If Biden and Democrats Truly Support 'Equity,' Why Are They Silent on School Choice?

[Cow Poke]

Vouchers take money from the public schools,

Ah, you're one of those "finite pie" people?

But even if true, so what? If they're not doing the job, why should they get the money?

and having parents choose religious schools that have no oversight is not in the interest of those students or in the interest of furthering education in general and producing an educated populace.

So, maybe you think children should be wards of the state?

My husband went to a religion-run elementary school, and when we had kids, he was interested in having them go to such a school. I did not like the idea but was willing to check it out so we visited a few schools. One of those schools refused to show us test scores for their students (red flag!).

Then you wouldn't have to choose that school!

Another had a depressing kindergarten classroom, with art supplies that consisted of broken crayons, paper and well used paints. So my husband changed his mind and we sent the kids to public schools and were extremely happy with the results. Luckily we live in an upscale neighborhood with good quality schools. Both kids went to universities in the USNews list of top 50. Both have graduate degrees, and both are doing extremely well financially.

Cool - so you made a CHOICE. Why not allow others the same!

I do think unions should have less power, but when it comes to public sector unions, the first in line for real reform should be the police unions.

How are teachers' unions any different than police unions. They both focus on protecting the dues payers -- not the persons they serve.

I do recognize that some public schools are bad, but I think the solution is to improve them, not skim off some students and the money attached to them.

Can you demonstrate that more money is necessarily related to better education? I bet you can't. In fact, there are studies that show quite the opposite.

The key is the UNIONS which protect bad teachers, and do nothing to improve education.

[Cow Poke]

So is the solution to shut down inner city schools and divide those kids up among the private schools? How would those schools deal with kids who are behind, special needs kids, and maybe kids with behavioral issues? How would the parents of the other kids react?

Would you buy a car from a car manufacturer that built cars that failed to meet minimum standards on a consistent basis? Such car manufactures would be out of business in no time.

If schools had to compete for funding based on their success at educating, they'd focus more on education and less on UNION activities.
As a parent, I should have the right to provide my children the best education for them. In fact - we did. We homeschooled.

[Cow Poke]

The solution would be to break the stranglehold that unions have on the schools so that they are held accountable for their actions. You know, like the rest of us are.

EGGzackly --- and what do the teachers' unions do with their money? They donate to DEMOCRATS.

Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high. Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins.

Two organizations account for practically all of the contributions made by teachers unions: The National Education Association (about $20 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers (almost $12 million). Both groups -- which compete for members, but also collaborate with each other through the NEA-AFT Partnership -- are consistently among the organizations that contribute the most money to candidates and political groups. [Read more Background]

So a teacher, if Republican, is forced to contribute to the Democrats against his/her will.

So much for CHOICE!

[rogue06]

EGGzackly --- and what do the teachers' unions do with their money? They donate to DEMOCRATS.

Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high. Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins.

Two organizations account for practically all of the contributions made by teachers unions: The National Education Association (about $20 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers (almost $12 million). Both groups -- which compete for members, but also collaborate with each other through the NEA-AFT Partnership -- are consistently among the organizations that contribute the most money to candidates and political groups. [Read more Background]

So a teacher, if Republican, is forced to contribute to the Democrats against his/her will.

So much for CHOICE!

Public sector unions have long been known to be a kickback racket. They give a portion of the money they get to Democrats who vote to give them more money (and control) so that they can give more money back to the Democrats who again vote to give them more. And on and one.

[Cow Poke]

Public sector unions have long been known to be a kickback racket. They give a portion of the money they get to Democrats who vote to give them more money (and control) so that they can give more money back to the Democrats who again vote to give them more. And on and one.

And I used to be surprised how many teachers don't know that. I'll ask them "why are you giving so much money to Democrats". The seem stunned, and even angry, then I show them some stats, and they say, well, that's not MY union. So I show them stats on THEIR union, and they're quite rattled.

Been doing that for ages. So I help them to understand that their union dues help elect people who are pro-abortion.....

And, in many cases, they have no CHOICE.

In some cases, however, as Gondwanaland indicated, they DO have a choice, but they're LIED to and made to believe they HAVE to join the union.

[kccd]

Ah, you're one of those "finite pie" people?

But even if true, so what? If they're not doing the job, why should they get the money?



So, maybe you think children should be wards of the state?



Then you wouldn't have to choose that school!



Cool - so you made a CHOICE. Why not allow others the same!



How are teachers' unions any different than police unions. They both focus on protecting the dues payers -- not the persons they serve.



Can you demonstrate that more money is necessarily related to better education? I bet you can't. In fact, there are studies that show quite the opposite.

The key is the UNIONS which protect bad teachers, and do nothing to improve education.

Yes, the amount of taxpayer money available for education is finite.

You are pushing a negative assessment of public schools in general, which is just not true. As you point out, my husband and I had a choice, and the public schools were by far the better choice, and in fact, the public schools offered more advanced science and math options than any of the really pricey private schools in the DC area, where we live.

