" IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN"
Said Erin Stewart, Board of Education member, when referring to the proposed School budget Increase however Mayor O'Brien's appointed finance board chairperson sees it the other way.
fs
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
It should not happen since we only graduate less then 60% of the student population.
Erin means well, but is only one vote. She will be outnumbered by the BOE, the Finance Board, the Democratic Council and the Socialist mayor.
Only 43% of Republicans bothered to vote. Blame them for the mess we are in. Mark Bernacki was an excellent candidate. There was no excuse for the 57% to not fulfill their duty and vote. Thanks alot!
Too bad that the property taxes on those who did not bother to vote would increase more than those who put an effort into their responsibilities.
School vouchers are the answer to the budget problem. Since the private schools cost only one third of the cost that the city pays for each student per year, for each student that opts to go to a private school the city would save 2/3 of the cost. The only reason we don't already have a system like this is that unions decide what school your child will go to and not the school board and certainly not the parent.
"School vouchers are the answer to the budget problem. Since the private schools cost only one third of the cost that the city pays for each student per year, for each student that opts to go to a private school the city would save 2/3 of the cost."
The commenter above should check the cost/year of some private schools.
The real question should be why does it cost 3 times as much for an inferior education at a city run school versus a private school?
What do they do with all that money?
This is a fact ----PRIVATE schoolscost 3 0r 4 times what it costs to send your child to public school.
People seem to make stupid comments and ten someone more stupid makesadditional stupid commentI suggest that you do some research on what you intend to complain.
$3000 per year at Pope John Paul II. Under $2000 per year at Sacred Heart.
Anonymous said...
$3000 per year at Pope John Paul II. Under $2000 per year at Sacred Heart.
.
.
Private schools run $2,000 to $3,000 while we pay over $13,000 per student per year in public school.
What do we get for triple the cost of a better private school?
Here is the current annual tuition schedule for Pope John Paul II school:
TUITION SCHEDULE
Grades K – 5
1 student: $2,950.00
2 students: $5,600.00
3 students: $8,250.00
Grades 6 – 8
1 student: $3,050.00
2 students: $5,800.00
3 students: $8,550.00
For this school to be 3 or 4 times the cost of city schools, annual tuition would need to be $39,000 to $52,000 per year per student, and you can see that the annual tuition is only $3,000 per year, about one forth of the cost per student for city schools. You could send 4 students to this school for the cost of one attending a city school.
So much for knowing what you are talking about before you post. Perhaps one of your earlier commenters who declared that private schools were 3 to 4 times the cost should practice what he preaches and know the facts before writing an erroneous post like that which is so easily disproven.
The question remains, with the cost at a city school being roughly four times that of a private school, what do they do with all that money???
When the "facts" aren't on your side just make stuff up. Liberal, pro-government employee, anti-business career pols love to confuse the public from the problems they cause and perpetuate.
Anonymous said...
When the "facts" aren't on your side just make stuff up. Liberal, pro-government employee, anti-business career pols love to confuse the public from the problems they cause and perpetuate.
LIBERALS WILL APPARENTLY TELL WHATEVER LIES THEY HAVE TO TO PROTECT THEIR PRECIOUS UNIONS EVEN IF IT MEANS SELLING OUT THE CHILDREN FOR THE SAKE OF THE UNION.
The NEA was the major force behind the creation of the US Department of Education. Their goal was and is to gain complete control over our education system. They will fight any and all initiatives they perceive as a threat to their power, not the least of which are school vouchers, and the Democrat Party will be right behind them endorsing their efforts.
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. private schools are no longer taught by NUNS or Priests. They are taught by individuals that canot get a job in public schools. If they were to get a job in public they would be earning twice what they now get.
Gramted , students get higher grades but private schoold take ONLY take the smarter kids (or good atheletAnd parents put their kids in private schools to keep the away from "not to desirable element" that goes to public schools.
...and the children suffer at the hands of Democrats protecting the flow of all that sleazy money from the unions to their campaign funds.
