What has Bush killed.

Desh said:
Stuck in failing schools?
Who is going to open a school in the inner city?

These will be businesses whos main reason to exsist is to make a profit.

This is why we started puplic schools in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because there is no other motive to open a school. :rolleyes:

Competition breeds better ideas. People will open schools in the inner city, I know of a few that are there already, including one that caters specifically to kids with learning disabilities. I'd love to see those kids better able to get into the same schools my kids will go to. Give them real hope for a future, not one lost on the public system in their area that is already failing them.
 
http://www.theurbanchildinstitute.org/Downloads/cucp/school_spending_4-17-07.pdf

We have a much larger percent of low income students to teach and we refuse to pony up the money it will take to properly teach them.

The sad thing is if we pony up the money they will become better tax payers and less of a lifelong burden on the system.

Some dont care about these kids or the long term payoff to the country in tax revenue because they will be dead by the time the country benifits.





Number of students in public school rose 4% between 1970 and 2003.

In 1970 1 in 5 students were Low Income.

In 2003 2 in 3 students were Low Income.

In 1970 we spent about 40% more on 20% of childern in public school whereas in 2003 we spend 40% more on 60% fo the children in public school.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html


Each year, about $65 million dollars is spent by foundations and individuals to promote vouchers. In election years, voucher advocates spend even more on ballot measures and in support of pro-voucher candidates.

In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children.
 
Desh said:
http://www.theurbanchildinstitute.org/Downloads/cucp/school_spending_4-17-07.pdf

We have a much larger percent of low income students to teach and we refuse to pony up the money it will take to properly teach them.

The sad thing is if we pony up the money they will become better tax payers and less of a lifelong burden on the system.

Some dont care about these kids or the long term payoff to the country in tax revenue because they will be dead by the time the country benifits.
Click to expand...


As if on clockwork I knew this would be the response, more money. That has been the cry for years, 'schools need more money'. And we have continued to throw more money at our schools with no increase in results.

Desh, those advocating for vouchers and school choice are doing so with the interest of those kids in the lowest performing schools at heart. It is actually trying to make a real change other than just saying we need more money which is not helping to make the necessary changes.
 
Desh said:
http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html


Each year, about $65 million dollars is spent by foundations and individuals to promote vouchers. In election years, voucher advocates spend even more on ballot measures and in support of pro-voucher candidates.

In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children.
Click to expand...


Wow... the NEA opposes vouchers, you don't say??? Who would have thunk it???

Do you think any monopoly is going to want to give up their power Desh?
 
cawacko said:
As if on clockwork I knew this would be the response, more money. That has been the cry for years, 'schools need more money'. And we have continued to throw more money at our schools with no increase in results.

Desh, those advocating for vouchers and school choice are doing so with the interest of those kids in the lowest performing schools at heart. It is actually trying to make a real change other than just saying we need more money which is not helping to make the necessary changes.
Click to expand...




This is how they win the battle by not doing ANYTHING but paying lip service to " better for the kids" crap.

You refuse to keep the level of education up in the US because you refuse to fully fund it.

Read the statistics I gave you about Low income students. We have a higer percent of them than we used to have and it is a cycle which will continue until you people wake up from the fantasy that the Monied Interests in this country vail your reality with. It takes more money to teach a low income kid, the policies are making more low income kids, they talk about BULLSHIT instead of solving the problem, you lap it up like pablum, you talk about vouchers, you refuse to pony up to solve the equation , more Low Income kids.

Wake UP!
 
Desh's articles fail to represent the effect of mainstreaming as well. Some of the students currently in public schools would have gone to schools better trained to educate them. I feel for a deaf kid stuck in a mainstreamed classroom, being failed by generic schools that can't teach him the coping mechanisms that other deaf children learn at schools for the deaf.
 
Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."
 
cawacko said:
Wow... the NEA opposes vouchers, you don't say??? Who would have thunk it???

Do you think any monopoly is going to want to give up their power Desh?
Click to expand...


Oh you think these people are biased huh?

Just imagine if they OWNED the school and made millions from the government with vocher money.
 
Desh said:
Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."
Click to expand...

I agree. It is an issue that needs to be discussed more because otherwise we end up with 'schools need more money'. Schools get more money and then produce no better results. So the argument continues, 'schools need more money...'

And you are quoting from the NEA which is a political organization fighting to keep its monopoly and of course lies and misrepresents what vouchers are about.
 
Desh said:
Oh you think these people are biased huh?

Just imagine if they OWNED the school and made millions from the government with vocher money.
Click to expand...

Desh, they're a political organization. You don't think they'd be biased?

Based on your comments above you obviousy don't understand vouchers. Maybe its best if you remain ignorant about the true goals.
 
Imagine just how biased teachers who own a private school and making millions off your tax dollars would be?

Dont you fucking get it?

The teacher can make millions running these schools.

You wont have fewer teachers silly, you will have more schools and the cost of these schools will escalate (teachers will benifit finacially) as the public schools fail due to lack of funds. Even with vouchers average people wont be able to pay the difference and middle and upper income people will scarafice retirement funds, live in cheaper houses, both work or whatever they can to keep their kids out of failing public schools struggling for funds. ITS a a TERRIBLE IDEA!
 
Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."
 
Desh said:
Imagine just how biased teachers who own a private school and making millions off your tax dollars would be?

Dont you fucking get it?

The teacher can make millions running these schools.

You wont have fewer teachers silly, you will have more schools and the cost of these schools will escalate (teachers will benifit finacially) as the public schools fail due to lack of funds. Even with vouchers average people wont be able to pay the difference and middle and upper income people will scarafice retirement funds, live in cheaper houses, both work or whatever they can to keep their kids out of failing public schools struggling for funds. ITS a a TERRIBLE IDEA!
Click to expand...

It's not about creating a bunch of for profit schools. Options within vouchers allow for kids to transfer to other public schools.

And what you described is exactly what goes on today without vouchers. Middle and upper income families either send their kids to private schools or move to a neighborhood with good public schools. Poor children don't have that option. Thus the opportunity for vouchers to assist them.

Vouchers won't do anything for upper income families.
 
Socrtease said:
First off I am not saying keep everything the same. What we heed a school system that does not teach to the lowest common denominator and one that recognizes that not all our children are going to be doctors or lawyers, or even med techs and paralegals. We need to recognize that some kids are going to be mechanics, and soldiers and receptionists and even trash collectors and school janitors and that they don't all need 12 years of education. We need to quit teaching kids to take a test and start teaching them information that will profide them with the knowledge to pass any test on that knowledge. We need to quit letting kids opt out of science classes that teach how babies are made and how to keep them from being made and quit talking about whether or not we should teach creationism in a SCIENCE class. And you are right, we need to readjust the teaching profession. I have an idea, if you teach math you should have a degree in math. If you teach english your degree should be in english. Teach sciences, degree in that particular science, and the teachers that teach should be able to pass any test on the subject they teach. Do away with tenure. Only in state and federal goverment jobs do people expect to be able to die at that job. But if you look at other countries that do well at educating their kids you will see that the bulk of them have one minister of education and one tough ass standard for the track that those children are in. A child in Alabama should be learing the exact same things as a child in California.
Click to expand...

On the above we agree completely. If the public education system can be formed in the above manner, then there would be no need for vouchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top