Trump's leadership team

[KD in CA]

Good, then the Conservatives should argue that instead of the voucher crap which is a dodge

 

They do argue that, and then retards like you shriek how they are "attacking school teachers and firefighters!!!"

[IDBillzFan]

This is not really my issue, but are you of the same opinion on police, firefighter and nurses unions? If the good students are pulled out of public schools they will do worse and you guys will use that as an excuse to hurt education even more.

 

You see, this is why your party is in shambles right now.

 

You want to keep good students in bad schools so you can continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that are used to fund a program that is not even able to get rid of the bad performers. In what world other than far left nutbag world does that even make sense.

 

Then, to add insult to injury, you use that taxpayer money to pay salaries to teachers who are forced -- as part of their employment -- to give a portion of that money to the unions, which use that laundered money to campaign for the very progressive politicians who keep budgeting more money for failed school systems just so the elected officials and the union bosses can keep their cushy jobs.

 

You'd have to be a moron of epic proportions to not see and understand that scheme.

Edited January 19, 2017 by LABillzFan

[Nanker]

Another woman of the people - classless Senator Phauxahontas:

[B-Man]

FAKE NEWS: That New York Times hit piece on Perry was unsubstantiated garbage. “Despite the story’s obviously thin sourcing, members of the press were quick to spread the article on social media, each apparently trying to one-up the other in terms [of] alarmism.” Plus:

 

 

First, the article’s lone source, Michael McKenna, was booted from the Trump transition team in November 2016. Perry was appointed to the role in December 2016.

Second, the quote attributed to McKenna is pure speculation. It’s him theorizing about what the former governor may be thinking now compared to what he thought back in December when he was first offered the job.

How the Times took that single quote and presented the headline and opening paragraphs as solid fact is anyone’s guess.

Third, according McKenna, the quote isn’t even accurate. He told the Daily Caller Wednesday evening that his already bland remarks were badly misinterpreted by the Times. He said the report “[doesn’t] really reflect what I said,” adding that Perry “of course” understood the job when he accepted it.

Fourth, Amarillo, Texas, serves as the primary location for the assembly and disassembly of the nation’s nuclear weapons. Nearly two-thirds of the Department of Energy’s budget goes to maintaining those stockpiles. As a reminder, Perry, a former member of the United States Air Force, served as governor of Texas for 15 years. He is not unaware of those projects.

 

 

 

No, but most of the “journalists” mocking him as ignorant probably are.

[nkreed]

 

You see, this is why your party is in shambles right now.

 

You want to keep good students in bad schools so you can continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that are used to fund a program that is not even able to get rid of the bad performers. In what world other than far left nutbag world does that even make sense.

 

Then, to add insult to injury, you use that taxpayer money to pay salaries to teachers who are forced -- as part of their employment -- to give a portion of that money to the unions, which use that laundered money to campaign for the very progressive politicians who keep budgeting more money for failed school systems just so the elected officials and the union bosses can keep their cushy jobs.

 

You'd have to be a moron of epic proportions to not see and understand that scheme.

 

Like everything there is a balance to this statement. Basing employment solely on how students perform sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't factor in multiple variables. How many students are in the class? What's the average grade across country, the state, the county,the district, the school? How many students are receiving services in the classroom or being pulled from the classroom? These attributes play a key part in how a teacher may "score" from year to year.

 

Case in point is Common Core, where a vast majority of testing scores went down. In this example it's obviously not just the teachers fault. However, imagine a classroom where special needs students doubles in a year. Would this teachers' students not perform as well on tests as a result? How about an administrator who doesn't like a teacher (cause in any place of employment this never happens) purposely puts low performers in that teachers classroom? The proposed formulas don't factor this in at all.

