God Bless President Trump for deporting these criminals and lowering our prices.
- Thread starter Pitt666
- Start date
I didn't read it but I'm curious. Did the article discuss the flipping that has occurred the last 10 years on issues like freedom of speech, war vs peace, women's rights, etc.There's plenty of deep reads on topic but here's a brief summary. SMF is correct and it's not some secret.
The Great Switch: How Republicans and Democrats Flipped Ideologies
An overview of the realignment of the Republican Party and Democratic Party and how they flipped ideologies of liberal and conservative over the course of US History.www.studentsofhistory.com
I was 12 when LBJ was done. I wasn't into politics then.
But LBJ was a scumbag in hindsight.
I wouldn't say it's ass backwards. I am not sure what the roots are for our current system of each town having its taxpayers pay for the education of kids in that town. I'd assume our forefathers decided they wanted to make education decisions locally. And that's why I say any of these decisions should be made locally. If a school board, elected by the town's citizens, wants to pay for kids to go to school out of town, no one should tell them they can't do that. But I have a problem with a state or federal government coming in and MANDATING that taxpayers have to pay for tuition for a kid to go to school a few towns over. This is liberalism, really. You are trying to get other people to pay for your own tuition instead of paying yourself. There are many public school districts better than even the best of private schools. NA, PR, Hampton, Peters, USC, Lebo, etc are all probably better than any private school locally. Try explaining to those citizens that they have to pay for their neighbors to go to Central Catholic. The town provides an excellent schooling choice and if you don't like it, you are free to go elsewhere. But these folks want the state or federal government to step in and force their neighbors to pay. It's madness. And RUDE AF.
Yeah, big government Ron and his spiraling debt is the only thing he had in common your current daddy.
LBJ was scumbag iyo but a rapist felon pedophile is your hero. Makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
The first schools in America were Puritan to teach the Bible. Maybe we should have stuck with that.
I'm all for local and nothing more local than the family. They should have the choice of where their children get educated. As long as those families are forced to participate in the confiscation of some of their income for education, the amounts assigned to their children for education should be used as they choose for their children's education.
I get what you are saying. The Smiths pay 10K in school tax so they should be able to use that to go to St. Margaret's. I dont agree but I wouldn't be as upset with that as asking your neighbors to help pay for your kid's private education. Lets say you are a low-income renter who pays no property tax. Or maybe you have a really crummy house and pay very little property tax. Its really not right for your neighbors to pay for you when there is a free option.
I think what you aren't understanding is although you mention the 1st schools were Puritan, at some point, we moved to a town-based public system. I don't feel like looking up the history but my guess is that it was for 2 reasons:
1. Decisions made locally
2. Townsfolk saw the pooling together of tax dollars to fund a free to students public school as either an incentive to move to that town or simply as an asset to the town in that it creates an educated populace, and there was a feeling that having an educated populace would provide benefits for that town.
So what we have is a locally-based system for whatever reason. I am not opposed to other types of systems such as the European style where there generally are no school districts and tax dollars pay for you to attend any school you want. But your parents have to get you there.
But what you are asking for is to keep our current local system but ask the locals to pay to send your kid to a non-local school. That’s messed up. It hurts the local school. It hurts the town. Maybe your kid gets a better education at St. Margaret's and goes back and becomes the mayor and does great things for the town but isolated examples like this would be rare. If the school district is so bad that it is not a good option for your kid, then you should run for School Board, maybe as a block with other candidates with the platform of having your public school district pay the tuition of any kid who wants to go to a private school. But you won't win because nobody wants that. And you know why? Americans put a high value on local public education.
You want big government to overstep and come into your town and tell your neighbors to pay up. Big government is ok when you it benefits you.
I want big government to provide mandatory options rather than a mandatory monopoly.
Your solution of running for a school board in a bad district is ridiculous. Even school boards are tied into political patronage. Poor single moms just don't get elected.
You don't give a damn about those kids stuck in bad schools. You want them to be forever stuck with the stigma of a bad education from an uncompromising system that could so easily be different. I don' know why you're so afraid of competition for government schools.
Its not a monopoly. There's probably 10 different private school options depending on where you live in WPA. You just have to pay for it. You want big government to tell your local town that they have to pay for your kid because you don't want to.
My solution for running for school board is ridiculous because you wont win. But its basic Democracy. Let the local citizens decide it. If they want to elect a board who wants to use taxpayer funds for private school, that is pure democracy. But you guys don't believe in democracy. You want an autocrat to come in and tell everyone this is how its going to be because I said so.
As for kids in poor districts, I have said many times that I dont even really believe in school districts. I prefer the Euro style. Pick a school, any school. If your parents will drive you 80 miles round trip per day to that school, have at it. Some busing within reason. But if a kid in Clairton wants to go to a school in Wexford, great. What I dont like is you guys using poor black kids as the poster children for school choice. We aren't stupid. We know you dont care about those kids but you are using them by insinuating that they are going to be able to go to a Sewickley Academy for free now when in reality, those schools aren't going to accept more than a few token black kids and you'll get your free tuition. The Clairton kids will go to some new essentially all black private school with teachers making $12/hour that will spring up in town, probably run by con-men with 0 state or federal oversight.
