SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the public-money-for-private-profit dept.
Common Dreams reports
The Seattle Times reports that
The ruling--believed to be one of the first of its kind in the country--overturns the law [I-1240] voters narrowly approved in 2012 allowing publicly funded, but privately operated, schools.
Teacher and author Mercedes Schneider offers more on the Act:
As is true of charter schools nationwide, the charters in Washington State (up to the current ruling) were eligible for public funding diverted from traditional public schools. Charter schools were approved via a November 2012 ballot initiative (I-1240, the Charter Schools Act) in which charters were declared to be "common schools" despite their not being subject to local control and local accountability. And also like America's charters in general, Washington's charters are not under the authority of elected school boards.
Thus, Washington voters had approved to give public money to private entities--a one-way street that provided no means for such funds to overseen by the public.
[...] The new ruling (pdf)[1] states that charters, "devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operation", cannot be classified as "common schools," nor have "access to restricted common school funding."
[...] "The Supreme Court has affirmed what we've said all along--charter schools steal money from our existing classrooms, and voters have no say in how these charter schools spend taxpayer funding," said Kim Mead, president of the [Washington Education Association], in a statement.
"Instead of diverting taxpayer dollars to unaccountable charter schools, it's time for the Legislature to fully fund K-12 public schools so that all of Washington's children get the quality education the Constitution guarantees them," Mead continued.
The Associated Press reports that the state had one charter school last year, and eight more have opened in the past few weeks.
I pity Ms. Schneider's students if she routinely starts sentences with conjunctions--especially consecutive, redundant conjunctions.
[1] I had trouble with the connection.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 07 2015, @12:17PM
"The Public" is a handy fiction you lot have made up to justify tyranny over individuals; it does not exist except as a rhetorical construct used to exploit those who find themselves in one minority or another. The only rights are individual rights. The only good is the good of the individual. All else is theft, oppression, and exploitation of men and women who would otherwise be free.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by CyprusBlue on Monday September 07 2015, @05:16PM
Found the crazy
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 07 2015, @10:52PM
It was between your ears, wasn't it?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday September 07 2015, @05:16PM
"But its all for the greater good!"
"The greater gooooood"
"SHUT IT!"
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 07 2015, @08:22PM
Mighty Buzz: I have tried to explain this to you before. The INDIVIDUAL is a fiction. No man is an island. Robinson Crusoe was fiction. You would not be you without the "us" that educated you. Time to grow out of the Libertarian fantasies.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 07 2015, @10:52PM
Every bit of what I have has been paid for, so I owe nothing to "society", thank you very much. You don't get to take credit for anything the sweat of my brow has purchased either directly or with a temporary pit-stop in the form of cash. Ever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday September 07 2015, @11:01PM
Not what you "have", Buzz, what you "are"! That is what education gives you. But I guess I can see how we should try to ignore this in your case. Just saying.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 07 2015, @11:31PM
No, slappy, my education was paid for as well and, as I'm able to think for myself despite all the attempted programming, is not who I am. I can see how that would confuse you as you seem to have bought entirely in to the entirely liberal education cabal's party line and have never had a thought you could truly call your own.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 08 2015, @12:09AM
No, whippy, no one can have thoughts of their own, because thoughts are not property! Because if they are, and all the liberal cabals of teachers unions are sapping the virile man-strength out of all young persons, they are violating intellectual property rights! I strongly suspect that you did not actually pay the full cost, or for that matter, the full value of your education, if that is, any of it had stuck. And why would you pay to be brainwashed, and why would you be so proud of the fact that you did not get what you paid for? I am quite sure you could have just "thought for yourself" without any schooling at all. After all, my fellow philosopher Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". So I guess that would mean, if you are, and you paid for it, you can think whatever you want. Of course, as a programmer who avoided programming, you know what thoughts without discernment are, don't you? A program with no data? Not even to the point of garbage in!
I enjoy these little talks we have, Buzzard. I see that you do have an independent mind, and a desire to find the truth. So remember, you are not yet what you are, education is a never-ending process, and the first step to finding the truth is to admit that you might not have it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:39AM
What was paid was every penny asked of myself and my parents. If the state sold my education too low, that's their problem.
