that both of those areas are well funded. What most republicans don't get is that the best way for management to keep unions out is to treat employees fairly. Paying teachers poorly while giving them huge class sizes with little funding for classroom supplies is going to bring the unions in every time.

psssst.... the budget surplus is the direct result of an INCREASE of funding from the Feds and State over the last couple years, especially from the Federal Side. Classrooms from K to 3 are state mandated at no more than 25 as are all districts. 4 thru 12 average about 35 to 40 per class, my daughters 4th grade class has 38.

BTW- The 3rd District around here is Central Unified, they modeled their growth plan off of the Clovis model and is also showing outstanding results, in size they are about 10 yrs behind Clovis and their budget is balanced and healthy.

Another result of parental repect is that we will PASS education bonds because we "get actual positive results from what we are paying for." ....... another novel concept..

yeah yeah........ I know Fresno Sucks why would anyone wanna live in that shithole....:lol

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:56 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And you don't think that the NEA (or whatever union you are affiliated with) and AFL-CIO have anything to do with it being state law? The police and corrections officers unions also have a monopoly, only they don't effect how our children are being prepared for life.
In NY the closed shop for teaching, corrections, etc. is most likely a concession to the egregious Taylor Law (which prohibits specific public employees, like teachers, cops, corrections officers, etc.) from going on strike, as well as a recognition that it would be unfair for individuals to gravy-train benifts that were negotiated by dues-paying union members.

If by egregious you mean toothless, then yes it is. And it was largely put into place by union supporters to replace the Condon-Wadlin Act-which New York officials didn't have the balls to enforce anyway.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The kids don't have an inalienable right to attend a non-union school or non-public school.
Or a right to a decent education.
Actually, in NY, a "sound basic education" is considered a right of children. It's even in the NYS constitution.

So I guess there aren't any kids fallingh through the cracks in the state of New York. Good to know.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:The differance is, the unions in this case are influencing the elections of their supposed 'supervisors'. It is an absolute conflict of interest, and detrimental to the public welfare.
How is it a "conflict of interest" to voice your support for whom you'd rather see elected and for which boss you'd rather work under? The vote still comes down to the hundreds or thousands of folks who roll into the booths - it's not like the teachers' union is stuffing the ballot box. Besides, many teachers send their own kids to the school districts in which they teach and have the right -as parents and citizens- to campaign for, voice their preference for, and vote for whomever they see fit.

Good argument for allowing corporations and individuals to spennd millions of dollars to help elect candidates who will vote their way. Of course we have laws to prevent that-from which unions are exempt. As they are from anti-trust laws.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Nice Dr. D impersonation though.
Actually, when Dr. Detroit and I had a discussion on pretty much this same topic, he was closer to YOUR anti-union paranoia than my stand. He also made unfair, broad extrapolations about most teachers and teachers' unions based on his own limited knowledge of the subject (i.e., his own school district).

Actually I was refering to his tendency to break down quotes into as many sentences as possible to make threads a tedious unreadable mess. Of course, I have no 'anti-union paranoia' and as far as you last sentence...

Love the Irony.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:"Steal money". First of all, it is likely that the kid will go to a school in the same district, so it isn't being taken from anything but failing schools.
In rural areas, like my own, there is only ONE public school at the high school level per district. That's pretty common in upstate NY. So, when a student from Mt. Morris High School takes his voucher $$$ in September across the valley to Geneseo High School and then, in January, goes back to Mt. Morris HS (voluntarily or otherwise) Geneseo doesn't refund the money to Mt. Morris, which now has to bear the costs of educating the kid, while Geneseo keeps the money the kid brought in September.

First of all, the odds of NY ever having choice is only slighty better than the odds here in the People's Republic of Kali-approximately zero. But in states where they mightn put the needs of kids over those of union bosses, we are talking about vouchers for those who can't afford privite schooling, those in schools that are doing the worst. Most of those would tend to be in the inner cities, but for those in rural areas, it would be up to the legislatures to insure that worse case scenarios like you describe don't occur. Of course union shills always bring up the what ifs to encourage the status quo, nothing new here.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:If kids aren't getting educated, then the school should either reform or close.
If you can honestly prove that it's the school's fault, then fine. The fact remains that the best teachers in the world can only do so much for a kid whose parents refuse to be academically supportive, for kids who absolutely will not work, for kids whose parents are never home or are drunks, druggies, etc.