Lol. This video further proves my point. Her arguments are a couple individualized examples. No one ever said that the Southern Strategy would win the Republicans every Southern state forever. She is using trickery as one of her points in saying Richard Nixon only won a couple southern states. You know why? Miraculously, famous racist and 3rd party candidate won 5 Southern states. Gee, I wonder why he was so popular down in Dixie? Do you realize how misleading it is to say the south isnt racist because a Republican didnt win it in 1968 without mentioning that the reason this was happened was because they went for one of the most famous racists of all time. Hubert Humphrey won WV but only because the racists split their vote. Humphrey received 6000 fewer votes than the total of Nixon and Wallace.
Thanks for this though.
Please don't tell me that I don't care about poor kids when it is YOU who is arguing in favor of a system that will keep them poor forever and it is I who is arguing for a system that will allow them to break the cycle.
I am arguing for getting rid of school districts and letting the kids go wherever they want. Do you agree with that?
I don't agree with keeping the current locally funded school district format but then mandating that taxpayers pay the tuition for kids to go to school out of town. You can't have both. Either get rid of school districts or keep them and not force people to pay your tuition elsewhere.
Who runs the schools without school districts?
You most certainly can have both, at least until the poorly run schools are forced to close due to too-many kids opting to get a real education elsewhere.
Covid, the crap education associated with most publics as well as the grooming and indoctrination has made home schooling more popular than ever. Seems like those parents should get a tax break as well
Yep. Home schoolers should have their school taxes eliminated.
The state. Think of it as how states do college. You can go to Pitt, PSU, IUP, Slippery Rock, etc. Or you can to a private school like Duquesne. The state gives you a set amount per year per kid and you pick the school you want to go. If you want to use that money to go to private school and pay the extra cost, fine. Again, very similar to college.
Also, answer this question. If in Kindergarten through 12th grade, all USC students were bussed to Clairton schools and all Clairton students were bussed to USC schools, whose standardized test scores would be better through the years? The terrible Clairton teachers would remain at Clairton teaching the kids of doctors and lawyers and the elite USC teachers stay at USC and teach the Clairton kids. The Clairton kids being taught by elite USC teachers for 13 years score higher than the doctor/lawyer kids correct?
Wow. You've suddenly switched from local control to state control. I would never support that.
I have no idea what your point is in the second paragraph.
I lived this on a micro level. We moved into a very nice subdivision when in the US that was within a very poor area with poorly performing schools. A pretty large influx of high earners into the school district.
Those schools then won awards for their improvements and achievements. My wife talked to the teachers and principal about this. They said yeah the extra funding helps but the main determinant is parent involvement.
And stuff like winter coats and shoes turning up at the school office to help some of the dirt poor kids. The principal remarked that the scores were improved for the poor kids too.
My kids became friends with many of these kids and I saw how they lived. It was awful.
Some have done well. One of these kids owns a business. A lot of tragedy though. It is scary how many of the kids that played in my yard are now dead. Mainly drug overdoses, and some by suicide or violence.
And this is the problem. Schools are assessed based on standardized test scores. The scores are exactly directly correlated to average household income levels in that school district. Like directly. The school choice proponents say the reason for this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that richer kids are going to have parents who take school more seriously than the parents of poorer kids and that the ONLY thing that determines child success is the quality of the teachers/curriculum. They'll tell you the rich schools have the best teachers and that's why the scores are high and the poor schools have the worst teachers. It's just not true. Your standardized test score is always going to be in a range of your parents' involvement and their education and intelligence level. If your parents are doctors, lawyers, or engineers, you are going to score higher, on the average than if your parents are fast food workers, maids, or cashiers. Not ALL the time. On the average.
There is no doubt that parenting is a major factor. That's exactly why the inadequacies of government schools and more strict rules about discipline in private schools is a factor in wanting school choice.
Do you believe in school choice for very high performing districts? Should your Mt. Lebanon next door neighbor pay to send your kid to Central Catholic?
Yes. I believe in school choice for every child/parent. Freedom (to choose) is a wonderful thing.
If the school is top-ranked, why do you want the government to tell your neighbor they have to pay for your kid when the local school is outstanding? How is this fair to your neighbor? How is this fair to the outstanding local school, who will lose resources and become less outstanding?
It is called freedom and freedom isn't always fair, despite governments and liberals attempts to create equity.
So Mt Lebo starts taking high performing students from outside the boundaries. Then there are no spots left for students living within the boundaries and they have to go to school elsewhere. Does Mt Lebo school to do DEI to benefit the less outstanding rich white kids in district?
SMF, my question here for you is how would I be asking my neighbor to pay to send my kid to CC when all I ask for is exemption from paying my school taxes so that I don't have to pay two schools? Not saying it's fair or not. I am jist curious as to your reasoning.
From the days of dems throwing hoods over their heads to intimidate black Americans away from the republican party that they founded. To Margaret Sanger shown on video that she wants to exterminate all black people. To putting her planned parenthood in low income neighborhoods (predominantly black) to entice them to use their civil rights and abortion their children. To LBJ saying he's gonna have those nighters voting democratic for next 200 years. To libs intimidating Jewish students throughout our universities and scared for their lives. To deep state libs intimidating Musk by burning multiple vehicles and vandalizing his dealerships. On and on and on. It's ALWAYS the left.
What if every kid at Clairton and StoRox and The Pittsburgh Public School System chooses to go to Mt Lebanon? My guess is a lot of school choice proponents in Mt Lebanon would change their stance on the matter. Most schools can’t accommodate school choice.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Was Kevin stallings great coach that just got a raw deal here?
- Latest: KennyHeisman8
-
-