Why I'm proud? Simple, I don't owe anyone anything. That is the only way any free man should allow himself to live. I can turn a deaf ear to claims of you owe "society" this and "the community" that because I owe them nothing. Everything. Every last thing "society" has given me has been paid for by the state's own pricing. It means that every bit of wealth I create is by right mine and mine alone to dispose of however I choose.
Take this site, for instance. I'm not being paid cash money but I am getting fair exchange for my time. What I get in return for my work is a site that I enjoy using and that continues to improve. The moment that stops, so does my effort. I'm not a socialist but I do recognize value outside monetary.
If we could set up schools that actually demanded excellence and let those not capable of achieving it fail, I would be happy to contribute more to the communal pot. A workforce educated to the best of their ability instead of to the lowest common denominator is in everyone's, including my own, best interest. What we have now, however, is a joke. We've gone in the past hundred years from teaching Greek and Latin in highschool to teaching remedial English in college.
Why? Greed of the masses. Idiot parents think their idiot children are as good as anyone else and throw a fit if they can't pass their primary education. Idiot adults, having passed through a pathetic primary education through no merit of their own, go to college instead of learning a trade as they should. When they graduate, they've likely burned hundreds of thousands of dollars and achieved nothing but a liberal indoctrination disguised as an education. They come out of college with no marketable skill, just a piece of paper saying "you might have to train this twat slightly less, maybe".
If they were allowed to fail in primary education and denied entrance to secondary education, they would have no choice but to take up a trade. Which would be better for themselves and everyone around them. More skilled workers would do what you and your lot try to achieve through minimum wage laws. It would make skilled labor less valuable for having more of it and unskilled labor more valuable for having less of it. Plumbers would no longer make sixty or eighty-thousand dollars a year more than Wal-Mart cashiers. The products of skilled labor would become cheaper as well, thus more easily afforded by unskilled laborers. Those who are currently in skilled labor shortage markets for the money would simply find another market with a shortage because they're quite obviously brighter than the average bulb.
Save education for those who can make use of it. We gain nothing either individually or collectively by a gas station attendant vaguely remembering some Shakespeare or Keats. A lawnmower repairman's life is not enriched in any way by being able to eventually solve a quadratic equation. Education, simply put, is worthless unless it is made use of and most people barely use anything past sixth grade for the rest of their lives.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:57AM
In other words, you have no idea what education is? Education is not for employment. That is "training". We can do that with animals or machines. Education is for minds. And failure is not an option. "From each, according to their ability; to each, according to their need."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:42PM
Thank you, quoting Marx is exactly what I wanted to hear. You're now easily dismissed as a thief whose creed is nothing but greed dressed up as philosophy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @01:51AM
It is not Marx, it is Proudhon. See? Education. Now you owe me, you freeloading libertarian sociopath!!!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 09 2015, @03:03AM
Second verse, same as the first... You're the sociopath here, slappy. Sociopaths do not feel empathy. Makes it easy to see it as perfectly okay to steal what they have not earned. Molon Labe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2015, @09:35PM
The downward spiral in which we now find ourselves had a strong inflection point with the rise of Margaret Thatcher.
"There is no such thing as society." [google.com]
Thatcher's legacy is one of a reduced quality of life for the vast majority.
Margaret Thatcher’s Criminal Legacy [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
Some of the hallmarks of Margaret Thatcher’s 11 year tenure [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [nbcnews.com]
Earth has more than enough to go around.
The sticking point is GREED.
...and the giant inflection point in the other direction came when 15 million USAians were put to work by FDR on the public payroll and they rebuild/expanded USA's infrastructure.
Social democracies are a huge success where they exist.
tyranny over individuals
Oligarchy is not Democracy.
...and anyone who votes Republican is voting for disempowerment of the individual (illegal purging of voter rolls; reduced numbers of polling places; IDs required at the polls; etc.).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 07 2015, @10:49PM
FTFY. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats as far as wanting to take away your liberties is the Democrats have made it a key part of their platform whereas the Republicans at least try to hide it.
Glad we agree. Or almost. You seem to think greed is just fine if it's bottom-up. The desire for something you haven't earned is evil no matter what your current net worth.
Really? I've yet to see one truly prosper. Yes, this includes the countries of Europe's fjord-riddled wang. They've been at it for around half a century and it's caused them nothing but decay of their societies and economies. They actually believe it immoral to be proud of your own hard-won accomplishments, if you can believe something as insane as that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:10AM
The only difference
You made me smile.
greed is just fine if it's bottom-up
I didn't mention it in the GP post but I have pointed out in another post in this thread and repeatedly at this site that USA had 5 decades of prosperity before Thatcherism/Reaganism.
Before that period of prosperity / general egalitarianism, we had a decade of Republicanism which ended in a market crash and a Great Depression.
The solution to that major downturn was JOBS.
When the Capitalists weren't hiring, FDR found work on the public infrastructure[1] for millions and paid for that out of the excess wealth of the uber-rich (a 94 percent marginal tax on incomes over what would be a quarter $million these days).
These days, as a practical matter, that excess wealth isn't taxed at all and is used instead by the uber-rich to manipulate / buy up the system.
..and, no, you and Joe "the Plummer" are not in that economic class.
("Joe" is a puffed-up fool who was just starting his apprenticeship--which he never finished.)
We also had a viable system of tariffs that kept good-paying jobs here.
My position is not one of advocating hand-outs.
I want a vibrant economy where EVERYONE succeeds.
(Ronald Reagan's dad was a drunk but FDR found him a job so that Ronnie's family wouldn't starve.)
We had a working model.
Let's return to that.
[1] Have you seen our public infrastructure these days?
...and with interest rates at historic lows, it's an ideal time to do this.
Social democracies [don't] truly prosper
In Denmark no one earns less than $20/hr--and they didn't have to mandate anything to get there.
USAian elites are simply greedy beyond compare.
...and USAian Capitalists and politicians don't understand The Multiplier Effect at all.
hard-won accomplishments
It is dishonest not to acknowledge that the hardest-working people in the USA make the least money and are the most exploited.
The other day, a Soylentil mentioned that he is a self-employed contractor who is very prosperous.
Another Soylentil noted that for every 1 such success story there are 100 more instances where someone did all the same preparation and didn't get the same outcome.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:51AM
Want whatever you like. What you'll get if you have your way though is equality of poverty. The very rich simply will not pay. They will leave and take all that capital with them to a nation that does not want to steal what they have rightfully earned from them.
There's a reason for this. They're stupid as fucking rocks. If they weren't, they would be doing something where they had easier work and got paid more. You know, something that actually takes skill. They're not exploited, they're morons.
You should wash those numbers after you pull them out of your ass. That's unsanitary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by mmarujo on Tuesday September 08 2015, @04:06PM
[quote] The very rich simply will not pay. They will leave and take all that capital with them to a nation that does not want to steal what they have rightfully earned from them.[/quote]
Can we please stop this misinformation from spreading? The only reason the very rich exist is because of the rest of "us". Nobody get rich alone in a deserted island. There is no money outside civilization.
This kind of fear has corrupted too many people, already. It is FALSE!
So, you're the richest man in the world, own trillions of dollars in money, and companies and property.
First, if you are gonna leave the country, how do you intend to take you property with you?
Ok, so you won't be taking your ranch/beach house with you, but you are taking your companies. What's the difference anyway? Is there any multinational corporation that has a "home country"? For the most part they have already moved.
The only thing left is your money in the bank. Witch is just some numbers in a computer somewhere. If "we the people" had any balls, we'd just ignore "you" and "you" would become powerless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:28AM
Oh, come on. 5 decades of prosperity before Reagan?
Seriously?
Ask someone who actually lived through the seventies how prosperous that time was. Ask someone who actually lived through the seventies about the oil crisis, the Bretton-Woods breakdown, the frustrations with the US (and international) economy, and how much of that blame Carter took for promising to fix it and doing nothing effective. Why the hell do you think Reagan's Morning in America idea had such appeal?
And as for Thatcher, she took over the reins of power in the Miserable Britain which had produced the punks. The punk movement. Remember those? The enraged, the disenfranchised, the disgusted no-hopers who didn't even think that the dreams of the hippies held anything for them?
Go ahead and hold up the market crash, the fact is that the USA was richer during and after the crash than before Reagan took office. I know, because I was alive and paying attention at the time, this isn't abstract ideology from some website, this was the plain and simple reality.
As for FDR, you should be more careful which examples you pick. He didn't do much to fix the economy, and did a lot to harm it. What fixed the economy was the strains of WWII, and subsequently the massive advances in technology which followed, thereby driving huge gains in productivity.
Sorry, you just blew any economic credibility you ever had. Go back, learn what really happened, and try again.
Furrfu!