Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Betsy DeVos-Billionaire secretary of education.

  1. #21

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    That said, DeVos wants to take money away from public schools. There was an article in The Washington Post concerning rural schools in the state of Maine. They are barely getting by. As all of you I'm sure are aware, public schools receive money for each individual student. If one year they have 50 fewer students, they get less money for that fiscal year. Rural schools will have less money under the Devos plan and will have to lay off teachers and other personal, creating significantly bigger classes that will result in poorer performances and test results. One school in Maine said they would have to shut down and bus students to Bangor Maine, more than 100 miles away which they said, will be impossible in the winter.
    First problem is 'Washington Post'. Might as well be the Huffington Post. If you want to lose credibility, start off with that. Isn't Woodward still there ferchrissakes?

    Second, where does your school funding come from? Here in the DPRI, it's from state and local taxes. Even assuming Betsy Devos wanted to cut school funding, there isn't all that much she controls. She can, however, reduce costs for local districts by getting federal regulations out of their way.

    That's the issue with these discussions about government. Most things aren't the job of the feds. People march around and protest that "the government should do this, the government should do that", but they're pointing at the wrong target. Reminds me of the 60's. Protesting the war by taking over a campus science building. Get a clue folks.... the Chemistry department isn't bombing Hanoi, and Phys. Ed didn't draft anyone. The federal government doesn't belong in education.

    Dogboy, go march on your statehouse. They're the folks running (or ruining..) the show.

    Edit: I'm going to take the liberty of putting words in liberal mouths "The federal government has more money". No, they don't. Federal, State, Local, all comes from the same place. You, the taxpayer. Whether by design or ignorance, there is less of a direct connection between federal largesse and the pain of a tax bill, so liberals prefer to go to the federal coffers. At the local level, if you ask the school board for an improvement, the answer is "sure. vote for the next property tax increase". As it should be. TANSTAAFL.
    Last edited by Maxx; 16-Feb-2017 at 12:55.

  2. #22

    Default

    I think in most cases, I agree with the idea the federal government should not need to step in for expenditures on education, in this case however I disagree.

    here's why:


    We can take my state as an example if you like. 2016 our state through taxes, raised $1,789,047,812 for education. the federal input into our education system was $173,966,151. The amount of this money going towards vocational, as well as other instructional programs, was roughly 2% (maybe 2.4%) of this budget, with the budget split between 288 school districts, the average cost per pupil roughly 17k (very roughly)


    Comparatively the federal input is much much smaller, however its that money that really makes a difference in terms of after school activities, as well as programs for theater or music, helps keep teachers with the equipment and supplies needed to do their job and ensure that their pupils are prepared, even if their parents don't.

    Touching back to the idea of the federal government, not being responsible for state education, or being obligated to supply any funding to education. after watching two private corporation bail outs, the airlines as well as the motor industry, Until tax money stops going to private organizations to cover their mistakes, I have no problem at all in finding it repugnant that the federal government does not want to spend money on programs that enrich and give opportunities of refuge, as well as open doors and lead to the discovery of individuals interests in later life.

    IS there a need for these programs? I think so..I think a drastic amount of people fall into the category of not knowing what they want to do with their life because they were not exposed to enough areas of study while in school, as well as promoting a sense of community.


    So in the end, my argument is, while I agree that the federal government is not obligated, I feel it would be fundamentally wrong for them to not invest money into counties that can use the money, as opposed to bailing out corporations. after all, we use federal funding for crisis and emergency relief in states, and I would call some states public education systems just that. States can raise taxes for their school systems, but in the end these public and state funded schools, would be going head to head with semi-private, federally inflated charter schools.

    Starting the trend of federal money going into a semi-alternative semi-private school system in direct competition to the public school system, is a dangerous precedent. In 2015 3.3 billion dollars went to the charter school system, but the public school system did not have to outright compete to keep their original funding.

    was the 3.3 billion well spent? It's hard for me to tell, In that same year, 400 new charter schools opened, with federal funding, while 272 charter schools closed before the year was out.