Who said anything about making children wards of the state? I recognize that for-profit entities put profits first, and that includes schools. So there needs to be oversight of educational standards as well as how they spend any taxpayer money they get.

I don't see the right wing complaining about police unions at all. If I missed that, I apologize in advance.

I would like to see the studies that show that money is not related to better education. The fact is that the school buildings, resources, teacher pay, etc. in minority neighborhoods are worse.

Would you be amenable to closing poorly performing public schools and distributing their students equally to all local private schools? that would mean those private schools would get an influx of minority students and special needs students that they would have to take. OK by you?

[kccd]

Would you buy a car from a car manufacturer that built cars that failed to meet minimum standards on a consistent basis? Such car manufactures would be out of business in no time.

If schools had to compete for funding based on their success at educating, they'd focus more on education and less on UNION activities.
As a parent, I should have the right to provide my children the best education for them. In fact - we did. We homeschooled.

The problem is that educational success requires efforts from three prongs - the schools, including teachers and resources; the students, who are expected to put some effort into their own education (you can lead a horse to water,...); the parents, who should value education and transmit this value to their kids, attending back-to-school nights and parent-teacher conferences, making sure they do their homework and come to school rested, fed and prepared to learn.

You cannot just blame school failure on one of those prongs and ignore the others. If parents can't be bothered or see no value to education, their kids will not bother either. I see this as the real problem, and maybe the best solution is to break up concentrations of these kids and put them in private schools with hard-working students with ambitious parents. But somehow I don't think those parents would embrace that solution.

As for homeschooling, I can see that as an option for families that live in neighborhoods with poor schools, for parents who move a lot because of their jobs, or when kids have medical conditions that prevent them from attending regular school. However, what I see in the most popular books used by homeschooling parents indicates that some/much of this movement is due to rejection of fact-based education, like evolution, and refusal to expose their kids to the idea that homosexuals exist. Education is about challenging students to re-think what they think they know, and expose them to new ideas, and also to expose them to others with different ideas, beliefs, and ethnic and religious backgrounds. Some parents fear that.

[kccd]

EGGzackly --- and what do the teachers' unions do with their money? They donate to DEMOCRATS.

Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high. Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins.

Two organizations account for practically all of the contributions made by teachers unions: The National Education Association (about $20 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers (almost $12 million). Both groups -- which compete for members, but also collaborate with each other through the NEA-AFT Partnership -- are consistently among the organizations that contribute the most money to candidates and political groups. [Read more Background]

So a teacher, if Republican, is forced to contribute to the Democrats against his/her will.

So much for CHOICE!

What about police unions that donate to Republicans? Do you see that as a problem?

[kccd]

And I used to be surprised how many teachers don't know that. I'll ask them "why are you giving so much money to Democrats". The seem stunned, and even angry, then I show them some stats, and they say, well, that's not MY union. So I show them stats on THEIR union, and they're quite rattled.

Been doing that for ages. So I help them to understand that their union dues help elect people who are pro-abortion.....

And, in many cases, they have no CHOICE.

In some cases, however, as Gondwanaland indicated, they DO have a choice, but they're LIED to and made to believe they HAVE to join the union.

Who is going to advocate for public school teachers, if not the unions?
It seems clear from this thread that right wingers have great animosity towards public schools and public school teachers.

[rogue06]

Yes, the amount of taxpayer money available for education is finite.

Part of the problem is what they do with it as my example concerning Kansas City squandering $2 Billion^[1] without bothering to hire a single new teacher or replace any of their outdated worn-out textbooks. What's worse is that they still kept doing worse and worse until shortly afterwards they ended up losing their academic accreditation.

And if that doesn't show that the typical liberal response of throwing more money at the problem here doesn't work (but only serves to fill Democrat's coffers^[2]), here is something to further illustrate the situation.

The top five "states"^[3] when it comes to total Elementary/Secondary Public School spending/student were from the top down New York, Alaska, Washington D.C., Connecticut and New Jersey but in 2017 they respectively placed 40th, 31st, 51st, 44th and 38th in SAT rankings. Yet the state with lowest total Elementary/Secondary Public School spending/student, Utah, which spent about a third or less for each student as those at the top was 10th in SAT scores. The one with the fifth lowest expenditure, Mississippi, ranked 9th.

Overall, the trend for SAT scores reveals that most of the high spending states are doing bad in that measure whereas most of the lower spending states have higher scores. So if throwing money at the problem is the solution then why did many of the states with the lowest per student expenditures do better than many of those with the highest per student expenditures?

This sorta blows a hole in the notion that spending more money means better results, doesn't it.

Interestingly, in 2000 the state with the highest average SAT score was North Dakota, which ranked 41st in per student spending but has since began spending a lot more moving up to 15th in that category and yet has also dropped to 6th for SAT scores.

