0
turtlespeed

This is how you use kids as a political weapon.

Recommended Posts

(edited)
12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

First of all, I am FOR higher paid teachers and resources.

I am willing to take another hit on my property taxes to help pay my part of that.

Second - I am also a fan of vouchers, and the ability to choose where your child attends school.  Private and Charter should add competition to the mix.

No "competition" should come at the cost of lessening the value of the education that children receive who can't afford public schools and don't win the lottery to attend charter schools (which by all metrics are no better than public schools).  So, how do you then make it competitive without deliberately making a charter school better (we can leave private school out of it)?  I ask this question because there's no answer to it that doesn't fuck over public schools.  A charter school may lend some diversity to the type of programs in schools but if you're trying to get them to compete with public schools you're doing so at the expense of other children.

Edit:  Also, I don't think property taxes is a good way of paying for school funding.  It CAN be used but the reason it IS used is because schools are funded by local property taxes, therefore voters feel like they receive a local benefit.  The problem is that in economically depressed areas the schools suck ass because people can't afford the additional taxes that are absorbed between fewer people.  Long term residents with no children vote "No" every a tax hike comes up to fund schools.

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DJL said:

No "competition" should come at the cost of lessening the value of the education that children receive who can't afford public schools and don't win the lottery to attend charter schools (which by all metrics are no better than public schools).  So, how do you then make it competitive without deliberately making a charter school better (we can leave private school out of it)?  I ask this question because there's no answer to it that doesn't fuck over public schools.  A charter school may lend some diversity to the type of programs in schools but if you're trying to get them to compete with public schools you're doing so at the expense of other children.

Agree. I accept your idea that teachers use kids to negotiate a better compensation agreement. But in general they are not highly paid. Competition needs to come from testing both on the teacher and the student. Not at the source of funding because property taxes acts to keep poor areas with underfunded schools.

Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.  A excellent graphic portrait of under-funding in US schools. Betsy DeVos is a idiot and charter schools are a recipe for failure in poor geographic areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

A excellent graphic portrait of under-funding in US schools. Betsy DeVos is a idiot and charter schools are a recipe for failure in poor geographic areas.

Given the article is four years old; wouldn't this fall more on the shoulders of Arne Duncan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

but DeVos:

Apologies. I did not mean to infer that I'm a fan. Never have been - never will be. IMO: The Secretary of Education should not be a long list of short-term people with degrees in business or law, but perhaps someone who actually has a degree in, oh say; education? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Apologies. I did not mean to infer that I'm a fan. Never have been - never will be. IMO: The Secretary of Education should not be a long list of short-term people with degrees in business or law, but perhaps someone who actually has a degree in, oh say; education? 

No apologies necessary. I was sort of replying to Turtles post supporting vouchers. But i don't like debating with him for obvious reasons. IMO good schools are the best way to lift poor people from a economic malaise. It is for certain the most effective way for countries to increase overall productivity, GDP, reduce unemployment, etc.

Edited by Phil1111
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Agree. I accept your idea that teachers use kids to negotiate a better compensation agreement. But in general they are not highly paid. Competition needs to come from testing both on the teacher and the student. Not at the source of funding because property taxes acts to keep poor areas with underfunded schools.

Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.  A excellent graphic portrait of under-funding in US schools. Betsy DeVos is a idiot and charter schools are a recipe for failure in poor geographic areas.

Well then it's probably not a "One size fits all" scenario.

In areas that are affected as, how was it put, "economically depressed areas", should be funded from different means.

Charter schools, I'll use Goodwill's Excell, for instance,( https://www.goodwillcentraltexas.org/ education-job-training/the-excel-center#:~:text=The Goodwill Excel Center is,with a technical career certification.)  since I'm intimately familiar with it, since I have donated money, time, and work to a few of their facilities. 

They offer adult education and troubled teen education.  BOTH of which better the population.  They help minorities, low income families that have to leave school to work. They have accelerated ESL courses.

They have an accelerated highschool diploma courses that can cut the actual time to achieve a diploma significantly.