    It's just not the type of world that I want to promote. We need a competent, non discerning public education system, not federally funded schools that can turn away students due to a number of reasons, including location relative to school, intellect, ability to acquire course materials and transportation.



    to quote David Brain, former CEO of Entertainment Properties Trust, One of many private companies who own charter schools and receive federal and state funding

    "Well I think it’s a very stable business, very recession-resistant. It’s a very high-demand product. There’s 400,000 kids on waiting lists for charter schools … the industry’s growing about 12-14% a year. So it’s a high-growth, very stable, recession-resistant business. It’s a public payer, the state is the payer … if you do business with states with solid treasuries, then it’s a very solid business.....“Well, probably the charter school business. We said it’s our highest growth and most appealing sector right now of the portfolio. It’s the most high in demand, it’s the most recession-resistant. And a great opportunity set with 500 schools starting every year. It’s a two and a half billion dollar opportunity set in rough measure annually.”


    with attitudes like that, its no wonder that billionaires with interest in charter schools donate significantly (and in some cases, more then is allowed) to political campaigns.


    As an off topic thought, I wonder if we learned our lesson with private corporations running some of our prisons?
    Last edited by MommyandMattling; 16-Feb-2017 at 14:13.

  3. #23

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MommyandMattling View Post
    I think in most cases, I agree with you Maxx, in that the federal government should not need to step in for expenditures on education, in this case however I disagree.

    here's why:


    We can take my state as an example if you like. 2016 our state through taxes, raised $1,789,047,812 for education. the federal input into our education system was $173,966,151. The amount of this money going towards vocational, as well as other instructional programs, was roughly 2% (maybe 2.4%) of this budget, with the budget split between 288 school districts, the average cost per pupil roughly 17k (very roughly)
    What's the other side of the ledger? The things parents and communities DON'T want that the feds force them to do for that 2%? What are the costs of those things?



    Touching back to the idea of the federal government, not being responsible for state education, or being obligated to supply any funding to education. after watching two private corporation bail outs, the airlines as well as the motor industry, Until tax money stops going to private organizations to cover their mistakes, I have no problem at all in finding it repugnant that the federal government does not want to spend money on programs that enrich and give opportunities of refuge, as well as open doors and lead to the discovery of individuals interests in later life.
    It's not a matter of 'want'. It's a matter of what's in their charter, what we the people have given them license to handle for us. Government is not some kind of charity.






    IS there a need for these programs? I think so..I think a drastic amount of people fall into the category of not knowing what they want to do with their life because they were not exposed to enough areas of study while in school, as well as promoting a sense of community.
    There are a lot of 'nice to haves' in life. You have to make decisions like that all the time in your personal budget. It would be nice to buy a new car... but you have to put a new roof on the house first. Petitioning the federal government for something seems like getting it for free, or at least with other people's money, but that's not really how it is. One way or another, you pay for it. It only seems like you don't because the bill takes a circuitous route to get back to you.



    So in the end, my argument is, while I agree that the federal government is not obligated, I feel it would be fundamentally wrong for them to not invest money into counties that can use the money, as opposed to bailing out corporations. after all, we use federal funding for crisis and emergency relief in states, and I would call some states public education systems just that. States can raise taxes for their school systems, but in the end these public and state funded schools, would be going head to head with semi-private, federally inflated charter schools.
    I don't agree with corporate bail outs either, but I think there is value in competing for education dollars. Whether its a private or public, no monopoly will ever give you best price for any good or service. That's a fact. There is nothing magic about state run schools that makes them better or immune to the effects of price theory.



    Starting the trend of federal money going into a semi-alternative semi-private school system in direct competition to the public school system, is a dangerous precedent. In 2015 3.3 billion dollars went to the charter school system, but the public school system did not have to outright compete to keep their original funding.
    Why shouldn't they have to compete?



