I'm been impressed with his work and that video is no exception. It's hard to watch that video because so little has changed for the better in 30 years since then. I don't know how he keeps going. When you get something right and nobody listens or does anything...

Maybe what we need is a voucher program for poor kids. It could go from preschool thru some level. This might give them the specialized treatment they need and at the same time not hold back the normal schools.

 

Maybe what we need is a voucher program for poor kids. It could go from preschool thru some level. This might give them the specialized treatment they need and at the same time not hold back the normal schools.

Unfortunately the "normal" schools teacher's union is dead set against vouchers as it removes bodies from the classroom. School Funding basis is on the number of students present on a particular day. It is highly publicized in some areas to have your child in school that one day.

The "normal" schools were against if because only the "good" students will escape the poor performing schools.

Poor performing schools is the new "norm." Yes, it is sad, and yes, Walter addressed it in the video from the 1980s with his opinion on the reasons.

 

One of Obama's first official actions was eliminating vouchers for poor black students in DC, despite loud pleading from the families that knew it was a way out for them. He stabbed them in the back. I think a lot of people were surprised.

 

Unfortunately the "normal" schools teacher's union is dead set against vouchers as it removes bodies from the classroom. School Funding basis is on the number of students present on a particular day. It is highly publicized in some areas to have your child in school that one day.

It doesn't need to be outside the normal system. It just needs extra money for early preschool and some method to assure good / extra teachers.

The "normal" schools were against if because only the "good" students will escape the poor performing schools.

There are a lot of reasons "normal" schools are against it. Some include:
The voucher doesn't cover the cost favoring more affluent.
Private schools can select the students. They don't take all.
A high percentage are religiously affiliated which is a constitutional problem.

Poor performing schools is the new "norm." Yes, it is sad, and yes, Walter addressed it in the video from the 1980s with his opinion on the reasons.

So lets try to remove those reasons. Got any ideas?

 

A high percentage are religiously affiliated which is a constitutional problem.
So lets try to remove those reasons. Got any ideas?

This one's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

I could have used my VEGIB school benefits on a religious education if I wanted.

 

I never understood why the government needs to be in the education business. If I were to design the system, I would let the school board sets up minimum requirements and certify private schools that meet that minimum requirement. Any student attending those schools receives a voucher to reimburse tuition.

Today's public schools can also participate this, as a way to transition.

 

Private schools can select the students. They don't take all.
A high percentage are religiously affiliated which is a constitutional problem.

How is a religious school a problem when the government voucher is given to the parents to pay for childs education. The government didn't hand over the check, the parents did.

You can bet there will be a lot more "for profit" schools catering to the nation if there were vouchers. The annual "big push" to get the students in the classroom on the head count day only illustrates that the "public" schools will do anything to get more cash.

Are you afraid the parents can't make the right choice for their children?

I think all children should be on a voucher. Let the parents decide on what's best for their children, not the nanny state.

from the Washington Post
By Emma Brown June 2, 2015
U.S. states’ education spending averaged $10,700 per pupil in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, but that average masked a wide variation, ranging from $6,555 per pupil in Utah to $19,818 in New York.

 

Are the police that oblivious?
Or is this just the mainstream media doing their usual snow job?

I did a few phone calls this morning. Other news broadcasters agreed...that station, channel 40 locally, must have been under a rock for the last few weeks.

 

How is a religious school a problem when the government voucher is given to the parents to pay for childs education. The government didn't hand over the check, the parents did.

As @nsaspook points out it is not a problem. But.. It's my property tax that's being transfered.

You can bet there will be a lot more "for profit" schools catering to the nation if there were vouchers. The annual "big push" to get the students in the classroom on the head count day only illustrates that the "public" schools will do anything to get more cash.

Are you afraid the parents can't make the right choice for their children?

I think all children should be on a voucher. Let the parents decide on what's best for their children, not the nanny state.

Like I said, I'm okay if they are all privatized and paid for with tax dollars so the opportunities are equal. But I don't think it will change much. They still need over-site etc. or profit will prevail.
Don't loose track of the problem we are trying to solve here.
As for Utah my immediate response is family. Do you see it differently? Do they have better teachers? Hard to believe since they pay terrible.
So yes, I guess in some cases the parents can't make the right decision or don't have the education themselves to do what is best for their children.
It's hard to teach your kid to read if you can't read yourself.

 

But.. It's my property tax that's being transfered.

I feel your pain. My property tax is apportioned to the good schools and the bad schools. We don't get to select where our tax dollars go. After all, there is no government financial lock box, it all goes to the general fund for them to divvy up.

I'm sure family has alot to do with it. Look at the composition of those entering college students in the 70s and today. I saw an article, that I should have saved. What caught my eye was the composition was, in order, Asian, White, Chicano, and Black. Then the more recent study had Asian, White, Latino, and Black.

Found an interesting article here. If the family involvement has the most influence, and I'm sure it does, we can't legislate parental responsibility towards education.

Like I said, I'm okay if they are all privatized and paid for with tax dollars so the opportunities are equal.

They are unequal now in the public school system. Where do you start? Right now there is perceived equal opportunity but not equal outcome. The inequity of the outcome falls to alot of areas, from infrastructure, teachers, and family. I think there is an injustice happening in the poorer schools that can not be solely blamed on infrastructures administrators and teachers.

 

it all goes to the general fund for them to divvy up.