Programs like this would be stopped, if the teachers union demands that I posted earlier are met.

Alternative learning sources for science academies and the like would be stopped.

Stopped because they don't want competition, because they want control, and because they are willing to assert those wants despite the detriment to the community and education of the children.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many charter schools are serving low-needs students (and Goodwill sounds like it isn't, just as the YES prep schools in Houston aren't). They can choose.

When the high-performing students leave for the high-performing charter school, they're leaving the public schools with a lower average preparation, with more special-needs students, and the same lower salaries that public schools sometimes offer. This isn't a win-win situation.

Maybe if for every special-interest high-performing charter school (e.g. Performing and Visual Arts, Chinese, etc) which has the option of rejecting special-needs students, they have to help sponsor a special-needs-serving school. That way the people who just can't afford the time or transportation for charter schools aren't relegated to guaranteed-lower-performing schools.

The pond you're swimming in makes a difference -- a supremely motivated and intelligent student can excel nearly anywhere. But if you're only average motivated, the chances of maximizing potential go way, way, down.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Too many charter schools are serving low-needs students (and Goodwill sounds like it isn't, just as the YES prep schools in Houston aren't). They can choose.

When the high-performing students leave for the high-performing charter school, they're leaving the public schools with a lower average preparation, with more special-needs students, and the same lower salaries that public schools sometimes offer. This isn't a win-win situation.

Maybe if for every special-interest high-performing charter school (e.g. Performing and Visual Arts, Chinese, etc) which has the option of rejecting special-needs students, they have to help sponsor a special-needs-serving school. That way the people who just can't afford the time or transportation for charter schools aren't relegated to guaranteed-lower-performing schools.

The pond you're swimming in makes a difference -- a supremely motivated and intelligent student can excel nearly anywhere. But if you're only average motivated, the chances of maximizing potential go way, way, down.

Wendy P.

Isn't that kinda how darwinism works?

That was too short of a reply.  I'm writing a longer one.

Basically, then the powers at be need to teach to be more motivated.  The universe doesn't care about you.  If you don't want to put the effort in, you won't get the results out.

yes yes yes - black and white thinking.  The premise is still the same.

As I told my daughter ( probably posted this before) When we were discussing her standing in the graduation class. (Junior year) . . . I said, Hon, if School, and Homework were Facebook, you would have a scholarship to Harvard.  If you want it - put the work in and get it.

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Isn't that kinda how darwinism works?

That was too short of a reply.  I'm writing a longer one.

Basically, then the powers at be need to teach to be more motivated.  The universe doesn't care about you.  If you don't want to put the effort in, you won't get the results out.

yes yes yes - black and white thinking.  The premise is still the same.

As I told my daughter ( probably posted this before) When we were discussing her standing in the graduation class. (Junior year) . . . I said, Hon, if School, and Homework were Facebook, you would have a scholarship to Harvard.  If you want it - put the work in and get it.

Competition and profit (i.e. capitalism) aren't the best way to approach utilities, and public schools are effectively utilities. Why do you think utilities are regulated?

People who can't compete because of issues beyond their control won't ever have the same opportunities, but when the society ensures that those issues remain beyond their control, it's placing roadblocks.

That's what "rich privilege" is. Rich people get enough benefits as it it; society making sure they get even more isn't the way to increase the pie. It's the zero-sum game approach.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Isn't that kinda how darwinism works?

 

Well, yes.  But as a society we have decided to not follow Darwinism.  We don't put up barriers at crossings to make sure people in wheelchairs are put at higher risk (because, hey, Darwinism at work!) - we put in ramps so they can more easily navigate them.

Likewise we could apply the same concept to schools.  We could, get rid of public schools altogether.  Rich families will be able to pay for private schooling.  And the poor-but-smart-and-motivated kids can take advantage of the free educational stuff on line and excel.  For the rest of the lazy bums - poverty and failure await.  Perhaps even death before they reproduce very much.  Darwinism!