    It's just not the type of world that I want to promote. We need a competent, non discerning public education system, not federally funded schools that can turn away students due to a number of reasons, including location relative to school, intellect, ability to acquire course materials and transportation.
    I think you're confused about the concept.





    to quote David Brain, former CEO of Entertainment Properties Trust, One of many private companies who own charter schools and receive federal and state funding

    "Well I think it’s a very stable business, very recession-resistant. It’s a very high-demand product. There’s 400,000 kids on waiting lists for charter schools … the industry’s growing about 12-14% a year. So it’s a high-growth, very stable, recession-resistant business. It’s a public payer, the state is the payer … if you do business with states with solid treasuries, then it’s a very solid business.....“Well, probably the charter school business. We said it’s our highest growth and most appealing sector right now of the portfolio. It’s the most high in demand, it’s the most recession-resistant. And a great opportunity set with 500 schools starting every year. It’s a two and a half billion dollar opportunity set in rough measure annually.”


    with attitudes like that, its no wonder that billionaires with interest in charter schools donate significantly (and in some cases, more then is allowed) to political campaigns.
    Consider why there is a waiting list. Are people standing in line to buy an inferior product?



    As an off topic thought, I wonder if we learned our lesson with private corporations running some of our prisons?
    A private monopoly is no better than a state run monopoly at giving value for the dollar.

  4. #24

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    What's the other side of the ledger? The things parents and communities DON'T want that the feds force them to do for that 2%? What are the costs of those things?

    Non-Public Programs 372,221
    Charter Schools/Other Agencies 1,705,251

    Not sure if this answered your question or not?




    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    There are a lot of 'nice to haves' in life. You have to make decisions like that all the time in your personal budget."
    It would be nice if money that could go to education, did not line the pockets of corporations that need bailouts, because of their own personal budget issues.




    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I don't agree with corporate bail outs either, but I think there is value in competing for education dollars. Whether its a private or public, no monopoly will ever give you best price for any good or service. That's a fact. There is nothing magic about state run schools that makes them better or immune to the effects of price theory.

    Why shouldn't they have to compete?[
    The biggest reason I can find for them not needing to compete, is that its a case of apples to oranges, you have a system that is required to enroll all available applicants, and a system that can take those that could enrich their performance or funding. one is handicapped from the start and the other has free reign to compete for that extra funding. It's not really a competition if you have a new charter school with a budget almost double of the existing county school, where the charter school can turn away students who do not perform well on an entrance exam, as opposed to a school system, that is required to take struggling students.





    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Consider why there is a waiting list. Are people standing in line to buy an inferior product?
    I doubt very much that people are standing in line to buy a inferior product, I think its far more likely people are standing in line to jump ship, rather then send their children to the same school that their neighbors have to.








    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    A private monopoly is no better than a state run monopoly at giving value for the dollar.

    I cant argue with this, as long as the private monopoly is not looking at the system as a cash cow, again looking at the experiment with private prison institutions.


    If I had to choose between the two, Betsy or the charter school system to attack, I would choose Betsy, or really any private corporation looking to compete for tax funded money with the public school system. ( I don't separate the two, and whether I am biased or not, I cannot see her as anything other then an investor in this situation)


    If you had to choose between defending Betsy, and the Charter school system, which would you choose?


    America has a history of delegating what should be government run systems to private investors, anywhere from shoes during the american civil war, which fell apart after two weeks. to ration supplies that were rancid and inedible during world war 1, the pages are littered with instances of greed being pushed by our politicians and their campaign donors, both of the cases which I mentioned above, being run by investors who were heavy presidential and senate campaign donors. maybe there are instances of this equation working out well, and I am just not aware of them, because bad news travels better.



    Looking at the other side of the argument, Competition, promoting healthy growth that is, can we really say that it is an even playing field that will result in unbiased results? or will we see a steady drift of state and federal money moving towards private schools, regardless of how long they actually stay in business?
    Last edited by MommyandMattling; 16-Feb-2017 at 15:04.

  5. #25

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MommyandMattling View Post
    It would be nice if money that could go to education, did not line the pockets of corporations that need bailouts, because of their own personal budget issues.
    Perhaps you could explain the differences between (among?) corporate greed, government greed, and union greed. My property taxes are more than my mortgage ever was. A friend of mine is putting his house up for sale because his property taxes recently increased $300/month. A little competition might be useful to motivate schools to live within their means. Maybe we wouldn't have brother-in-laws running school food service, and somebody's uncle wouldn't be able to sell chromebooks to schools at goldbook prices.