 

Lastly, instead of being ignorant to the stringent rules Unions must adhere to, how about you understand why members pay dues, and what members can do to about the dues that go towards political causes. (IMO, if you don't want to pay the dues in a union, then you shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of membership. That means no representation in grievances, you negotiate your own salary, you are fully on your own. But "Right to Work" states say that you shouldn't be forced to pay dues, but can reap all rewards of the Union, including pay raises and representation in grievances (required federal law). But you chose not contribute to the organization that is protecting your rights as a worker...hmmm sounds like conservatives legislatively bankrupting Unions to me.)

[Tiberius]

 

You see, this is why your party is in shambles right now.

 

You want to keep good students in bad schools so you can continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that are used to fund a program that is not even able to get rid of the bad performers. In what world other than far left nutbag world does that even make sense.

 

Then, to add insult to injury, you use that taxpayer money to pay salaries to teachers who are forced -- as part of their employment -- to give a portion of that money to the unions, which use that laundered money to campaign for the very progressive politicians who keep budgeting more money for failed school systems just so the elected officials and the union bosses can keep their cushy jobs.

 

You'd have to be a moron of epic proportions to not see and understand that scheme.

And you guys want to destroy public education for political reasons. Wonderful!

 

And the police and Fire Fighters unions?

[DC Tom]

And you guys want to destroy public education for political reasons. Wonderful!

 

And the police and Fire Fighters unions?

[This is an automated response.]

 

Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Like everything there is a balance to this statement. Basing employment solely on how students perform sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't factor in multiple variables. How many students are in the class? What's the average grade across country, the state, the county,the district, the school? How many students are receiving services in the classroom or being pulled from the classroom? These attributes play a key part in how a teacher may "score" from year to year.

 

Case in point is Common Core, where a vast majority of testing scores went down. In this example it's obviously not just the teachers fault. However, imagine a classroom where special needs students doubles in a year. Would this teachers' students not perform as well on tests as a result? How about an administrator who doesn't like a teacher (cause in any place of employment this never happens) purposely puts low performers in that teachers classroom? The proposed formulas don't factor this in at all. You create, as part of those parameters, mutually agreed-upon conditions that you know may or may not happen, such as how to handle a sudden influx in low performers or special needs.

 

Lastly, instead of being ignorant to the stringent rules Unions must adhere to, how about you understand why members pay dues, and what members can do to about the dues that go towards political causes. (IMO, if you don't want to pay the dues in a union, then you shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of membership. That means no representation in grievances, you negotiate your own salary, you are fully on your own. But "Right to Work" states say that you shouldn't be forced to pay dues, but can reap all rewards of the Union, including pay raises and representation in grievances (required federal law). But you chose not contribute to the organization that is protecting your rights as a worker...hmmm sounds like conservatives legislatively bankrupting Unions to me.)

 

No one said anything about basing teacher employment exclusively on student performance. We've seen teachers manipulate the data to keep their jobs based on that, and it's a losing proposition.

 

But in the world of private industry, you're likewise not going to fire the marketing manager if the western regional sales rep doesn't hit his/her numbers. That marketing manager has a job description, and a set of priorities to accomplish during the year. They usually have a budget they're responsible for. In other words, you create the parameters in which you expect the teacher to perform, and judge them...and them alone...on how they, and they alone, meet the objectives of their job description and goals.

 

Also, I will tell you what I will tell gatorman: I have no problems with unions provided membership is truly not required as a condition of employment. Suggesting "Well, if they don't join the union, they don't get union benefits" is like telling me if I don't join AAA, they won't tow my car. No, schitt, Sherlock. Let people choose for themselves.

 

Lastly, and I can not emphasize this enough, everything should ultimately come down to choice and self-accountability. If you don't like the conditions for employment, find another job. If you don't like your boss, find another job. And before you tell me that's not always an option, let me tell you unequivocally yes, it absolutely is. Quit being a teacher and take two lower jobs to work your way through some trade classes at the community college, which usually cost the same as a donut and coffee. Most everyone can do ANYTHING in this country.

 

Options and opportunities abound for virtually everyone who want is, and the answer should never be "Oh, gee, poor Sally Sadsack should keep her job just because she's been here for years." It should be "Sally Sadsack needs to be responsible for her life, career, and personal choices. She succeeds or fails by her choices, not choices made by lazyass gatorman-like leftists who believe that only the government can make things fair.