Fortunately we don't do that.  We do what we can to make educational opportunities available to everyone, regardless of income.  Or, to put it in more Constitutional terms, we promote the general welfare, and use our tax money to provide for the general welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Too many charter schools are serving low-needs students (and Goodwill sounds like it isn't, just as the YES prep schools in Houston aren't). They can choose.

When the high-performing students leave for the high-performing charter school, they're leaving the public schools with a lower average preparation, with more special-needs students, and the same lower salaries that public schools sometimes offer. This isn't a win-win situation.

...

The pond you're swimming in makes a difference -- a supremely motivated and intelligent student can excel nearly anywhere. But if you're only average motivated, the chances of maximizing potential go way, way, down.

Wendy P.

I disagree that high performing students are low needs, they need challenge.  And I don't see that it's the high performing students' job to pull up the others.  As a former "high performing student" from a working class family, I benefited greatly from being challenged by other high performing students in a selective state school and then a very selective state funded university.

The issue isn't stratification by ability, it's stratification by wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Competition and profit (i.e. capitalism) aren't the best way to approach utilities, and public schools are effectively utilities. Why do you think utilities are regulated?

People who can't compete because of issues beyond their control won't ever have the same opportunities, but when the society ensures that those issues remain beyond their control, it's placing roadblocks.

That's what "rich privilege" is. Rich people get enough benefits as it it; society making sure they get even more isn't the way to increase the pie. It's the zero-sum game approach.

Wendy P.

Deregulation of utilities works very well.

I HATED that they could tell me where I HAD to purchase services from.  I very much dislike my choices being taken away from me.

I went from a regulated area (College Station) to deregulated - (DFW) - I couldn't be happier.  My rates went down and I actually have better service, response times, and yeah, lower rates too boot.  Its a win win.

 

As far as those who can't compete because of issues beyond their control - well, then the system should be changed.  If that is an issue, then instead of making it worse, stop doubling down on what is already known NOT to work.  To point: Think of the comments and ridicule some of the heads of cities, towns, states, and countries get when they double down on courses of actions that are making the pandemic worse.

 

There will always be those that are better off than some of the others.  I think the ideal of a pure socialist society is nothing but a pipe dream.  Taking away from others is not usually, really a good thing.  

 

 

 

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Deregulation of utilities works very well.

Utilities were never deregulated.  They are still public utilities and are some of the most tightly regulated entities in the US. 

It's great that you like yours.  Socialism for the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, billvon said:

Utilities were never deregulated.  They are still public utilities and are some of the most tightly regulated entities in the US. 

Hi Bill,

It baffles me how anyone, who pays any attention at all, cannot understand this.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

Utilities were never deregulated.  They are still public utilities and are some of the most tightly regulated entities in the US. 

It's great that you like yours.  Socialism for the win.

There is rate competition.  You had to be aware of that, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation_of_the_Texas_electricity_market#:~:text=According to the law%2C deregulation,)%2C including the incumbent utility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

According to a 2014 report[2] by the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power (TCAP), "deregulation cost Texans about $22 billion from 2002 to 2012. And residents in the deregulated market pay prices that are considerably higher than those who live in parts of the state that are still regulated. For example, TCAP found that the average consumer living in one of the areas that opted out of deregulation, such as Austin and San Antonio, paid $288 less in 2012 than consumers in the deregulated areas."

 

Woohoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakee said:

According to a 2014 report[2] by the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power (TCAP), "deregulation cost Texans about $22 billion from 2002 to 2012. And residents in the deregulated market pay prices that are considerably higher than those who live in parts of the state that are still regulated. For example, TCAP found that the average consumer living in one of the areas that opted out of deregulation, such as Austin and San Antonio, paid $288 less in 2012 than consumers in the deregulated areas."

 

Woohoo!

That is not true in today's market.  Or, at least it isn't if you pay attention.

I'm paying upwards of 16-17% less per year than I ever did when I didn't have a choice and people weren't competing for my business.

All you have to do is read and do math.  The incentives are there. You just have to find them.

