Betsy DeVos is Bad Mmmmkay ...you can help

[BigV]

What IS bad is the high-grading of the children in the neighborhoods for the primary goal of increasing private profit with public money.

I'm completely fine with private schools--run with private money. Religious schools, private money. Having public funds pay to teach *any* child that humans rode around on dinosaurs is wrong.

Back on topic, this DeVos character should be kept far, far away from the levers of power that control our educational system, such that they are. She's a dangerous ideologue. LOCAL CONTROL is her guiding star. On the surface, a good idea. But not to the exclusion of everything else, like federal laws and common fucking sense.

Let's go to the video tape!



DeVos says guns in schools... meh, I don't want to tell people what to do. JFC.

And she's unwilling to commit to not taking money away from public schools...

Originally Posted by Patty Murray asking Betsy DeVos answering

"Can you commit to us tonight that you will not work to privatize public schools or cut a single penny from public education?" asked Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat from Washington.

"I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you to talk about how we address the needs of all parents and all students," DeVos said. "We acknowledge today that not all schools are working for the students that are assigned to them. I'm hopeful that we can work together to find common ground and ways that we can solve those issues and empower parents to make choices on behalf of their children that are right for them."

The beat goes on and on and on. She's a hard core.. capitalist in the area of public education. She's consistently displayed attitudes similar to timber barons who surveyed the endless forests in the west and saw resources ripe for the picking. Don't regulate me, just keep making schoolkids for me to harvest money from.

Fuck Betsy DeVos.

(are we clear now tw?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm hopeful that we can work together to find common ground and ways that we can solve those issues and empower parents to make choices on behalf of their children that are right for them."

Parents all ready have the power to make the right choices for their children. They chose to be involved with their kids education or not. Unfortunately a lot of parents do nothing except push the kids out the door in the morning.



Here's the background on the family.

[Undertoad]

And she's unwilling to commit to not taking money away from public schools...

She has zero control over that but have fun storming the castle.

~

There's only one question I would like to ask your fellow Sec of Ed protesters, and that is, who was Obama's Sec of Ed?

The first one.

Don't look it up, you have 5 seconds, go.

[Undertoad]

I said don't look it up.


ETA: this is the snarkiest I get now and I still want to apologize. The point I make is unfair. Carry on

[tw]

So why is Amway not a Ponzi scheme?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

Charter schools that do not take every applicant should be banned.

They already are (in Texas at least).

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There's only one question I would like to ask your fellow Sec of Ed protesters, and that is, who was Obama's Sec of Ed?

You are correct in that Trump will do what he wants to anyway, but someone with different views might try to persuade him differently. Sitting in the room does have power, though significantly less with this admin, it's true.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

She has zero control over that but have fun storming the castle.

~
--snip

Ok, explain it to me then.

There's plenty of federal money in public schools. If the head of the department of education, from whence the money flows has "zero control" over that, then who the hell does? It's not Trump's job, right? DeVos would have to just ... accept that the money flows out, with no input in how it's allocated?

I'll cut you slack you denied everybody else, google the hell out of it. You're big on knowing names, let's hear one.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

snip--
There's only one question I would like to ask your fellow Sec of Ed protesters, and that is, who was Obama's Sec of Ed?

The first one.

Don't look it up, you have 5 seconds, go.

Yeah, I don't know the name.

What's your point?

You seem to be saying that my strong opinions against the current nominee are less valid because I failed your pop quiz.

But, I could be wrong, again. It's a well-traveled road to greater understanding. I'm looking forward to see where this road leads.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's because Obama's first Sec of Ed was a reasonable choice when nominated, not having a fascist background and all.

[Undertoad]

Via Wikipedia, "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

The Pres can request a budget, but it's up to Congress to actually pass one. They're the ones who actually decide what the budget is. They pass legislation that creates Programs, and then fund the Programs, and that goes to the Dept of Ed to oversee. The DoE doesn't actually decide to fund them or not.

~

But even then, the Programs are not "the schools", right? When we think of "the schools" we think of the money paying teachers and administrators, heating the buildings and whatnot. Most of that money comes from the states. (Around here, local property taxes)

At the link below, look up what Programs the Feds are funding in your own state. It's mostly Pell grants, Special Ed, and that sort of thing. Very little is direct grants to schools, and that is only in disadvantaged areas. (Seen the results, they need more money)

https://ed.gov/about/overview/budget...histbyst14.pdf

About 0.5B goes to schools in Washington State in the forms of various Federal Programs and Special Ed. Washington State spends over 21B on public education.

[Undertoad]

You seem to be saying that my strong opinions against the current nominee are less valid because I failed your pop quiz.

No no, the point I make with that is unfair. Your concerns are your own, and real, and I have absolutely no grounds to deny them.

It's the Next Trump Outrage ~ but I dunno. It's weak and it steals the air from bigger outrages.

And the entire campaign season 2016 was one outrage after another; result, President Trump. Outrages were at the least ineffective, at the most somehow worked in his favor.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The link doesn't work for me.

Are you saying everyone should wait for Trump to make a huge fuck up so the outrage will be more effective? What about the people who think this is the biggest fuck up on their list of concerns? I find it hard to believe any fuck up induced outrage will have any effect on Trump, the mid-terms in congress at best.

[Undertoad]

They will do what they like. But when they protest about the closing of the public schools, and the schools don't close? Trump electorate, which is not in their bubble, will notice the now-empty outrage, and vote to reelect. It's probably part of Trump's game, because he's playing this like it's game theory.

Not just my idea, here's Scott Adams, Democrat who noticed Trump's persuasion power. This paragraph will make you very angry, but...

You’re probably seeing the best persuasion you will ever see from a new president. Instead of dribbling out one headline at a time, so the vultures and critics can focus their fire, Trump has flooded the playing field. You don’t know where to aim your outrage. He’s creating so many opportunities for disagreement that it’s mentally exhausting. Literally. He’s wearing down the critics, replacing their specific complaints with entire encyclopedias of complaints. And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public?

He sure got a lot done.

Even if you don’t like it.

In only a few days, Trump has made us question what-the-hell every other president was doing during their first weeks in office. Were they even trying?

[xoxoxoBruce]

True, but I know a lot of Trump fans who are Yabuts. They have one or two things that they want Trump to do, and if I say maybe he will, but he's also likely to do x, y, and z. They say, yabut I don't care about that. They're also oblivious to the power of congress to make laws and collect/spend money.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They're also oblivious to the power of congress to make laws and collect/spend money.

Presidents generally have a 100 day honeymoon to do mostly what they want. The honeymoon exists. Question is whether this president will somehow subvert his honeymoon. He is not entirely liked by many Republican power brokers.