Obama throws children under the bus to appease teacher's union

Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Obama throws children under the bus to appease teacher's union

Obama swore not to shut down the DC school voucher program if a Dept. of Education study showed that it worked. He said that if the study showed that the voucher program performed better than the D.C. public school district, then he would keep the program running. He did admit to not liking the program, but he was going to support it if the evidence supported the program.

The Dept. of Education has released their study of the program. It turns out that according to the study (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/) the voucher program's students are as good at math as public school students and better at reading comprehension. And the voucher program costs about a third as much per student as public schooling. So it saves the government money and it boosts student test scores a bit. Sweet, the program is a success. And it has only been running for three years. In other voucher programs the largest gains were seen in the fourth and fifth years of the programs and the first two to three years saw no improvement in test scores. If this one is similar to the others, it will only get better over time.

So Obama has now decided to shut the program down. 'Fuck the children' is the only way this can be described. He said he would let the Dept. of Education study determine if the program was a success or not. And he lied. He lied in such a way as to harm children. These kids are now going to be placed into the D.C. school system; one of the worst school systems in America. How bad is it? Its scores on the NAEP are usually worse than the scores of any state. It literally is worse, according to standardized tests, than the school system of ANY state.

What really burns me about this is that he is harming these childrens' future in order to bow down to the teacher's union. The teacher's union is the only reason he is shutting down the program. He values their support more than he values the futures of these children. Who in their right mind harms children for political support? And putting children into the D.C. school system is harming them. This just makes me sick. There was a black and white decision between helping children and annoying the teacher's union or hurting children and pleasing the teacher's union. He has chosen to hurt the children.

 

'Let's see if it works,' " he said in February 2008, "and if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0410edit2apr10,0,7143379.story) I just wish that filthy, stinking liar would stop spraying his filthy, stinking lies at us.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
What is this voucher

What is this voucher program?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Voucher programs, in my

Voucher programs, in my opinion, are a game of "which group of children do I throw under the bus?"

Lose the vouchers and the rich kids are under the bus. Keep them and the poor kids don't get a chance to get out from under it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lose the

jcgadfly wrote:

Lose the vouchers and the rich kids are under the bus. Keep them and the poor kids don't get a chance to get out from under it.

I think that you meant to reverse that. Poor kids benefit from vouchers. Keep them and poor kids get to go to expensive private schools.

I also don't think that letting poor kids into private schools is throwing rich kids under the bus. The poor kids only get in if they meet the schools' criteria for entrance. So the private schools are not degraded by this since all of the students still conform to the schools' standards for entry.

Tapey: a voucher system is one in which the money spent on a child's education can be spent at private schools as well as public schools. The way it is in almost every state is that a public school gets some amount of money per child who attends and a similar private school gets nothing per child from the government. In Washington D.C. they made an experimental voucher program that would spend about US$7,000 per year per child to let a test group of poor children go to private schools. They then tracked the children's progress and compared them to a control group of poor children that were not allowed into the voucher program. The program was very popular. For every child allowed into it, four were rejected. The children allowed in were selected by lottery to ensure that the program didn't have better students in it than ordinary public schools. For the children rejected from the program the government spent a little over US$24,000 per student per year to attend public schools (the same amount of money spent on any public school school student per year in D.C.). So it actually costs much more money to send children to the failing D.C. schools. Ironically, D.C. schools are among the best funded in the U.S. and have among the worst test scores and highest dropout rates. That is what promted this experiment to begin. And now Obama has ended it after it showed that students can be taught better for much less money on a voucher program.

The program was cheap and effective and allowed a great degree of personal choice in schooling for the parents of these children. The program's only problem is that is was a small experimental program. It should have been extened to cover as many students as possible.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. And i'll bet

Yeah. And I'll bet McCain/Palin would've made a *much* sounder decision than that 'thilthy stinkin' liar' Obama, here.

*Eyeroll*

 

Sigh. Republicans...

Enjoying your teabagging parties, Jorg? Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Jorm is also only giving

Jorm is also only giving half of the story, here. One might ask, "Well, why is the teacher's union opposed to this program? And was was Obama initially against it?"

