Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday September 07 2015, @06:17AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:10AM (#233545)

    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

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:51AM (#233566) Homepage Journal

    I want a vibrant economy where EVERYONE succeeds.

    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.

    the hardest-working people in the USA make the least money

    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.

    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.

    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

      by mmarujo (347) on Tuesday September 08 2015, @04:06PM (#233815)

      [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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:28AM (#233574)

    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!