Further (the last time I checked), Americans spend more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests.






1. I realize that some for countries a billion is different than what it is in the U,S,, so to be clear I mean $2,000,000,000 or the equivalent of $4,960,000,000 today.

2. For instance, according to Open Secrets, the American Federation of Teachers donated $7,919,897 to politicians and political groups with $7,888,355 going to Democrats and liberals (99.9%) and only $6500 to Republicans and conservatives

3. This includes Washington D.C. which is not a state.

[kccd]

Part of the problem is what they do with it as my example concerning Kansas City squandering $2 Billion^[1] without bothering to hire a single new teacher or replace any of their outdated worn-out textbooks. What's worse is that they still kept doing worse and worse until shortly afterwards they ended up losing their academic accreditation.

And if that doesn't show that the typical liberal response of throwing more money at the problem here doesn't work (but only serves to fill Democrat's coffers^[2]), here is something to further illustrate the situation.

The top five "states"^[3] when it comes to total Elementary/Secondary Public School spending/student were from the top down New York, Alaska, Washington D.C., Connecticut and New Jersey but in 2017 they respectively placed 40th, 31st, 51st, 44th and 38th in SAT rankings. Yet the state with lowest total Elementary/Secondary Public School spending/student, Utah, which spent about a third or less for each student as those at the top was 10th in SAT scores. The one with the fifth lowest expenditure, Mississippi, ranked 9th.

Overall, the trend for SAT scores reveals that most of the high spending states are doing bad in that measure whereas most of the lower spending states have higher scores. So if throwing money at the problem is the solution then why did many of the states with the lowest per student expenditures do better than many of those with the highest per student expenditures?

This sorta blows a hole in the notion that spending more money means better results, doesn't it.

Interestingly, in 2000 the state with the highest average SAT score was North Dakota, which ranked 41st in per student spending but has since began spending a lot more moving up to 15th in that category and yet has also dropped to 6th for SAT scores.

Further (the last time I checked), Americans spend more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests.






1. I realize that some for countries a billion is different than what it is in the U,S,, so to be clear I mean $2,000,000,000 or the equivalent of $4,960,000,000 today.

2. For instance, according to Open Secrets, the American Federation of Teachers donated $7,919,897 to politicians and political groups with $7,888,355 going to Democrats and liberals (99.9%) and only $6500 to Republicans and conservatives

3. This includes Washington D.C. which is not a state.

I agree that spending more money does not work unless it is targeted to where it is needed, like hiring qualified teachers, upgrading textbooks, and providing necessary classroom supplies.

I also think that spending money on vouchers for private schools that have no accountability is not a solution.

What is NOT needed is cutting money for public education, and what IS needed is oversight and direction on how that money should be spent.

[Gondwanaland]

I don't see the right wing complaining about police unions at all. If I missed that, I apologize in advance.

You did miss that.

Here are two examples that ook a couple seconds of google searching to find, of two different conservative/right leaning publications examining the problems of police unions, and how they perpetuate bad policing, and allow bad cops to remain (just like teacher unions do with bad teachers):

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...-unions-162612

Overly strong police unions hamper the police’s ability to protect and serve the community by enabling persistent police misconduct. Weakening or abolishing them is a necessary step in the reform process.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...-police-unions

Today, the left appears willing to excommunicate police unions, while conservatives are disposed to incorporate them into their critique of public-sector unions overall. This means that both sides will have to concede that the problems posed by police unions in particular are similar to those that plague public-sector unions in general. Such an admission is exactly what many leaders of organized labor want to avoid — they fear criticisms of police unions will be used to tar other public-sector unions.

[Cow Poke]

Who is going to advocate for public school teachers, if not the unions?

Who advocates now for the students? We're talking about an inability to get rid of BAD teachers - just like unions make it almost possible to fire bad cops.

It seems clear from this thread that right wingers have great animosity towards public schools and public school teachers.

That's just dumb --- many teachers hate the unions as well --- because they reward bad teachers and penalize good ones.
Unions need reform -- there needs to be common sense.

Did you miss the part where the bulk of the money the unions collect goes to Democrat campaigns, which reward the unions?

[Cow Poke]

What about police unions that donate to Republicans? Do you see that as a problem?

Absolutely, and if you'd read before reacting, you'd see that I've been very critical of police unions. They protect bad cops just like unions protect bad teachers.

[Cow Poke]

Would you be amenable to closing poorly performing public schools and distributing their students equally to all local private schools? that would mean those private schools would get an influx of minority students and special needs students that they would have to take. OK by you?

You'd do much better reading before posting.

First, kudos for at least acknowledging that there are poorly performing public schools.
Second, why would they have to go to private schools?
Why not fire the poorly performing administrators and teachers, and reward those who are actually doing a good job?

It all comes back to the unions not allowing poorly performing teachers and administrators to be disciplined and/or fired.