Said parents aren't too likely to take advantage of vouchers, those who actually care about there kids should have a chance.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:42 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Nice Dr. D impersonation though.
Actually, when Dr. Detroit and I had a discussion on pretty much this same topic, he was closer to YOUR anti-union paranoia than my stand. He also made unfair, broad extrapolations about most teachers and teachers' unions based on his own limited knowledge of the subject (i.e., his own school district).
Actually I was refering to his tendency to break down quotes into as many sentences as possible to make threads a tedious unreadable mess. Of course, I have no 'anti-union paranoia' and as far as you last sentence...

Love the Irony.

What irony?

I've attended school in the Yonkers City School District (and my Aunt Maria was on the school board there for years), the Catskill School District (with friends who have served on the B of E), student taught in the Rochester City School District and Churchville-Chili School District, my son goes to the Geneseo School District, and I teach in Mount Morris. I have firsthand experience with rural, suburban, and city school districts and have been student, parent, student teacher and teacher in relationships with those districts.

So, save your snide little know-nothing driveby comments....

MtLR wrote: If you can honestly prove that it's the school's fault, then fine. The fact remains that the best teachers in the world can only do so much for a kid whose parents refuse to be academically supportive, for kids who absolutely will not work, for kids whose parents are never home or are drunks, druggies, etc.

Dio wrote:Said parents aren't too likely to take advantage of vouchers, those who actually care about there kids should have a chance.

Excellent point. That's also one of the reasons that Catholic/parochial schools seem to do so well - the parents who show such an intense interest in their children's academic welfare that they make the sacrifices (financial and otherwise) to put their kids into those schools have already proven to be exactly the kind of parent that predisposes a child to success, regardless of socioeconomic status. Having parents that take school THAT seriously already gives kids an advantage.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:14 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Just more evidence of the need for school choice.

There already is school choice. What you're really asking for is taxpayer subsidy of private schools.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:51 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Just more evidence of the need for school choice.
There already is school choice. What you're really asking for is taxpayer subsidy of private schools.

There is only choice for those who can afford it-who aren't the ones most at risk. And I would rather subsidise privite schools over failing ones.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:18 pm**

You're laboring under a common misapprehension...that somehow, according to the screed, any private school is far superior to a public one. It's just an ignorant take.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:27 pm**

Just so you know, Dio...there are shitty private schools, and great ones. There are also shitty public schools, just as there are great ones. I'll grant you a little leeway, because you don't appear to have spent much time in schools recently, or in the past, for that matter. You assail public education with a Quixotic zeal...and we shouldn't be surprised at your result...

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:37 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:You're laboring under a common misapprehension...that somehow, according to the screed, any private school is far superior to a public one.

Link?

My point isn't that all public schools are bad, or that all private ones are good. It is that those who are in the worst schools have the least ability to do anything about it. And I'm not assailing public education, or educators. I'm just saying that society would be better off if concerned parents with children in failing schools had the means to ensure they got a decent education.

Posted: **Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:42 pm**

My point isn't that all public schools are bad, or that all private ones are good.

then why would you type this?

And I would rather subsidise privite schools over failing ones.

Posted: **Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:10 am**

PSUFAN wrote:
My point isn't that all public schools are bad, or that all private ones are good.
then why would you type this?

And I would rather subsidise private schools over failing ones.

Because I find it unlikely that parents concerned about their children's education would use their vouchers to send their kids to a failing private school. I am more concerned with opportunities and results than whether a school is run by the Government, The Catholic Church, or for that matter if they are schooled at home. Vouchers for home schooling are another idea that should be tried, if the kids are getting a better education, why the fuck would you care who the money goes to, unless you are a union shill or a political hack?

T1B

Bizarro Education in Denver