In the summer purchase a XXXXKW package at a discounted rate (Last I checked it was 60% of the standard rate) - If I stay just under that then Bonus!!  So, no matter how much I use, I still pay a minimum of 60% of the standard rate for XXXXKW. My lowest usage ever was around XXXXKW.

Then in the cooler months, I switch to either the standard rate - which is charged by the actual individual KW used at whatever the going rate is and no more - (when I'm out of town working, or travelling) 

I average about 84% of what my bill used to be in $s 10 years ago.  There have been rate increases and added taxes - so I'm actually down a few points from last year when I was averaging 19%.

I removed the amounts so I don't have to spend more time defending myself there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

There is rate competition.  You had to be aware of that, right?

Of course there is - in a very tightly regulated market.  Most utilities are run by PUC's, which are state appointed bodies.  Want to raise rates?  The PUC has to approve it.  Want to lower rates?  Again, PUC.  Want to shut down an old plant that costs too much to run?  Unless you have a plan to make up that power the PUC won't let you do it.  Want to use Joe's Power Company?  Sorry, not an option - unless the PUC approves it.  And even then, Joe gets VERY carefully controlled access to the existing grid, and pays other power companies via a complex rate structure.  

If you want to see how complicated this is, look at the actual rate schedule on your bill.  You'll see charges for generation, distribution, transmission, decommissioning, competitive transfers, bond charges, reliability services, DR charges (or discounts) and power charge indifference adjustments.    (Or similar charges with different names.)  For example, the PCIA charge is extra money you pay so that the old utility isn't damaged by abandonment.  As more people leave the old utility, the higher that goes.

Socialism is, by definition, government control of the means of production and distribution.  Public power utilities fit this definition almost exactly - even if you get a CCA choice that saves you a bit.  Those CCA's are under very rigid governmental controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, billvon said:

Of course there is - in a very tightly regulated market.  Most utilities are run by PUC's, which are state appointed bodies.  Want to raise rates?  The PUC has to approve it.  Want to lower rates?  Again, PUC.  Want to shut down an old plant that costs too much to run?  Unless you have a plan to make up that power the PUC won't let you do it.  Want to use Joe's Power Company?  Sorry, not an option - unless the PUC approves it.  And even then, Joe gets VERY carefully controlled access to the existing grid, and pays other power companies via a complex rate structure.  

If you want to see how complicated this is, look at the actual rate schedule on your bill.  You'll see charges for generation, distribution, transmission, decommissioning, competitive transfers, bond charges, reliability services, DR charges (or discounts) and power charge indifference adjustments.    (Or similar charges with different names.)  For example, the PCIA charge is extra money you pay so that the old utility isn't damaged by abandonment.  As more people leave the old utility, the higher that goes.

Socialism is, by definition, government control of the means of production and distribution.  Public power utilities fit this definition almost exactly - even if you get a CCA choice that saves you a bit.  Those CCA's are under very rigid governmental controls.

Yes - and through all that you have just proved my point that the system should be regulated and retailers should be competetive.

There is no difference with schooling.

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

There is no difference with schooling.

 

You actually have a lot more freedom with schooling.  You can choose a public school or choose a private one.  You can even do home schooling.  You do not have a choice whose power poles you use; it's going to come from your local utility no matter what.  And in many places in the US you can't even disconnect from the grid and make your own power; you have to have a utility connection to pass inspection and get a CO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, billvon said:

You actually have a lot more freedom with schooling.  You can choose a public school or choose a private one.  You can even do home schooling.  You do not have a choice whose power poles you use; it's going to come from your local utility no matter what.  And in many places in the US you can't even disconnect from the grid and make your own power; you have to have a utility connection to pass inspection and get a CO.

Private schools are still under the state's regulations.  Home schooling is somewhat different.

In order to continue - you still have standards that must be met.

Just as in getting the CO - some standards must be met.

There needs to be "de-regulated" competition in the school system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

There needs to be "de-regulated" competition in the school system.

There already is.  Education is regulated far less stringently than electrical utilities.  You can choose any school you like, wherever you like.  There are few countrywide standards that schools have to meet - indeed with home schooling there are none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0