 

Self-accountability. It's awesome.

[nkreed]

 

No one said anything about basing teacher employment exclusively on student performance. We've seen teachers manipulate the data to keep their jobs based on that, and it's a losing proposition.

 

But in the world of private industry, you're likewise not going to fire the marketing manager if the western regional sales rep doesn't hit his/her numbers. That marketing manager has a job description, and a set of priorities to accomplish during the year. They usually have a budget they're responsible for. In other words, you create the parameters in which you expect the teacher to perform, and judge them...and them alone...on how they, and they alone, meet the objectives of their job description and goals.

 

Also, I will tell you what I will tell gatorman: I have no problems with unions provided membership is truly not required as a condition of employment. Suggesting "Well, if they don't join the union, they don't get union benefits" is like telling me if I don't join AAA, they won't tow my car. No, schitt, Sherlock. Let people choose for themselves.

 

Lastly, and I can not emphasize this enough, everything should ultimately come down to choice and self-accountability. If you don't like the conditions for employment, find another job. If you don't like your boss, find another job. And before you tell me that's not always an option, let me tell you unequivocally yes, it absolutely is. Quit being a teacher and take two lower jobs to work your way through some trade classes at the community college, which usually cost the same as a donut and coffee. Most everyone can do ANYTHING in this country.

 

Options and opportunities abound for virtually everyone who want is, and the answer should never be "Oh, gee, poor Sally Sadsack should keep her job just because she's been here for years." It should be "Sally Sadsack needs to be responsible for her life, career, and personal choices. She succeeds or fails by her choices, not choices made by lazyass gatorman-like leftists who believe that only the government can make things fair.

 

Self-accountability. It's awesome.

All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position.

 

Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case.

 

Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.

[TakeYouToTasker]

All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position.

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:

 

Good decision making is an inter-generational legacy, which is passed down from parent to child, and again from parent to child throughout time. Not everyone starts with equal position, and many are burdened by the poor decisions their parents have made. That's why "breaking the cycle" is so important, and equally important is the reality that throwing more money into failing schools is not the key to breaking it. Breaking the cycle begins with a parent, recognizing their poor positioning, taking deep interest in their child's education. These parents deserve the opportunity, assuming a publicly funded school system, to have their children educated in the best schools they have access to. To achieve this goal, the only viable solution is to let the public funding follow the student, and to put them in a better learning environment with other interested students whose parents also place a high priority on the education of their children.

 

The solution is not to throw money at the lowest common denominator. It's not cost effective, and the ROI's are atrocious. Further, forcing willing students with involved parents to remain stranded in failing schools actually harms the ability of that student to excel, and lessens their likelihood of them breaking the cycle. The resources are not getting to the students most likely to take advantage of them, and are being squandered.

 

Visualize students as drinking glasses of all different sizes, and view their education dollars as liquid in a pitcher. The public education system pours the same amount of liquid into each glass, and debates the merits of pouring only the volume able to be contained by the smallest of the glasses into every glass, leaving the larger glasses capacity unfilled; vs. the merits of pouring into each glass the total volume of the largest glass, with the smaller glasses spilling everything they cannot hold onto the floor, wasting the resources. Neither is a reasonable approach. You waste the talents of the best and brightest by pouring the lesser amount, and you waste valuable public resources by pouring the greater.

 

You have to spend your limited resources on those individuals most likely to take advantage of them, otherwise you are just wasting tax dollars. The dollar needs to follow the students to achieve the best outcomes.

 

Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case.

 

These circumstances do not just fall out of the sky. They exist because of choices that have been made over time. This does not mean that these circumstances do not lend themselves to further choice. The choices may be difficult, but the difficulty of a choice does not somehow confer onto teachers the right to their positions. The person you described has made choices to put themselves into their position, and must make more decisions to get themselves out.

 

 

 

Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.