Part of the reason the "cost" of many catholic schools is low is because much of the operational expenses are picked up by the Church, it is an education that is heavily subsidized. Just because their 'tuition' is $3000 to $9000 does not mean that is how much they are per student on education - so your comparisons are faulty to begin with.
And when you say how much "better" private schools are you are also ignoring the fact that private schools only teach a small subset of the population. These students come from middle and upper class families, the majority of these families are two parent families, and in all of these families there is at least some emphasis on the importance of education. Look at this same group of students in the public schools and surprise, surprise, they do just as well (if not better). The second a private school is forced to take special needs students or to teach the general population their 'amazing performance' evaporates. Look at the charter schools in the south and this is apparent.
Not saying with don't need school reform or that we should be increasing our educational funding. But if you are going to make arguments at least make intelligent ones that aren't full of logical fallacies and inaccurate comparisons.
"Not saying with don't need school reform or that we should be increasing our educational funding. But if you are going to make arguments at least make intelligent ones that aren't full of logical fallacies and inaccurate comparisons."
The comment above is a direct quote from Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. Anonymous.
Talk about unintelligent comments; this one is chock full of statements not backed up by any proven, statistical data; in other words, b _ _ - s _ _ t. Tell us, what are "logical fallacies?" You must be a NB Administrator or NBFT Officer.
What a bunch of "non-arguments" (in other words total B.S.) to slam better private schools that operate at 1/2 to 1/4 of the cost of totally inferior city schools simply because you support unions that continue to bleed the pockets of the taxpayers.
Even when confronted with indisputable facts, you can't admit that private schools are superior and cost a fraction of the cost of crappy city schools.
I think liberals make arguments just to hear themselves argue!
Envy. Pure and simple. Classroom sizes at Pope John Paul is around 15-16 students per class. Isn't that the "goal" that these public education apologists keep promoting?
Teachers in private schools can't get a job in the public schools? Please. Have you talked to public school teachers? They don't like the system they are in either.
Teaching used to be a calling now, according to the liberals, it's for the money?
How about the teachers like my friend who brags she will never lift a finger to help a student and brags that the principal can kiss her fat ass if he thinks he can make her do anything whatsoever. She tells everyone she has tenure and is absolutely guaranteed her job for the rest of her life whether they like it or not and again if they don't like it, she offers them another chance to kiss her fat ass.
This is a fine example of the unionized tenured teachers who are influencing your children and mine!
"How about the teachers like my friend who brags she will never lift a finger to help a student and brags that the principal can kiss her fat ass if he thinks he can make her do anything whatsoever. She tells everyone she has tenure and is absolutely guaranteed her job for the rest of her life whether they like it or not and again if they don't like it, she offers them another chance to kiss her fat ass. This is a fine example of the unionized tenured teachers who are influencing your children and mine!"
Anecdotal evidence, not facts. That is like saying there is one bad cop so they are all bad. There are just as many stories of "bad" private school teachers as there are of "bad" public school teachers.
"Even when confronted with indisputable facts, you can't admit that private schools are superior and cost a fraction of the cost of crappy city schools."
The problem is your "indisputable facts" are easily disputed. In areas where charter/private schools service the larger community they have a failure rate that is as high, if not higher, than public schools. Want an example? Look to New Orleans that went with a predominantly charter/private school model following the flood.
Want another example closer to home? Look at the HALS Academy which out performs the private schools. Why? Because they only take the students they want.
Also, saying they "cost a fraction" is also fictitious. You are assuming that tuition is the only form of income that helps run a private school and you are comparing that to the lump sum of the public school budget. If you want an accurate figure go and request a full budget for a private school, be sure to add in money taken from grants, account for money and resources allocated by the Church to help run the school, and then compute a per pupil cost. Then again, that would be "work" and it's a lot easier to just spout off random bullshit online, so we can all guess which you'll actually do.
More socialist union propaganda from the union zealots!