    There's no motivation to use money efficiently if there isn't any competition.




    The biggest reason I can find for them not needing to compete, is that its a case of apples to oranges, you have a system that is required to enroll all available applicants, and a system that can take those that could enrich their performance or funding. one is handicapped from the start and the other has free reign to compete for that extra funding. It's not really a competition if you have a new charter school with a budget almost double of the existing county school, where the charter school can turn away students who do not perform well on an entrance exam, as opposed to a school system, that is required to take struggling students.
    That's not how vouchers work. Everybody gets the same thing to spend with whichever school they want. Now if somebody wants to spend over and above that for some goldplated private school, how can you have a problem with that? Some people choose to overpay for Cadillacs too. Oh well.



    I doubt very much that people are standing in line to buy a inferior product, I think its far more likely people are standing in line to jump ship, rather then send their children to the same school that their neighbors have to.
    That's the idea. If the public school can't keep up, they go out of business. That's how competition works. Businesses fail all the time because they don't serve their customers as well as someone else does.




    If you had to choose between defending Betsy, and the Charter school system, which would you choose?
    I've never tried to defend Betsy. I think the Department of Education should be disbanded. I've always thought there should be a system of school vouchers (at the state level) to foster competition for the education dollar.

  6. #26

    Default

    Well disbanding the department of education is a stated goal of the administration, maybe that's why they gave it to a billionaire nobody who does not understand anything about education , she won't be upset or hurt when they eliminate her position and make her job go away. Ultimately she will keep getting richer on the tax payers dollar even after her position goes away , the rich get richer the narcissist gets stroked and we get screwed .I would not have a problem with any of his cabinet picks or people he chose except that the majority are very wealthy from inheritance rather than from hard work and perseverance .

    Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

  7. #27

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    First problem is 'Washington Post'. Might as well be the Huffington Post. If you want to lose credibility, start off with that. Isn't Woodward still there ferchrissakes?

    Second, where does your school funding come from? Here in the DPRI, it's from state and local taxes. Even assuming Betsy Devos wanted to cut school funding, there isn't all that much she controls. She can, however, reduce costs for local districts by getting federal regulations out of their way.

    That's the issue with these discussions about government. Most things aren't the job of the feds. People march around and protest that "the government should do this, the government should do that", but they're pointing at the wrong target. Reminds me of the 60's. Protesting the war by taking over a campus science building. Get a clue folks.... the Chemistry department isn't bombing Hanoi, and Phys. Ed didn't draft anyone. The federal government doesn't belong in education.

    Dogboy, go march on your statehouse. They're the folks running (or ruining..) the show.

    Edit: I'm going to take the liberty of putting words in liberal mouths "The federal government has more money". No, they don't. Federal, State, Local, all comes from the same place. You, the taxpayer. Whether by design or ignorance, there is less of a direct connection between federal largesse and the pain of a tax bill, so liberals prefer to go to the federal coffers. At the local level, if you ask the school board for an improvement, the answer is "sure. vote for the next property tax increase". As it should be. TANSTAAFL.
    In Virginia, funding for public schools comes from the federal government, state and local, the smallest portion coming from the fed. I think we have several counties who opted out of federal funding so that they didn't have to conform to No Child Left Behind. That was several years ago.

    As for the Washington Post, they have many reporters and essayists who have won Pulitzer prizes for their outstanding work. I suppose though, that some think the Pulitzer committee is yet another liberal front? At least they fact check extensively, something not done on Fox news and worse sites. One of those fact finding missions has revealed that Betsy DeVos didn't work for her billions. Her father-in-law did when he founded Amway. Yup, she's an expensive Amway wife which surely gives her all the qualifications to be Secretary of Education.