That's the problem (the government decides how much to collect and where to spend), and the solution (sever the link between tax collection and tax expenditures). Any tax payer is essentially a buyer of government services. So we can divide government services into a few buckets: defense, welfare, education, ..., and each tax payer will decide where his/her tax money goes: a republican may weigh 50% into defense, and a democrat may weigh 80% into welfare, etc.

The government can spend up to the money collected in a given bucket, with no co-mingling.

 

I feel your pain. My property tax is apportioned to the good schools and the bad schools. We don't get to select where our tax dollars go. After all, there is no government financial lock box, it all goes to the general fund for them to divvy up.

I'm sure family has alot to do with it. Look at the composition of those entering college students in the 70s and today. I saw an article, that I should have saved. What caught my eye was the composition was, in order, Asian, White, Chicano, and Black. Then the more recent study had Asian, White, Latino, and Black.

Found an interesting article here. If the family involvement has the most influence, and I'm sure it does, we can't legislate parental responsibility towards education.



They are unequal now in the public school system. Where do you start? Right now there is perceived equal opportunity but not equal outcome. The inequity of the outcome falls to alot of areas, from infrastructure, teachers, and family. I think there is an injustice happening in the poorer schools that can not be solely blamed on infrastructures administrators and teachers.

Yea, I don't know, it's nuts.
Here in Arizona a few years ago the voters passed a proposition to keep funding up to inflation. Well a long story short the state legislature ignored it and instead cut the school funding while lowering taxes. The school districts sued, and won. 625 million over the next 10 years. I'm not sure of the details after that, but it was going to drag out. maybe because they couldn't find the money. So somebody came up with the idea that they would accelerate the sale from the state land trust to cover it and forgive the first one. Just barely passed. In the lead up to the vote the money was promised to teachers. Last week our local school boards decided on 1.3% for the teachers a bit for capital (computers, repairs etc. and the rest in reserve. Bet it trickles away. So I can't say the voters didn't try to take care of the kids. It just didn't work.
We also have a lot of Hispanic kids that speak Spanish at home. They are slow to get started and slow down the English speakers. Now there is a movement for bilingual classes. I guess it works, but I think it will make it harder for them to integrate someday.

 

One of the fundamental problems we face is what to do with children of bad parents. Where does the line get drawn, where intervention by government authorities becomes justified?

Historically and even now, parents could get away with very bad treatment of their children. Poor diets, poor habits, poor examples, poor education, and so on. The only reason this worked at all is because most parents stepped up and did the best they could for their kids. There were exceptions, but we accepted that, I suppose, as an unfortunate fact of nature, that some parents will not succeed. We can't fix that any more than we can fix the weather.

Parents should have the most possible freedom to raise their children and I hate the idea of any government involvement. But, parental freedom doesn't include doing damage to those children. We don't allow outright violence or neglect against children but it's a very low bar.

On any measure of parenting, you could find fault with the best of us. We try, but we come up short. How bad does it have to be before we step in and tell our neighbors that they're no longer in control and we're going to raise their children the way we think is better?

I don't know the answer. One of the downsides of freedom is that some people will make bad choices and take others down with them.

 

@dannyf I have some of what your smoking. Nice idea, but they can't do it. Remember the last "budgetary nuclear option" where all programs get x percent cut if they can't agree on a budget? The Continuing Resolution got it's workout once again.

In 1976 there was a transition quarter, so the start of the fiscal year could be moved to October 1st. The stated reason, they needed more time to pass a budget. I'd bet there were only a handful of times during the next 40 years where there was a budget ON TIME. By that I mean the deparments were able to procure items on Oct 1st and not play the Continuing Resolution game. What is their excuse now?

It's our own fault for federalizing everything under the sun. The tenth amendment is in shreads.

 

On the original topic (about the "War On Cops"), a judge cleared another cop on the Baltimore police force of any wrong doing in the Freddie Grey case.

His ruling was that failing to secure Grey in the van by using a seat belt was NOT an act of negligence and there is no liability for Grey's death. So by this ruling, I guess that not wearing a seatbelt (or requiring other passengers in your car to wear one) is no longer an offense.

However, the more serious issue is how the judge's ruling will "Add more gas to the fire" - which is now an inferno.

 

.............However, the more serious issue is how the judge's ruling will "Add more gas to the fire" - which is now an inferno.

Are you suggesting that judges should ignore the law and pass judgement based on local opinion or current events?

 

Are you suggesting that judges should ignore the law and pass judgement based on local opinion or current events?

It's an interesting psychology. People seem to be much more satisfied with a judges decision over an internal affairs probe.

 

Are you suggesting that judges should ignore the law and pass judgement based on local opinion or current events?

The judge in the Freddie Grey case DID ignore the law and let the cops fly like a lark. The evidence for criminal negligence was overwhelming and your Average Joe would have been convicted and done serious time. But it was three cops that were on trial and getting a conviction against a cop for anything is like hitting the jackpot at a casino.

Furthermore, why was this case tried by a judge (instead of a jury) in the first place? It's because the cops knew damn well the deck was stacked in their favor and they couldn't possibly lose. An example of the term "White Wash".

 

Furthermore, why was this case tried by a judge (instead of a jury) in the first place?

More on the bench v jury trials are at the findlaw website.

 

The judge in the Freddie Grey case DID ignore the law and let the cops fly like a lark............

Says you. "DID ignore the law" It is all your opinion. No facts, just opinion.