The problem with Betsy DeVos isn’t that she is for school choice, its that she represents that far fringe of the school choice spectrum that thinks that we should be handing out vouchers so that you can use it to help pay for your kidschools that’s tuition at Sidwell Friends, Exeter and Choate. She wants to give parents the ability to spend their education vouchers at expressly religious schools where evolution is not a working theory, its just a hypothesis.
There are plenty of forces on the left that are turning their backs on the teachers unions and pushing for school choice in places with failed school systems. But its like using an experimental drug on a terminally ill patient, you take more chances there because the status quo is so bad.
Jesus Fucking Christ, you fucking retard. Point to me where in either of those posts I said “[my] objection was her lack of subject matter experience.” Fucking point to it.
You fucking can’t because I didn’t fucking say that, you simpleton.
I’m insulting you because you’re being fucking stupid. Read the fucking posts you’re replying to.
And if your next reply contains a bunch of stupid fucking “gotcha” questions about something I didn’t fucking say I will fucking plonk you.
Your comprehending to posting ratio is way too fucking low.
I think that republican policies are bad for the majority of Americans.
I think that republicans know that. (There are republicans who do not share this idea of putting their own interests above that of the rest of the country, but they are usually duped and go along with the rest.)
I think that republicans implement their policies, even though they know that they are bad for the country, because they are good for their friends and donors and party.
So, I don’t think that republicans are doing anything unusual in confirming the so-called education secretary, but are, as always, putting their own interests above those of the american public.
The same with Rick Perry for that one agency,… you know the one, I just can’t think of it right now… oops, or Jeff Sessions for AG, who is at least perceived by many in the african american community as being actively hostile to their very existence (the jury is out on exactly how racist he is, vs how much he simply lets other racists get away with things, but there is no way that any minority will feel that he will actually fight for their rights)
It’s an opinion shared by republicans too, it’s just they do not consider it relevant to their decisions.
Meh. I disagree. I think that charter schools can be a good idea or a bad idea, depending on the specifics of implementation. I agree with the four Supreme Court justices who found voucher programs unconstitutional, and think they’re also a terrible approach. I think that teachers’ unions can do ill, but on balance are a major force for good in education.
But these are issues on which principled people can have a reasonable disagreement. If you disagree with me on these issues, it doesn’t make you a bad person; you can disagree with me on them and still strongly value a publicly-funded education for all children.
If Trump had put forward Margaret Spellings or some other person I strongly disagreed with, I’d have rolled my eyes and whimpered inside and carried on. But he didn’t put forward someone with demonstrated competence or experience even tangentially related to the job (ferchrissake, running a major corporation would at least have had some relevance to running a major bureaucracy). He put forward someone with only two qualifications:
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.
[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
Because the DoE is in charge of protecting students with disabilities’ rights and she is on record believing that
a) States should be allowed to opt out of IDEA
b) Students that want to attend charter schools can be required to waive all legal rights under IDEA.
[/QUOTE]
Here in FL we already have a voucher system in place for students with disabilities (The McKay Scholarship). Parents can have the money their child is entitled to transferred to a private school. The problem is, most parents do not realize that they are waiving most of their child’s rights under IDEA. The private school is under no obligation to provide the same level of services the public schools are bound by. Parents get a rude awakening and often return to the public system where the schools are legally bound to comply with the services outlined in the IEP.
I was going to respond to this and then I remembered that there is literally no valid justification to even entertain doorhinge’s stupidity. Block, ignore, and tell him to fuck off. And don’t quote his stupid, stupid bullshit.
[QUOTE=raventhief]
Is that one she talked about in her hearing, saying it was great?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. She also mentioned another state program…Arkansas, maybe? I can’t remember.
My issue with private schools that are “Special Needs Schools” is that they aren’t able to provide enough interaction between disabled students and their typically developing same aged peers. A classroom of 15 students with severe autism is not going to be a hotbed of social interaction. The deficits in social skills and language impairment that so often accompany autism can’t be effectively addressed without some models of typical social skills and language. Under IDEA, the LRE is of utmost importance for that very reason. Disabled students are expected to be with their non-disabled peers to the fullest extent possible throughout the school day, even if that means just mainstreaming for PE, Art, Music, lunch, recess, etc.
IEPs are time intensive and costly to implement, but necessary. I am wondering what it would look like if each state could just decide what to do (or not do) with disabled kids.
I am curious as to how any alternative could be explained using objective evidence.
[/QUOTE]
If the country follows DeVos’s direction, religious education will be strengthened, and Republican campaign contributers will be enriched. The effect of voucher programs will be a small but significant increase in American income inequality. These are all objective facts that Republicans believe will help the country.
Another important effect of school degradation is impairment of critical thinking skills in future voters. Studies clearly show correlations between thinking skill and party preference so, again, it is an objective fact that degraded education will increase Republican political power, a clear good given the assumption that Republican political strength is good for the country.
Hahahaha. Whoops, I mean, it appears that your feelings seem to have been hurt. Perhaps if you limited your interactive internet experiences to those used exclusively by members in good standing of the Democrat Party, you would see your feathers ruffled less often.
“What I question in the specific case of DeVos is her competence, her background, her intelligence, and her experience: She’s a stupid, incompetent person who bought her way into a cabinet position without any qualifications at all.”
You are not talking about her background or qualifications in the subject matter?
I suppose that’s possible after all, you thought that being a lawyer and a partner at a law firm qualifies someone for the position. But I suspect that even if she was a partner at a law firm, you would have the same complaints about her and accuse the Republicans of putting party before country if she her practice wasn’t somehow related to education.
And ISTM that I am not the only person in this thread that thought you were talking about her subject matter experience. Are they all fucking retarded too?
No, you’re not. You are insulting me because you are embarassed and you are trying to cover your embarassment by insulting me and hoping that liberal solidarity will get others to join in.
The fact of the matter is that you and people like you are what is destroying liberalism today. The hyperbole and insistence that others agree with your hyperbole or “face your wrath” is driving moderate people into the arms of the enemy. The left would be better off without you and you little temper tantrums.
LOL, the fact that you think these are gotcha questions really says a lot about how hard it is for you to think. Which is funny, I always thought of economist as relatively smart. I will have to reconsider.
I comprehend just fine but I have trouble keeping up with your shifting goal posts.
Hahahaha. Damning by whom? Democrats? Progressives? The small minded people, like yourself, who are totally unaware of what the other side of an issue is thinking because they’ve fled to their personal “safe place” on the internet? Get well soon.
What I am talking about (and read this slowly so that you can understand it) is…her competence, her background, her intelligence, and her experience.
Jesus fucking Christ, you fucking retard, you are as bad at mind reading as you are at regular reading. Maybe you should stop ASSuming what I would have thought in the hypothetical case, hmmmmmm?
At least two of you are fucking retarded. Oh, I see **Doorhinge **is posting here. Three.
I’m insulting you because you’re stupid and annoying.