 

Every other endeavor in the world has these same sorts of pitfalls. Office politics is not unique to educators. Everyone has worked for a boss who they have felt treated them poorly or unfairly. Again, educators are not unique. Why do you feel they should be treated uniquely?

Edited January 19, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:

 

Good decision making is an inter-generational legacy, which is passed down from parent to child, and again from parent to child throughout time. Not everyone starts with equal position, and many are burdened by the poor decisions their parents have made. That's why "breaking the cycle" is so important, and equally important is the reality that throwing more money into failing schools is not the key to breaking it. Breaking the cycle begins with a parent, recognizing their poor positioning, taking deep interest in their child's education. These parents deserve the opportunity, assuming a publicly funded school system, to have their children educated in the best schools they have access to. To achieve this goal, the only viable solution is to let the public funding follow the student, and to put them in a better learning environment with other interested students whose parents also place a high priority on the education of their children.

 

The solution is not to throw money at the lowest common denominator. It's not cost effective, and the ROI's are atrocious. Further, forcing willing students with involved parents to remain stranded in failing schools actually harms the ability of that student to excel, and lessens their likelihood of them breaking the cycle. The resources are not getting to the students most likely to take advantage of them, and are being squandered.

 

Visualize students as drinking glasses of all different sizes, and view their education dollars as liquid in a pitcher. The public education system pours the same amount of liquid into each glass, and debates the merits of pouring only the volume able to be contained by the smallest of the glasses into every glass, leaving the larger glasses capacity unfilled; vs. the merits of pouring into each glass the total volume of the largest glass, with the smaller glasses spilling everything they cannot hold onto the floor, wasting the resources.

 

You have to spend your limited resources on those individuals most likely to take advantage of them, otherwise you are just wasting tax dollars.

 

 

These circumstances do not just fall out of the sky. They exist because of choices that have been made over time. This does not mean that these circumstances do not lend themselves to further choice. The choices may be difficult, but the difficulty of a choice does not somehow confer onto teachers the right to their positions. The person you described has made choices to put themselves into their position, and must make more decisions to get themselves out.

 

Every other endeavor in the world has these same sorts of pitfalls. Office politics is not unique to educators. Everyone has worked for a boss who they have felt treated them poorly or unfairly. Again, educators are not unique. Why do you feel they should be treated uniquely?

 

What he said. Especially the bolded. You simply can not fix this issue one way. It has to be both ways. The simple difference between a handout and a hand up is very real. The problem is generational, and if you don't fix the root of that problem, you will never, ever fix the problem. Especially if THEY don't want to fix it with you. Without question, and undeniably, more money will simply not work. We've been throwing money at these problems for years and they get worse. Not hard to figure out why.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hey Democrats:

 

 

DO YOUR JOB.

[DC Tom]

Hey Democrats:

 

 

DO YOUR JOB.

 

You didn't hear? Petulant obstructionism is noble work again.

[Nanker]

 

You didn't hear? Petulant obstructionism is noble work again.

 

Well then. The unemployment rate just went to zero!

 

 

What an election.

[Joe Miner]

All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position.

 

Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case.

 

Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.

I recently looked for a new job in 2016.

 

I took a 45% pay cut to take a new job a move across the country.

 

I didn't have to, I chose to.

 

I didn't like the direction my company was headed, so I made a change.

[Tiberius]

Not hard to tell the police unions supported Trump so they are ok

I recently looked for a new job in 2016.

I took a 45% pay cut to take a new job a move across the country.

I didn't have to, I chose to.

I didn't like the direction my company was headed, so I made a change.

Chances this is a complete untruth?

[Joe Miner]

Not hard to tell the police unions supported Trump so they are ok

 

Chances this is a complete untruth?

[boyst]

ack ack

[IDBillzFan]

Not hard to tell the police unions supported Trump so they are ok

 

Chances this is a complete untruth?

 

Why would you even think that? Why is what he wrote so hard to comprehend?

[DC Tom]

Chances this is a complete untruth?

 

Well, you didn't write it, so...