    Like I said before, let's not use tax money on public education and see where that leads us as a nation. Having been both a student and a teacher, I've observed that schools seldom fail students. Students fail themselves. As a professional performing classical and concert musician, I wish I had practiced my ass of when I was young, ages 6 through 18. That's where so much progress is made. I wanted to play with my friends and have fun, which understandably is a kid thing, but having fun doesn't prepare you for the world. Hard work does, and we live 80 percent of our lives as adults, not as kids. When students fail, you can usually look to the parents and home life, not always of course, but often. No political party nor money sunk into education can cure that.

  8. #28

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    In Virginia, funding for public schools comes from the federal government, state and local, the smallest portion coming from the fed. I think we have several counties who opted out of federal funding so that they didn't have to conform to No Child Left Behind. That was several years ago.
    Yes. Exactly my point. The Feds are the tail wagging the dog(boy).



    As for the Washington Post, they have many reporters and essayists who have won Pulitzer prizes for their outstanding work. I suppose though, that some think the Pulitzer committee is yet another liberal front? At least they fact check extensively, something not done on Fox news and worse sites. One of those fact finding missions has revealed that Betsy DeVos didn't work for her billions. Her father-in-law did when he founded Amway. Yup, she's an expensive Amway wife which surely gives her all the qualifications to be Secretary of Education.
    In fairness to the Post, pretty much all of the mass media have moved sprinted to the left. I even had to give up on my subscription to Scientific American because of their dive toward politics and the left. Pulitzer? I haven't formed an opinion on them, but I'm sure they're one with the Borg. I'm not impressed by international 'prizes'. Nobel and Obama? Seriously? IMO, the Post is still basking in the glory of Watergate. Even if you were to hide the masthead, I could read two paragraphs and tell you it was Post, NYT, or Huffington, just from the framing. Well, maybe not. Even the Chicago Tribune has gone that way.

    It's not so much an issue of facts reported as facts NOT reported. That's why fact checking can give you just as false an impression as the story itself. I stopped watching shows like 60 minutes decades ago because at the end I found myself wondering "where's the rest of it?" There are plenty of made up stories to be sure, but even if you tell the truth, leaving out the parts inconvenient to your agenda can be just as misleading.

    TV? CNN used to be halfway reliable, but I lost them with 'balloon boy'

    All that said, if you dismantle the Department of Education, Betsy is irrelevant, so her qualifications don't matter.



    Like I said before, let's not use tax money on public education and see where that leads us as a nation. Having been both a student and a teacher, I've observed that schools seldom fail students. Students fail themselves. As a professional performing classical and concert musician, I wish I had practiced my ass of when I was young, ages 6 through 18. That's where so much progress is made. I wanted to play with my friends and have fun, which understandably is a kid thing, but having fun doesn't prepare you for the world. Hard work does, and we live 80 percent of our lives as adults, not as kids. When students fail, you can usually look to the parents and home life, not always of course, but often. No political party nor money sunk into education can cure that.
    1. Note that I've never objected to that. I've merely advocated keeping it local where there is some accountability.

    2. Absolutely. Now that liberal/leftist policies have made families and more specifically men irrelevant, you get what you get.
    Last edited by Maxx; 17-Feb-2017 at 13:21.

  9. #29
    mikejames

    Default

    I just want to see nonsense common core math go. If Trump/DeVos get that done I'll be quite happy. Kids should learn how to do actual math the right way, not whatever this ridiculous nonsense is.

  10. #30

    Default

    I'm a product of Catholic school ( one form of a charter system). It sure would have been easier on the old man if he could have gotten $ help back then. I also went to a Catholic university ( ok, DePaul ) and the quality of education all along the way was superior to that offered in public institutions. However, I think someone with at least a background in education, whether with a charter school agenda or not, would have been a better choice.

Similar Threads

  1. The education system.
    By LittleJess in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 30-Oct-2016, 19:35
  2. What is your level of Education
    By Tyger in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 14-Mar-2014, 23:37
  3. Hillary Clinton as new Secretary of State
    By Mingus in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-Dec-2008, 05:23
  4. The return of SEX!!! (Education)
    By BabyMullet in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2008, 16:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.