President Trump

In your "competition" based school system example where unions are broken, a very likely result would be less money for teachers. Competition means taking funds away from public schools...where do you think those funds go?

maporsche wrote:

In your "competition" based school system example where unions are broken, a very likely result would be less money for teachers. Competition means taking funds away from public schools...

Obviously. Less money for public school teachers because there would be less of them. Why? Because they have responsibility for fewer students.

Is there some point you're trying to make with this "insight?"

No. I only have to deal with the school districts in so much that my property taxes pay for them.

THAT gives me a say, whether you think I should have one or not. Unless you don't think those who fund public endeavors should have a say in them.

I also have 3 good friends who are teachers here in Chicago, so some of our conversations are around their experiences as teachers.

Riiiiiight. So when these public school teachers are fired, where do they go?

Quote:

No. I only have to deal with the school districts in so much that my property taxes pay for them.

Do you own your own home or do you rent? If you rent then you are not really paying property taxes, you are only paying a portion of those taxes.

Quote:

THAT gives me a say, whether you think I should have one or not. Unless you don't think those who fund public endeavors should have a say in them.

Your opinion on what the school needs should not weigh as heavily as a parents opinion who actually has a child in the school. You really have no skin in the game where the parents are all in.

Quote:

I also have 3 good friends who are teachers here in Chicago, so some of our conversations are around their experiences as teachers.

It's good to know that your opinion on what kids need in school is shaped by teachers and not the parents who actually send their children to school. Sorry Maporsche but I think parents should have a much larger share in the control of local schools than they do. Teacher unions do not care for the children and their decisions for the school are based solely on what the teachers want and not what the parents want for their children. It's the Fox watching the Hen house.

maporsche wrote:

Riiiiiight. So when these public school teachers are fired, where do they go?

Wherever they want. It's employment, not wellfare. Moreover, others are involver , namely the children who are their victims.

Teacher unions do not care for the children...

But I object to your comment about renters not 'counting' I guess. It's not like rent only covers the cost of a mortgage and/or expenses...it covers the cost of the owners property taxes too (at least if the investment is sound). Renters pay property taxes too (albeit indirectly).

Is this approach true in other ways our government spends money?

You're not a woman, so does your opinion not count on women's healthcare. You're not in the oil industry, so does your opinion not count on oil subsides? I'm sure there are other better examples, but I've not the time.

Quote:

You're not a woman, so does your opinion not count on women's healthcare. You're not in the oil industry, so does your opinion not count on oil subsides? I'm sure there are other better examples, but I've not the time.

Womens healthcare, the euphemism for abortion. My only take on abortion is the fathers rights should count on these decisions. This doesn't include rapists or other people who commit sexual crimes but legit men who would want to option of caring for a baby the mother wants to terminate.

How about if you don't own a gun you can't comment on gun laws? Is that a good example? If you weren't in the military, your opinion on military matters should be null. Those types of opinions and decisions?

I fully believe this. they aren't paid by the children, they are paid by the teachers who are in the union. Parents don't pay the unions so they really don't care about the parents opinions either. They only care about their clients, the teachers and not those who are not paying their pay checks.

I wasn't thinking of abortion, but more the recent stuff regarding Obamacare and having to pay for IUDs and other birth control measures. Or the complaints of men having to pay for breast exams, etc.

If YOU don't think childless couples have a right to have an opinion on school boards, do you also think that people who don't own a gun have a right to vote on gun laws? Or that people who aren't doctors should have an opinion on best methods of healthcare? Or that people who can't pass an IQ test should have an opinion on anything?

Quote:

If YOU don't think childless couples have a right to have an opinion on school boards, do you also think that people who don't own a gun have a right to vote on gun laws? Or that people who aren't doctors should have an opinion on best methods of healthcare? Or that people who can't pass an IQ test should have an opinion on anything?

You are not reading what I wrote. I said if you don't have kids in the school system, your opinion shouldn't carry the same weight as those who do have kids in the school system. Try and keep up and try not to put words in my mouth, it's poor form.

For sure!! I agree 100%.

My point was that the likely outcome of charter schools would be that teachers however many of them there are, in either public or private charter schools will, in the end of things, make less money per teacher than they do now.

So the solution that you're advocating to education costs is, quite simply, pay teachers less money.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that if you placed an entire schools worth of children into a given charter school's program, that those same children would outperform public schools. I severely doubt that to be the case based on the evidence I've seen.

The only argument that appears to have some basis in measurable data is the cost per pupil figures that I've seen online. Something like charter schools being 20%-30% less expensive than public schools. The cause most often cited for the less expense per pupil is due to faculty (i.e. teachers) being paid less money.

In your "competition" based school system example where unions are broken, a very likely result would be less money for teachers. Competition means taking funds away from public schools...where do you think those funds go?