OT: How one School District got rid of the Greedy Teachers Union

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on December 22, 2013 - 1:06pm

Submitted by svelte on December 22, 2013 - 5:45pm.

There is no Douglas County in California. The Douglas County being discussed is in Colorado.

So I looked it up. It contains Highlands Ranch (home of the most recent school shooter) and is just north of Colorado Springs - one of the most religious communities I've seen in quite awhile based on my experience with residents there.

That got me suspicious that the real reason for the vouchers was to fund religious teaching - so I did some Google searches and it appears the ACLU agrees with me:


The ACLU said Thursday the program, called the Choice Scholarship Program, violates the state constitution because it provides money to religious schools.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/loc...

If you want to teach your kids about your religion, do it on your own dime. Not my tax dollars.

Submitted by CA renter on December 22, 2013 - 6:17pm.

Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you'd like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you'd like. But you can't do it on the taxpayer's dime.

Submitted by paramount on December 22, 2013 - 7:51pm.

CA renter wrote:
But you can't do it on the taxpayer's dime.

I don't want to teach any of those things on the taxpayers dime, just mine. Refund my confiscatory school tax dollars that fuels the religion of the secular-progressive , so I can use that money to send my kids where I want.

"And I definitely don’t get the idea that low-income families should be the only ones who can’t make the choice to seek out a better school. Remember, parents with resources have fled for the suburbs or townships for decades. Families of means have flocked to private schools for generations."

Submitted by njtosd on December 22, 2013 - 8:21pm.

Would you suggest, paramount, that people who don't have children would not have to pay taxes to support schools? And if they do, why don't they get a choice about where the money gets spent?

Submitted by svelte on December 23, 2013 - 7:52am.

paramount wrote:
CA renter wrote:
But you can't do it on the taxpayer's dime.

I don't want to teach any of those things on the taxpayers dime, just mine. Refund my confiscatory school tax dollars that fuels the religion of the secular-progressive , so I can use that money to send my kids where I want.

Personally, I don't use churches.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

I think churches should have to pay their fair share like the rest of us. You want a refund of your unused dollars in schools? I want infrastructure usage fees on churches.

Submitted by paramount on December 23, 2013 - 12:33pm.

svelte wrote:
.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

That's a myth, churches do pay taxes.

Submitted by an on December 23, 2013 - 2:29pm.

CA renter wrote:
Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you'd like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you'd like. But you can't do it on the taxpayer's dime.
oh really... so, can I take the $ the government would spend on my kids in public school and use it to pay for part of the tuition at La Jolla Country Day/Bishops/etc? Or how about using that money to send my kids to the many other private schools that doesn't have any religious affiliation?

Submitted by njtosd on December 23, 2013 - 5:37pm.

AN wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you'd like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you'd like. But you can't do it on the taxpayer's dime.
oh really... so, can I take the $ the government would spend on my kids in public school and use it to pay for part of the tuition at La Jolla Country Day/Bishops/etc? Or how about using that money to send my kids to the many other private schools that doesn't have any religious affiliation?

Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn't get you very far - maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.

Submitted by SK in CV on December 23, 2013 - 5:37pm.

paramount wrote:
svelte wrote:
.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

That's a myth, churches do pay taxes.

In some places they pay property taxes. They don't pay income taxes. But worse than that, not only are their profits (or more appropriately, collections over expenses) tax free, contributions are deductible, so it's a double tax bonus. Estimates range as high as $71 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies to churches.

Submitted by an on December 24, 2013 - 12:06am.

njtosd wrote:
Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn't get you very far - maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.
You should seriously reread my post and CAR's post that I was responding to again. Just in case you still don't see it after rereading, I'll point it out to you. CAR's statement was that parents do have choice, and I call BS. Maybe some might be fine with the status quo faux choice. I wouldn't call that much of a choice. I'm fully aware of the status quo and I don't expect any change to happen, at least not in CA. I just like to point out the faux choice that some love point out.

What make you think the other contributors would want to lock the kids into worse schools. I bet you that if you take a poll today and ask if kids should be sent to LJCD school or Hoover HS, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority would say LJCD. Why wouldn't anyone want the kids of next generation to have the absolute best education possible?

Submitted by Coronita on December 24, 2013 - 5:34am.

SK in CV wrote:
paramount wrote:
svelte wrote:
.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

That's a myth, churches do pay taxes.

In some places they pay property taxes. They don't pay income taxes. But worse than that, not only are their profits (or more appropriately, collections over expenses) tax free, contributions are deductible, so it's a double tax bonus. Estimates range as high as $71 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies to churches.

Note to self. Start the church of flu.

Submitted by svelte on December 24, 2013 - 8:50am.

paramount wrote:
svelte wrote:
.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

That's a myth, churches do pay taxes.

Myth my ass.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub4...

states:

California property tax laws provide for three exemptions that may be claimed on church property:

- The church exemption, for property that is owned, leased, or rented by a religious organization and used exclusively for religious worship services.

- The religious exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for religious worship services, and certain school activities. The exemption may also apply to leased personal property.

- The welfare exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for one or more of the above activities with any other religious activities. The exemption may also apply to leased property if both the lessor and lessee qualify.

Submitted by CA renter on December 25, 2013 - 2:50am.

AN wrote:
njtosd wrote:
Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn't get you very far - maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.
You should seriously reread my post and CAR's post that I was responding to again. Just in case you still don't see it after rereading, I'll point it out to you. CAR's statement was that parents do have choice, and I call BS. Maybe some might be fine with the status quo faux choice. I wouldn't call that much of a choice. I'm fully aware of the status quo and I don't expect any change to happen, at least not in CA. I just like to point out the faux choice that some love point out.

What make you think the other contributors would want to lock the kids into worse schools. I bet you that if you take a poll today and ask if kids should be sent to LJCD school or Hoover HS, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority would say LJCD. Why wouldn't anyone want the kids of next generation to have the absolute best education possible?

You have an incredible amount of freedom where education is concerned, but you don't have that freedom at the taxpayer's expense. We ALL pay taxes for things we don't like and/or don't use. That is the price we ALL pay for living in a civilized democracy.

We homeschool and get NO public funding, subsidies, or support of any kind (some can get public funding if they HS through a public school or publicly-funded private charter). I'm willing to bet that we pay some of the highest property taxes (the primary funding source for public schools) in the county, relatively speaking. We're not asking for "our" money back, in the same way that the senior citizens or childless people can't ask for their prop tax money to be returned. And people who never use parks or libraries, etc. don't get to ask for their tax money to be returned, either.

California has some of the most liberal laws WRT schooling and/or homeschooling. You can pretty much do whatever you want. You can replicate the LJCD education at home, if you wish. You can hire private tutors, or take your kids around the world, or do pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it on the taxpayer dime? No, but why should you be able to do so? Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.

Submitted by an on December 26, 2013 - 12:21pm.

CA renter wrote:
You have an incredible amount of freedom where education is concerned, but you don't have that freedom at the taxpayer's expense. We ALL pay taxes for things we don't like and/or don't use. That is the price we ALL pay for living in a civilized democracy.

We homeschool and get NO public funding, subsidies, or support of any kind (some can get public funding if they HS through a public school or publicly-funded private charter). I'm willing to bet that we pay some of the highest property taxes (the primary funding source for public schools) in the county, relatively speaking. We're not asking for "our" money back, in the same way that the senior citizens or childless people can't ask for their prop tax money to be returned. And people who never use parks or libraries, etc. don't get to ask for their tax money to be returned, either.

California has some of the most liberal laws WRT schooling and/or homeschooling. You can pretty much do whatever you want. You can replicate the LJCD education at home, if you wish. You can hire private tutors, or take your kids around the world, or do pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it on the taxpayer dime? No, but why should you be able to do so? Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.

Thanks for proving my point that there is very little choice in our current system. You fail to see that the freedom you're talking about is strictly reserved for the rich. The dual income middle class and below do not have the same freedom you described.

I've never said anything about getting my tax dollar back. I just want every kid to have the same opportunity whether you're rich or poor. Which is why I take huge offense to your claim that we all have a lot of choices and freedom. It's easier for those who are rich to say that we do, because they can afford those freedom.

As for California school, again, we CANNOT do whatever we want. Only the rich can do whatever they want because they can afford it. Those who are not rich, well, you're SOL.

The key objection from me is your statement that we all have a lot of choice and not that I want my tax dollar back. FYI, I'm fully aware of the status quo and I've accepted that. That doesn't mean I have to accept the lies that all parents have a lot of choice in where to send their kids to school.

I want my tax dollar to educate all the kids with the best school, be it private or public. I want all kids to have that opportunity, not just the rich. I'm not asking for higher taxes to do it. I just want parents to have the choice, and not be stuck with no choice due to their economic status.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 26, 2013 - 2:39pm.

Money brings choices.

Submitted by an on December 26, 2013 - 5:59pm.

6packscaredy wrote:
Money brings choices.

yep, status quo.

Submitted by CA renter on December 26, 2013 - 11:22pm.

AN wrote:
CA renter wrote:
You have an incredible amount of freedom where education is concerned, but you don't have that freedom at the taxpayer's expense. We ALL pay taxes for things we don't like and/or don't use. That is the price we ALL pay for living in a civilized democracy.

We homeschool and get NO public funding, subsidies, or support of any kind (some can get public funding if they HS through a public school or publicly-funded private charter). I'm willing to bet that we pay some of the highest property taxes (the primary funding source for public schools) in the county, relatively speaking. We're not asking for "our" money back, in the same way that the senior citizens or childless people can't ask for their prop tax money to be returned. And people who never use parks or libraries, etc. don't get to ask for their tax money to be returned, either.

California has some of the most liberal laws WRT schooling and/or homeschooling. You can pretty much do whatever you want. You can replicate the LJCD education at home, if you wish. You can hire private tutors, or take your kids around the world, or do pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it on the taxpayer dime? No, but why should you be able to do so? Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.

Thanks for proving my point that there is very little choice in our current system. You fail to see that the freedom you're talking about is strictly reserved for the rich. The dual income middle class and below do not have the same freedom you described.

I've never said anything about getting my tax dollar back. I just want every kid to have the same opportunity whether you're rich or poor. Which is why I take huge offense to your claim that we all have a lot of choices and freedom. It's easier for those who are rich to say that we do, because they can afford those freedom.

As for California school, again, we CANNOT do whatever we want. Only the rich can do whatever they want because they can afford it. Those who are not rich, well, you're SOL.

The key objection from me is your statement that we all have a lot of choice and not that I want my tax dollar back. FYI, I'm fully aware of the status quo and I've accepted that. That doesn't mean I have to accept the lies that all parents have a lot of choice in where to send their kids to school.

I want my tax dollar to educate all the kids with the best school, be it private or public. I want all kids to have that opportunity, not just the rich. I'm not asking for higher taxes to do it. I just want parents to have the choice, and not be stuck with no choice due to their economic status.

Welcome to reality. This is the case for almost everything. Rich people get to eat better food, get better healthcare, get better deals and discounts (even though they're the ones who need them least), take longer and better vacations, drive nicer cars, live in nicer houses, wear nicer clothing, etc. Rich people get to send their kids to more prestigious universities where their kids will make better connections with which they can improve their lot and the well-being of following generations. It's not fair, but it's reality. Gosh, AN, are you suggesting that we make sure we give every the same quality and quantity of goods and services, no matter who pays for them? Sounds like communism to me. ;)

And, in general, while rich people pay a much lower percentage of their income/wealth on taxes, they DO pay higher property taxes which is what funds the bulk of K-12 public education.

I know homeschoolers who are some of the poorest people around; but they believe that education is a priority, so they make tremendous sacrifices in order to give their kids a good education. Homeschooling is NOT just for the rich. Also, many religious private schools offer discounts. In California, we are very fortunate to have a wide array of choices...for all people. We have far more choices in education than we do in a lot of other things.

Submitted by an on December 27, 2013 - 12:06am.

CA renter wrote:
Welcome to reality. This is the case for almost everything. Rich people get to eat better food, get better healthcare, get better deals and discounts (even though they're the ones who need them least), take longer and better vacations, drive nicer cars, live in nicer houses, wear nicer clothing, etc. Rich people get to send their kids to more prestigious universities where their kids will make better connections with which they can improve their lot and the well-being of following generations. It's not fair, but it's reality. Gosh, AN, are you suggesting that we make sure we give every the same quality and quantity of goods and services, no matter who pays for them? Sounds like communism to me. ;)

And, in general, while rich people pay a much lower percentage of their income/wealth on taxes, they DO pay higher property taxes which is what funds the bulk of K-12 public education.

I know homeschoolers who are some of the poorest people around; but they believe that education is a priority, so they make tremendous sacrifices in order to give their kids a good education. Homeschooling is NOT just for the rich. Also, many religious private schools offer discounts. In California, we are very fortunate to have a wide array of choices...for all people. We have far more choices in education than we do in a lot of other things.

Of course it's a reality with the strength of the teacher's union in CA. We're gonna be stuck w/ the status quo for a very long time. I don't expect anything to change. Just pointing out your lies of the freedom and choices that you think we have. I'm the one who's fully aware of the reality. You're the one who seems to not see it.

I want our tax dollar to go further and do a better job at educating our kids, regardless of socio-economic status. To some, healthcare is important for all, to me, education is important for all. We are paying much more per child for public education than most of the private schools (in San Diego). I don't think we're getting our money's worth and I want the parents to have all the choices they want to best educate their kids. You seem to be satisfied with the status quo, I'm fully aware of that. But that's definitely not be.

Rich people pay a much lower percentage of their income/wealth on property taxes as well. But you seem to left out that point when it comes to property taxes compare to their income taxes. Why?

As to those poor home schoolers you know, that's great. But why do other people who don't want to or can't afford to live on 1 income have the same choice of giving their kids a better education? It great that you think home schooling is great. I don't. But that's JMHO. Sorry but CA don't have very much choices, AFAIK.

Submitted by paramount on December 27, 2013 - 1:32am.

Biggest problem in California: One Party Rule.

Submitted by CA renter on December 27, 2013 - 2:03am.

AN,

No, we do have the freedom, but if you don't want to make the sacrifices to make it happen, don't blame anyone else.

Regarding that "second income," all too often, the second income earner is working at a loss, especially if they are working for low wages. After taxes, clothing expenses, higher food expenses (like it or not, when both people work, they're more likely to eat out), higher transportation costs (gas, insurance, accelerated maintenance, accelerated car purchases, etc.), childcare expenses, etc...so many people are actually working for negative earnings, especially among those who are working for low wages to begin with.

And you need to re-check those numbers on private vs public schools. Most private schools that are equal to or better than comparable public schools cost more, not less. The reason public schools appear to cost more per capita is because they educate, feed, and care for the most expensive students (special education/learning disabled, socially/economically disadvantaged, ESL, etc.) and have far more resources than private schools do, especially for these students. Public schools also have more qualified teachers, on average, than private schools.

Good schools are good because of the parents whose children attend those schools. The parents have the greatest impact on how students (and schools) perform. If you want your kids to do well, nurture their curiosity and interests, read to them, take them to museums, talk to them about a variety of topics, etc. That is the #1 way to make a difference in your child's life...and it's all free, or nearly so.

Oh, and get them the hell away from those electronic babysitters!

Submitted by CA renter on December 27, 2013 - 1:44am.

paramount wrote:
Biggest problem in California: One Party Rule.

The Corporate/Finance Party is the only party that matters in this country, and they are behind most of our problems -- from deficits, debt bubbles, a disappearing middle class, falling wages and purchasing power, societal degradation -- the corporate/financial elite are behind all of it.

Submitted by an on December 27, 2013 - 2:32am.

CA renter wrote:
AN,

No, we do have the freedom, but if you don't want to make the sacrifices to make it happen, don't blame anyone else.

Regarding that "second income," all too often, the second income earner is working at a loss, especially if they are working for low wages. After taxes, clothing expenses, higher food expenses (like it or not, when both people work, they're more likely to eat out), higher transportation costs (gas, insurance, accelerated maintenance, accelerated car purchases, etc.), childcare expenses, etc...so many people are actually working for negative earnings, especially among those who are working for low wages to begin with.

And you need to re-check those numbers on private vs public schools. Most private schools that are equal to or better than comparable public schools cost more, not less. The reason public schools appear to cost more per capita is because they educate, feed, and care for the most expensive students (special education/learning disabled, socially/economically disadvantaged, ESL, etc.) and have far more resources than private schools do, especially for these students. Public schools also have more qualified teachers, on average, than private schools.

Good schools are good because of the parents whose children attend those schools. The parents have the greatest impact on how students (and schools) perform. If you want your kids to do well, nurture their curiosity and interests, read to them, take them to museums, talk to them about a variety of topics, etc. That is the #1 way to make a difference in your child's life...and it's all free, or nearly so.

Oh, and get them the hell away from those electronic babysitters!

Who said I'm not making sacrifices? However, that's besides the point. It doesn't matter what I do/sacrifice, I say it like it is. I don't see our system as having very many choices. I'm fully aware of your persuasion with the teachers union, so, I'm certain this conversation will go no where. Just stating it like how I see it, as a parent.

I would say the feminist movement will disagree with your assessment of second earner greatly. I'll leave that at that.

I've rechecked my numbers many times. Public schools in SDUSD are spending about $12-13k/student. There are a lot of private schools that are charging <$10k. Good Montessori schools that feed into LJCD/Bishops/etc. are charging $10k/student. So, yes it's much cheaper. Here's a kicker, even with less $ per student, the Montessori I'm referring to have a class size of 12 to 1 for 1-3rd grade and 20 to 1 there after. That's well bellow the class size of SDUSD schools. I'm hearing class sizes of 30-35 to 1 student to teacher ratio. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you have to deal w/ 2x as many students, you'll get much lower quality. I haven't even touched on the quality of the education. The kids in the montessori are taught Mandarin and Spanish from the Preschool level and continue through 6th grade. Then there are art/band/science/etc. So yeah, looking at the quality of the schools in SDUSD and then look at the many private schools out there, I don't buy that public schools are cheaper and better. If you truly believe that's the case, why not open up the voucher system and lets see what the parents/students will do. There's nothing to be afraid of if the public schools are really as good as you say it is.

Submitted by CA renter on December 27, 2013 - 3:30am.

Once again:

Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.

Submitted by Coronita on December 27, 2013 - 5:14am.

AN wrote:
CA renter wrote:
AN,

No, we do have the freedom, but if you don't want to make the sacrifices to make it happen, don't blame anyone else.

Regarding that "second income," all too often, the second income earner is working at a loss, especially if they are working for low wages. After taxes, clothing expenses, higher food expenses (like it or not, when both people work, they're more likely to eat out), higher transportation costs (gas, insurance, accelerated maintenance, accelerated car purchases, etc.), childcare expenses, etc...so many people are actually working for negative earnings, especially among those who are working for low wages to begin with.

And you need to re-check those numbers on private vs public schools. Most private schools that are equal to or better than comparable public schools cost more, not less. The reason public schools appear to cost more per capita is because they educate, feed, and care for the most expensive students (special education/learning disabled, socially/economically disadvantaged, ESL, etc.) and have far more resources than private schools do, especially for these students. Public schools also have more qualified teachers, on average, than private schools.

Good schools are good because of the parents whose children attend those schools. The parents have the greatest impact on how students (and schools) perform. If you want your kids to do well, nurture their curiosity and interests, read to them, take them to museums, talk to them about a variety of topics, etc. That is the #1 way to make a difference in your child's life...and it's all free, or nearly so.

Oh, and get them the hell away from those electronic babysitters!

Who said I'm not making sacrifices? However, that's besides the point. It doesn't matter what I do/sacrifice, I say it like it is. I don't see our system as having very many choices. I'm fully aware of your persuasion with the teachers union, so, I'm certain this conversation will go no where. Just stating it like how I see it, as a parent.

I would say the feminist movement will disagree with your assessment of second earner greatly. I'll leave that at that.

I've rechecked my numbers many times. Public schools in SDUSD are spending about $12-13k/student. There are a lot of private schools that are charging <$10k. Good Montessori schools that feed into LJCD/Bishops/etc. are charging $10k/student. So, yes it's much cheaper. Here's a kicker, even with less $ per student, the Montessori I'm referring to have a class size of 12 to 1 for 1-3rd grade and 20 to 1 there after. That's well bellow the class size of SDUSD schools. I'm hearing class sizes of 30-35 to 1 student to teacher ratio. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you have to deal w/ 2x as many students, you'll get much lower quality. I haven't even touched on the quality of the education. The kids in the montessori are taught Mandarin and Spanish from the Preschool level and continue through 6th grade. Then there are art/band/science/etc. So yeah, looking at the quality of the schools in SDUSD and then look at the many private schools out there, I don't buy that public schools are cheaper and better. If you truly believe that's the case, why not open up the voucher system and lets see what the parents/students will do. There's nothing to be afraid of if the public schools are really as good as you say it is.

Happy holidays an.

Submitted by all on December 27, 2013 - 9:15am.

AN wrote:
The kids in the montessori are taught Mandarin and Spanish from the Preschool level and continue through 6th grade. Then there are art/band/science/etc.

What about rainbow looming?

Submitted by an on December 27, 2013 - 10:02am.

CA renter wrote:
Once again:

Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.


once again, that's the status quo. I am fully aware of it. Some are fine with it and some are not. I want more choice for everyone and I want to make our tax dollar go further with more competition and choices. I know that will disrupt the status quo. I don't expect it to happen in CA.

Submitted by livinincali on December 27, 2013 - 9:52am.

CA renter wrote:
Public schools also have more qualified teachers, on average, than private schools.

I know one thing that public schools have a lot more of than private schools. Administrative staff. In SDUSD there's about 15,000 employees and only about 7,000-7,500 are actually class room teachers. I'm pretty sure you average private school doesn't have a one to one ratio of non teaching staff to teaching staff.

Submitted by paramount on December 27, 2013 - 12:00pm.

AN wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Once again:

Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else's) children to an education at a public school. That's all you're entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.


once again, that's the status quo. I am fully aware of it. Some are fine with it and some are not. I want more choice for everyone and I want to make our tax dollar go further with more competition and choices. I know that will disrupt the status quo. I don't expect it to happen in CA.

You're right it won't happen - the state assembly in California and the governor work exclusively for public employee unions/CTA. In fact, the CTA LITERALLY writes laws for themselves and then selects a state senator that WILL introduce and pass the measure.

In Sacramento this is known as 'sponsored legislation' or really they're a payoff.

Some examples:

http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Leg...

Submitted by jeff303 on December 27, 2013 - 1:23pm.

paramount wrote:

You're right it won't happen - the state assembly in California and the governor work exclusively for public employee unions/CTA. In fact, the CTA LITERALLY writes laws for themselves and then selects a state senator that WILL introduce and pass the measure.

Interesting, sounds a lot like ALEC.

Submitted by CA renter on December 27, 2013 - 4:53pm.

livinincali wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Public schools also have more qualified teachers, on average, than private schools.

I know one thing that public schools have a lot more of than private schools. Administrative staff. In SDUSD there's about 15,000 employees and only about 7,000-7,500 are actually class room teachers. I'm pretty sure you average private school doesn't have a one to one ratio of non teaching staff to teaching staff.

Definitely agree with this. Many public agencies are too top-heavy.

OTOH, the public schools often have a lot more staff because they handle higher-risk students who require a lot more resources.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.