 

Answer: Not all children are eligible for the voucher program, and of those are, not all of their parents are informed enough to make use of it. The voucher program is a ridiculous band aid solution to the bigger problem: the shoddy public school system. Essentially, the program says, "Hey, who gives a shit if the public schools don't work - we'll just help you put your kids in private schools instead."

It's an excuse to avoid doing the work necessary to correct the faults of D.C.'s public schools. And those broke as shit black kids who either can't get access to the vouchers or who's parents aren't aware of the program? Well, tough luck for them.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Yeah.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Yeah. And I'll bet McCain/Palin would've made a *much* sounder decision than that 'thilthy stinkin' liar' Obama, here.

*Eyeroll*

 

Sigh. Republicans...

Enjoying your teabagging parties, Jorg? Sticking out tongue

 

Wow, what a non-sequiter.

 

Just because the alternative to Obama would  have been much worse, does not mean that we shouldn't critisize Obama.

 

And critisizing Obama is not the same as being a Republican.

 

 

 

 [edit]

re-worded sentence.

[/edit]


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:jcgadfly

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lose the vouchers and the rich kids are under the bus. Keep them and the poor kids don't get a chance to get out from under it.

I think that you meant to reverse that. Poor kids benefit from vouchers. Keep them and poor kids get to go to expensive private schools.

I also don't think that letting poor kids into private schools is throwing rich kids under the bus. The poor kids only get in if they meet the schools' criteria for entrance. So the private schools are not degraded by this since all of the students still conform to the schools' standards for entry.

Tapey: a voucher system is one in which the money spent on a child's education can be spent at private schools as well as public schools. The way it is in almost every state is that a public school gets some amount of money per child who attends and a similar private school gets nothing per child from the government. In Washington D.C. they made an experimental voucher program that would spend about US$7,000 per year per child to let a test group of poor children go to private schools. They then tracked the children's progress and compared them to a control group of poor children that were not allowed into the voucher program. The program was very popular. For every child allowed into it, four were rejected. The children allowed in were selected by lottery to ensure that the program didn't have better students in it than ordinary public schools. For the children rejected from the program the government spent a little over US$24,000 per student per year to attend public schools (the same amount of money spent on any public school school student per year in D.C.). So it actually costs much more money to send children to the failing D.C. schools. Ironically, D.C. schools are among the best funded in the U.S. and have among the worst test scores and highest dropout rates. That is what promted this experiment to begin. And now Obama has ended it after it showed that students can be taught better for much less money on a voucher program.

The program was cheap and effective and allowed a great degree of personal choice in schooling for the parents of these children. The program's only problem is that is was a small experimental program. It should have been extened to cover as many students as possible.

Perhaps it's different in DC. Where I live (Indiana) the folks who get vouchers can afford to pay for the kids' schooling but want the government to do it. The poor people aren't even considered. It's as though the powers that be look at economic status as equivalent to intelligence.

It's the economic version of "separate but equal".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Pineapple -  that is one

Pineapple -  that is one distracting avatar.  Damn my ADD

I do agree though, people can/should criticize the current pres. no matter what their political affiliation.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Sigh.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Sigh. Republicans...

Enjoying your teabagging parties, Jorg? Sticking out tongue

What on earth made you think I am Republican? I don't like one thing that Obama did. That doesn't make me a tea-party loving Republican. I genuinely think that Obama has sold out children for political reasons. And I don't like it. That doesn't make me a Republican shill.

Also, McCain likes voucher programs. But then maybe McCain was lying about vouchers as much as Obama was.

My view here is that the voucher system works and now needs to be expanded. The only problem with it is that it is so small. Start expanding it slowly and, if it keeps producing students that meet or beat public school students, keep expanding it until most or all students are eligable for the program. I don't get how trapping children in a broken school system is best for them. Shutting down an escape route isn't helping the children.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:jcgadfly

Jormungander wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lose the vouchers and the rich kids are under the bus. Keep them and the poor kids don't get a chance to get out from under it.

I think that you meant to reverse that. Poor kids benefit from vouchers. Keep them and poor kids get to go to expensive private schools.

