Moderator: Community Team
nagerous wrote:Dibbun is a well known psychotic from the forums
Army of GOD wrote:Congrats to Dibbun, the white jesus, and all of his mercy and forgiveness.
Jdsizzleslice wrote: So you can crawl back to whatever psychosocial nutjob hole you came from.
chang50 wrote:
Is it commonplace in the USA for bigoted morons like Hodges to be elected to political office?I would like to think she was the exception not the rule.
daddy1gringo wrote:To begin with, I agree with you that this woman is ignorant, her statements and actions are stupid and she should not be in public office. Pick your subject, the Constitution, religion, education, history, school choice, you name it and she is showing herself clueless with regard to it.
Regarding vouchers, consider this. Suppose that Bill gates had so many admirers in the government that he managed to get the laws gerrymandered so that if anyone chose to buy an Apple computer, they would not only have to pay the Apple dealer the full price of the computer, but also have to pay Microsoft the full price of its closest competing product. Wouldn't be fair, would it? Not to Apple, but more importantly, not to the many people who prefer Macs to PCs.
I have to groan and shake my head when somebody talks about "giving public money to private schools." Who is the "public"? The "public" is the people who pay taxes and send their kids to school. Why shouldn't at least some of THEIR money that THEY pay for their children's education go where their children are educated? Vouchers are never equal to the per-capita cost of public education, so the parents who send their kids to a private school will still be subsidizing the public school system, it just makes it a bit more equitable.
The writer of the article that you linked to insinuates that private schools give an inferior education. If that is so, why do parents who can afford it so often send their kids to private schools, even now when they have to double-pay?
A voucher system of school choice is good public and educational policy for several reasons.
First and I think most importantly, it reduces the economic inequity, where rich people can afford to send their kids to a private school, while the poor have no choice. Obviously, vouchers will not eliminate all of the results of prejudice and economic disadvantage, but it cannot help but mitigate against them.
Second, everybody complains that the public schools are overcrowded. Enabling more students to go to other schools will reduce the crowding.
I think I'll stop there for now. These are the most obvious arguments that come to mind, and I'm too tired to formulate more at the moment. Besides, I'll probably get enough stimulating debate (along with all the invective and name-calling) on this much.
daddy1gringo wrote:The writer of the article that you linked to insinuates that private schools give an inferior education.
daddy1gringo wrote:If that is so, why do parents who can afford it so often send their kids to private schools, even now when they have to double-pay?
daddy1gringo wrote:A voucher system of school choice is good public and educational policy for several reasons.
daddy1gringo wrote:Besides, I'll probably get enough stimulating debate (along with all the invective and name-calling) on this much.
chang50 wrote: You'll get no name-calling from me.If I can address one of your points,just because parents think their kids will get a superior education in a private school does not mean they are necessarily correct in that assessment,sadly there are some parents who are as clueless as the hapless Ms Hodges.
kentington wrote:I think the biggest thing is that parents need to be involved in their child's education.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:that lady got trolled hard
Dibbun wrote:I don't support public money going to any private school, religious or secular. But yeah this woman needs to re-evaluate her life philosophy. But I bet she won't! lolLouisiana, stupid ass South staying backwards, we should have let them stay seceded.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Dibbun wrote:I don't support public money going to any private school, religious or secular. But yeah this woman needs to re-evaluate her life philosophy. But I bet she won't! lolLouisiana, stupid ass South staying backwards, we should have let them stay seceded.
Probably should have. Louisiana State could have collected all the tax revenues from the oil refineries and wells.
chang50 wrote:Speaks volumes for the thousands who voted for her.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
chang50 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Dibbun wrote:I don't support public money going to any private school, religious or secular. But yeah this woman needs to re-evaluate her life philosophy. But I bet she won't! lolLouisiana, stupid ass South staying backwards, we should have let them stay seceded.
Probably should have. Louisiana State could have collected all the tax revenues from the oil refineries and wells.
Always assuming they weren't too backward to have developed said refineries and wells,
Agreed.daddy1gringo wrote:To begin with, I agree with you that this woman is ignorant, her statements and actions are stupid and she should not be in public office. Pick your subject, the Constitution, religion, education, history, school choice, you name it and she is showing herself clueless with regard to it.
Except, I hope you realize that the above scenario is exactly what is happening right now. We are already partially funding private schools, AND if its a so-called cyber charter school, then we are funding it fully, the full cost of what it costs in our district at the brick and mortar school, not the cost of the cyber education.daddy1gringo wrote:Regarding vouchers, consider this. Suppose that Bill gates had so many admirers in the government that he managed to get the laws gerrymandered so that if anyone chose to buy an Apple computer, they would not only have to pay the Apple dealer the full price of the computer, but also have to pay Microsoft the full price of its closest competing product. Wouldn't be fair, would it? Not to Apple, but more importantly, not to the many people who prefer Macs to PCs.
I have to groan and shake my head when somebody talks about "giving public money to private schools." Who is the "public"? The "public" is the people who pay taxes and send their kids to school. Why shouldn't at least some of THEIR money that THEY pay for their children's education go where their children are educated? Vouchers are never equal to the per-capita cost of public education, so the parents who send their kids to a private school will still be subsidizing the public school system, it just makes it a bit more equitable.
daddy1gringo wrote:The writer of the article that you linked to insinuates that private schools give an inferior education. If that is so, why do parents who can afford it so often send their kids to private schools, even now when they have to double-pay?
