row_33 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 The Parliamentary System allows for a party down in the dumps to promote a leader who wouldn't get a look if it was a US-type Presidential system. And sometimes this drip gets to be Prime Minister without a mandate from the people. Add Nader to the list. And of course evil Vlad if you believe the headlines. Nader gets special mention, much gratitude for him, but he wasn't remotely a national presence like Perot or Wallace, he just messed up a county or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Nader gets special mention, much gratitude for him, but he wasn't remotely a national presence like Perot or Wallace, he just messed up a county or two. Bush won all Florida electoral votes in 2000 , winning there popular vote by 537. Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. He had a major effect . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Bush won all Florida electoral votes in 2000 , winning there popular vote by 537. Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. He had a major effect . Few were aware Nader was even a candidate nationally until the postmortem aftermath started. Not even remotely comparable to Wallace or Perot. Perot and Wallace were on everyone's minds nationally for their runs at the crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Doc, are they in shock that could continue for years from this loss? Elections often turn on people fed up with a party and voting for the opposition, no matter whom is in charge. Used to it more in Canada perhaps. Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020. Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020. My recollection of W's re-election campaign was that his constituency cared only about 1) does he really want it? and 2) can he deliver a solid nomination speech at the Convention for a second term? and yes on both counts and that was that... There may not be much more to the re-election of Trump for a second term. It is a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat. That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do. Plausible on both points but not sure anyone has a solution either way that will be useful. Edited July 10, 2017 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do. I don't know why people are so hung up on for-profit entities. Profits in public service industries are usually tiny compared to the expenses. That's why there's always a focus on running these business more efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do. I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.) As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible. Edited July 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do. Private school teachers make way less than public school teachers. Average salaries are nearly $50,000 for public, and barely $36,000 for private. That’s not just a gap. It’s a chasm. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/ Can you even imagine school taxes if private schools closed ? Catholic school teachers in my area make way less then $36k Edited July 10, 2017 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Private school teachers make way less than public school teachers. Average salaries are nearly $50,000 for public, and barely $36,000 for private. That’s not just a gap. It’s a chasm. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/ Can you even imagine school taxes if private schools closed ? Catholic school teachers in my area make way less then $36k Exactly the point. And if you take into account teachers work 9 months out of the year, well, then it gets even more ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years http://www.troll.me/images/mrmackey/mmmkay-thumb.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.) As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible. No. It's absolutely my intention for teachers to have high paying jobs and for me to have an even higher paying one . More research is needed about if charter schools actually help improve student outcomes and most of the peer reviewed studies I've reviewed showed students in charter schools perform either worse or equal to students in public schools. My main complaint about charter schools is that they often fail to meet the required services for students with disabilities under the IDEA act (the federal act passed in 1975 and expanded in 1990 preventing discrimination against students with disabilities that Betsy Devos amazingly never heard of). Once in a while I'll receive a student with an IEP or 504 plan from a charter school whose parents were unsatisfied with the lack of services their kid was receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) No. It's absolutely my intention for teachers to have high paying jobs and for me to have an even higher paying one . More research is needed about if charter schools actually help improve student outcomes and most of the peer reviewed studies I've reviewed showed students in charter schools perform either worse or equal to students in public schools. My main complaint about charter schools is that they often fail to meet the required services for students with disabilities under the IDEA act (the federal act passed in 1975 and expanded in 1990 preventing discrimination against students with disabilities that Betsy Devos amazingly never heard of). Once in a while I'll receive a student with an IEP or 504 plan from a charter school whose parents were unsatisfied with the lack of services their kid was receiving. This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other. Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential. Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential. If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children. Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children. Edited July 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other. Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential. Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential. If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children. Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children. That's the biggest drawback with a strict, rigorous curriculum and standardized testing. When NCLB came out under Bush the children that were left behind were the gifted ones. AP classes now usually aren't available until you get to high school unless you're a student lucky enough to live in a rich district. One thing worth mentioning is the high turnover rate for teachers at charter schools due to either lower pay and/or a lack of union protection. There's now a push nationwide to get charter schools unionized. Charter schools often serve as a training ground for young, inexperienced teachers, but then lose teachers just as they are becoming experienced and truly knowledgeable in their field. So, are these advanced students who may become bored in a public education classroom more engaged at charter schools if they have new or inferior teachers? On the flip side, I've seen a small percentage of public education teachers get tenured (who I didn't think deserved it) and now you're stuck with an ineffective, lazy teacher who shows up right as the kids do and leave 15 minutes after. I'm slightly more optimistic than you with your long term projections for students "at risk". I've had kids who've had learning disabilities in either math or reading get the extra help they needed and thrive once they get to college because they can then pick what career they want based on their strengths. Also, since we're dumb enough to make state college tuition free for low income students, lets eliminate pointless majors like art history, sociology, philosophy, etc... All those majors do is qualify you to work at Geico or a collection agency. Edited July 10, 2017 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Charter School funding in WNY Statewide, charter schools receive roughly 25% less funding per student than their traditional district school counterparts. This disparity is more severe in Western New York than anywhere else in the State. In Buffalo for example, charter schools receive roughly 40% less than their traditional district school counterparts. From that already limited funding source, most charter schools, and all Western New York charter schools, have to pay facilities costs, such as rent and utilities. Charter school students statewide receive $5,232 less than students in traditional district schools. This disparity is much worse in Western New York. In Buffalo for example, charter school students receive $9,811 less than their friends and neighbors in district schools. http://www.necharters.org/ny_funding_disparity_explained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other. Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential. Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential. If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children. Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children. I disagree with mostly all of this, but I have to admit it's refreshing to hear a conservative position that doesn't beat around the bush on education. I admire your candor, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I performed an audit of a megachurch in town, the church has a private school run on family ability to pay and donations. They teach the kids how to read and study and think and many graduates were scholarship students in engineering and science coming out of that church school. My friends with kids in public school say they aren't being taught anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) I disagree with mostly all of this, but I have to admit it's refreshing to hear a conservative position that doesn't beat around the bush on education. I admire your candor, well done. I'm curious about the defense of any position which denies poor families the ability to seek the best possible education for their children, and instead asserts that the state owns them for the good of the state. In addition, I am genuinely curious how you come to disagree with the facts I posted. Edited July 11, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts