| Bilge_Rat |
02-07-17 01:59 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 2464191)
In other news, Betsy DeVos has been confirmed as US Education Secretary...so that means she can advance 'Gods Kingdom' as she wishes, and the rest of the world gets the benefit of teachers leaving the US to teach elsewhere. :yep:
|
wait...let me understand this...you mean you actually fell for the Democratic party line that they voted against her because she is "incompetent"...:ping:
This is politics, pure and simple. DeVos is an advocate of Charter schools.
According to pretty much all objective studies, Charter schools provide a better education than public schools.
Teacher's unions hate Charter schools since they are not unionized.
Let me repeat that:
Quote:
A 2013 study by Stanford University found that the typical Illinois charter pupil (most of them in Chicago) gained two weeks of additional learning in reading, and a month in maths, over their counterparts in traditional public schools. One city network of charters, Youth Connection, is credited with reducing Chicago’s dropout rate by 7% in a decade. Overall, however, the city’s public schools are in a sorry state: 51,000 out of 240,000 elementary-school pupils did not meet state reading standards in 2013.
Some will always argue that charters cream off the brighter children and leave sink schools, deprived of resources, behind. The teachers’ unions hate charter schools because they are non-unionised. So they remain a rarity nationwide, with only 5% of children enrolled in them. But a PDK/Gallup poll last year found that 70% of Americans support them. Small wonder: a study of charter high schools in Florida found that they boosted pupils’ earning power in later life by more than 10%.
Intriguingly, alongside the growth in popularity of charter schools, support is weakening for the sorts of restrictive labour rules that have long been demanded by teachers’ unions in public schools. A survey in 2013 by the Chicago Tribune and the Joyce Foundation found that locals want good teachers to be paid more and the least effective to be shown the door. Almost half of them thought teachers should not even be allowed to strike. Most also wanted it to be easier for charters to expand, especially in areas with bad schools.
|
http://www.economist.com/news/united...killing-golden
The Teacher's Union and other similar Unions give major political contributions, where do you think that money goes?
Quote:
By the numbers: Teachers union political contributions in 2016
Political contributions hit a high in 2016, where donations hit $33.2 million. Of the money that went to politicians directly, 93 percent went to Democrats.
The top three contributors (including money to candidates, parties and outside groups) were:
The National Education Association ($23.7 million)
American Federation of Teachers ($8.8 million)
AFT Solidarity ($425,000)
The three top recipients of direct donations were:
Hillary Clinton ($147,801)
Former Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau ($36,790)
Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif. ($35,000)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. ($29,756)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. ($26,500)
Total contributions to Congress given by teachers unions:
$2,176,523 to House Democrats
$138,786 to Senate Democrats
$199,664 to House Republicans
$13,195 to Senate Republicans
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...s-in-2016.html
The Teacher's Unions hate Charter schools because they are not unionized, so teachers who are incompetent might actually be fired. This has nothing to do with education.
If you are going to comment on U.S. politics, at least get a basic knowledge of what is really going on....and it is usually about money...on both sides. Don't let the rhetoric fool you. :ping:
This is politics, pure and simple. |