You assume there are viable alternatives. Note, I am currently getting ready to pay for a private tuition for one of my sons. I send the other son to public school because there is no suitable alternative for him. My younger son can handle the strict rules, petty details of the Roman Catholic education. My other son has a hard time complying with the demands of the local public school. Cyber schooling is not an option because I cannot afford to not work and hover over him.daddy1gringo wrote:A voucher system of school choice is good public and educational policy for several reasons.
First and I think most importantly, it reduces the economic inequity, where rich people can afford to send their kids to a private school, while the poor have no choice. Obviously, vouchers will not eliminate all of the results of prejudice and economic disadvantage, but it cannot help but mitigate against them.
daddy1gringo wrote:Second, everybody complains that the public schools are overcrowded. Enabling more students to go to other schools will reduce the crowding.
daddy1gringo wrote:I think I'll stop there for now. These are the most obvious arguments that come to mind, and I'm too tired to formulate more at the moment. Besides, I'll probably get enough stimulating debate (along with all the invective and name-calling) on this much.
saxitoxin wrote:chang50 wrote:Speaks volumes for the thousands who voted for her.
This is an interesting note - apparently in 2011 voters of Valarie Hodges' district - District 34 - were only allowed to choose between Republican #1 or Republican #2. No other parties were listed -
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Valarie_Hodges
- a fairly typical U.S. election ballot in which there is only one party allowed to run because of jungle primary laws.This is why it's rather exhausting to hear certain people on this forum who shan't be named indict U.S. third parties for not running candidates in minor elections before challenging for the presidency or who suggest grassroots action can start from the ground up.
chang50 wrote: But at least there was a choice,got me wondering how poor a candidate Mr Elkins was to lose to such a simpleton.
Woodruff wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:The writer of the article that you linked to insinuates that private schools give an inferior education.
Yes, I picked up on that as well, and I certainly don't agree with it. I've seen VERY GOOD private schools, as well as a couple of...well, not very good athletic-machine private schools.daddy1gringo wrote:If that is so, why do parents who can afford it so often send their kids to private schools, even now when they have to double-pay?
Typically, so that religion will be part of the curriculum. For some folks, that is more important than the education received (my own sister is of this bent, unfortunately).
chang50 wrote:If I can address one of your points,just because parents think their kids will get a superior education in a private school does not mean they are necessarily correct in that assessment,sadly there are some parents who are as clueless as the hapless Ms Hodges.
kentington wrote:Agreed chang. But this goes both ways. I am sending my kids to public school. There is a school near me that is exceptional (public). If I was in the next city over I would definitely send my kids to private school. I have looked at their test standings and parental complaints about teachers, ignoring the "My son Johnny has too much homework."
I have also visited the private school my cousins went to and the kids there were stupid and behaved poorly. Even the teachers seemed dense. I think the biggest thing is that parents need to be involved in their child's education.
I agree with daddy1gringo. I think the choice should be up to the parents.
daddy1gringo wrote: Regarding vouchers, consider this. Suppose that Bill gates had so many admirers in the government that he managed to get the laws gerrymandered so that if anyone chose to buy an Apple computer, they would not only have to pay the Apple dealer the full price of the computer, but also have to pay Microsoft the full price of its closest competing product. Wouldn't be fair, would it? Not to Apple, but more importantly, not to the many people who prefer Macs to PCs.
I have to groan and shake my head when somebody talks about "giving public money to private schools." Who is the "public"? The "public" is the people who pay taxes and send their kids to school. Why shouldn't at least some of THEIR money that THEY pay for their children's education go where their children are educated? Vouchers are never equal to the per-capita cost of public education, so the parents who send their kids to a private school will still be subsidizing the public school system, it just makes it a bit more equitable.
…
First and I think most importantly, it reduces the economic inequity, where rich people can afford to send their kids to a private school, while the poor have no choice. Obviously, vouchers will not eliminate all of the results of prejudice and economic disadvantage, but it cannot help but mitigate against them.
Second, everybody complains that the public schools are overcrowded. Enabling more students to go to other schools will reduce the crowding.
chang50 wrote:saxitoxin wrote:chang50 wrote:Speaks volumes for the thousands who voted for her.
This is an interesting note - apparently in 2011 voters of Valarie Hodges' district - District 34 - were only allowed to choose between Republican #1 or Republican #2. No other parties were listed -
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Valarie_Hodges
- a fairly typical U.S. election ballot in which there is only one party allowed to run because of jungle primary laws.This is why it's rather exhausting to hear certain people on this forum who shan't be named indict U.S. third parties for not running candidates in minor elections before challenging for the presidency or who suggest grassroots action can start from the ground up.
But at least there was a choice,got me wondering how poor a candidate Mr Elkins was to lose to such a simpleton.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
kiwi3 wrote:Those of you who are truly interested in the future of our education, the involvement of politicians in the education system and the effect of charter and so-called virtual schools need to watch this webcast. It was given at the NCTM conference this year. Go to NCTM.org., conference 2012, webcasts, opening speaker. She gives so much information and facts about our education system. It will leave you speechless and outraged at the way things are going and the changes "for the better" that our government has been selling us on. Guess who benefits from charter schools?...many legislatures who have vested interest in them. We are paying for them through our taxes whether your kids go there or not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users