I also don't think that letting poor kids into private schools is throwing rich kids under the bus. The poor kids only get in if they meet the schools' criteria for entrance. So the private schools are not degraded by this since all of the students still conform to the schools' standards for entry.

Tapey: a voucher system is one in which the money spent on a child's education can be spent at private schools as well as public schools. The way it is in almost every state is that a public school gets some amount of money per child who attends and a similar private school gets nothing per child from the government. In Washington D.C. they made an experimental voucher program that would spend about US$7,000 per year per child to let a test group of poor children go to private schools. They then tracked the children's progress and compared them to a control group of poor children that were not allowed into the voucher program. The program was very popular. For every child allowed into it, four were rejected. The children allowed in were selected by lottery to ensure that the program didn't have better students in it than ordinary public schools. For the children rejected from the program the government spent a little over US$24,000 per student per year to attend public schools (the same amount of money spent on any public school school student per year in D.C.). So it actually costs much more money to send children to the failing D.C. schools. Ironically, D.C. schools are among the best funded in the U.S. and have among the worst test scores and highest dropout rates. That is what promted this experiment to begin. And now Obama has ended it after it showed that students can be taught better for much less money on a voucher program.

The program was cheap and effective and allowed a great degree of personal choice in schooling for the parents of these children. The program's only problem is that is was a small experimental program. It should have been extened to cover as many students as possible.

Hmm from what little you have said, im in two minds. If it is used as a tempory measure while they improve the schools fine. But as a perminant thing no. It just wouldn'd be fixing the problem. Would imagen if the test sample was bigger the cost would go up aswell. 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A similar system has been

A similar system has been discussed in the UK (in fact the government paid for me to go to a private school here (cryptically in the UK we call private schools public ones).

Basically these schemes benefit the middle classes who care about their kids education which in theory sounds great but these parents/kids do well anyway. You are effectively saying state education is beyond hope and we will bail a few out (which is better than bailing noone) but hardly brings the best education to as many people as possible.

Its wrong for the same reason that universal health care is right. Once you have people who have no interest (ie not receiving any benefit) from a public service they will soon be saying why should I pay for it. Which is great if you are  libertarian (of as I prefer cult of the individual) but very bad for society as a whole


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
I don't know where all of

I don't know where all of you are located, but here voucher means you get to go to a school where it is okay to talk about "faggots causing the country ruin" "trying to destroy marriage" "abortionists that hate life" and how best to look down on anyone else, while being forced to memorize bible verses as schoolwork.

 

Bible verse memorization was worth just as much as math, or science. I spent a year in a place like that.

 

 

Not to mention a lot of these schools do not actually /teach/ art or science objectively, and in fact don't teach much of it at all....they get books from christian publishers only that say some...very odd things.

 

 

The statue of David in my old art book has a diaper on.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I don't know

ClockCat wrote:

I don't know where all of you are located, but here voucher means you get to go to a school where it is okay to talk about "faggots causing the country ruin" "trying to destroy marriage" "abortionists that hate life" and how best to look down on anyone else, while being forced to memorize bible verses as schoolwork.

I don't know anything about your region's voucher system, but the D.C. one allowed very poor students to attend the most prestigious private schools in the area. Some of Obama's daughters' classmates can only afford to go to their school because of their vouchers. Of course they will now be removed from that school and be sent to the worst public school district in the U.S.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I don't know where all of you are located, but here voucher means you get to go to a school where it is okay to talk about "faggots causing the country ruin" "trying to destroy marriage" "abortionists that hate life" and how best to look down on anyone else, while being forced to memorize bible verses as schoolwork.

I don't know anything about your region's voucher system, but the D.C. one allowed very poor students to attend the most prestigious private schools in the area. Some of Obama's daughters' classmates can only afford to go to their school because of their vouchers. Of course they will now be removed from that school and be sent to the worst public school district in the U.S.

 

 

Private schools do not = religious schools in that area?

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen a private school that was not protestant or catholic, or some other branch of religion.

 

 

As far as I have seen apart from catholic schools, all the private schools offer a pathetic attempt at education compared to the public schools, as well as teaching bigotry and lies to the students because they have to teach from a "faith" perspective.

 

 

Then they get to go to a college like Bob Jones University and continue to learn nothing useful.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.