If teachers at private schools are not doing their job, they simply get fired. Imagine that concept, actually firing someone who refuses to do his/her job instead of giving them the same raise as everyone else because his union contract guarantees it no matter how terrible an employee he/she is?
WHY DO LIBERALS SO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE FREEDOM OF CHOICE? WHETHER IT IS FORCING YOU TO BELONG TO A UNION YOU WOULD NEVER JOIN IN A MILLION YEARS OR FORCING YOU TO SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO AN INFERIOR SCHOOL YOU WOULD NEVER SELECT FOR YOUR CHILDREN ON YOUR OWN, LIBERALS ARE CLEARLY AGAINST ANY FORM OF FREEDOM. EVERY DECISION IN YOUR LIFE SHOULD BE MADE BY SOME GOVERNMENT DICTATOR.
If unions are so good, then why do people have to be forced to belong to them against their will by force of a state law?
And why in the 27 states where people are free to choose, is it extremely rare that anyone in their right mind ever chooses to freely belong to a union?
INDIANA (the newest "right-to-work" state where forced unionism is now illegal):
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - The state’s top education official reported Tuesday that the new school choice voucher program is off to a positive start.
State school Superintendent Tony Bennett told the governor's education roundtable Tuesday morning that his department followed an aggressive approach in launching the voucher program passed by state lawmakers earlier this year.
Saying "if a teacher at a private school isn't doing their job they just get fired" is idiotic. Teachers in the public school are fired for not doing their job when the administrators actually bother to pursue the matter. I notice the argument shifts from "private schools are better because of their scores" to "they are better because bad teachers can be fired." Do you know how rarely teachers in private schools are fired? Again, argue from ignorance and you prove you are merely ignorant.
That Indiana report is also hilarious because they just started the program and are already raving about it without having any long term data on the program. Again, whether or not you believe in voucher programs is completely separate from the notion of whether private schools are 'better'. Even with a voucher program in place the private schools get to self select their population. Give any principal the options of deciding which students they'll let in the door and watch the test scores rise. Sadly that is not an option afforded to public schools which, unlike private schools, have to take every student who shows up.
During my teaching career in CT public schools, I was "forced" to join three Teacher Associations (AKA, unions), the National, State and Local. I balked at that (refused) and was "forced" to pay what was called an "Agency Shop Fee" which was slightly less than the cost of the three memberships. The fee was assessed because though I was not a member of the three, I enjoyed the fruits of the "great" contracts that were negotiated.
Also, I forgot to tell you, I was not allowed to vote on whether to accept the contracts! Great, HUH?
Anonymous said...
During my teaching career in CT public schools, I was "forced" to join three Teacher Associations (AKA, unions), the National, State and Local. I balked at that (refused) and was "forced" to pay what was called an "Agency Shop Fee" which was slightly less than the cost of the three memberships. The fee was assessed because though I was not a member of the three, I enjoyed the fruits of the "great" contracts that were negotiated.
Also, I forgot to tell you, I was not allowed to vote on whether to accept the contracts! Great, HUH?
COMMUNISM, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. CONNECTICUT IS ANYTHING BUT A FREE STATE. WE ARE LIVING IN WHAT AMOUNTS TO A COMMUNIST STYLE DICTATORSHIP ANYTIME SOME RADICAL DICTATOR CAN FORCE YOU AGAINST YOUR WILL TO PAY DUES TO AN ASSOCIATION THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WISH TO BELONG TO. IMAGINE THE OUTCRY IF ONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS FOUND A WAY TO MANDATE THAT PEOPLE PAY DUES AGAINST THEIR WILL TO A PRO-BUSINESS GROUP LIKE THE CBIA OR THE RIGHT TO WORK FOUNDATION?
With regard to your benefiting from the contract, that is absolutely a falsehood spread by unions.
In a right to work state, you would not be subject to the contract unless you voluntarily joined the union. What the union and their members agreed to would have absolutely no bearing on you, and you would be free to negotiate your own deal with your employer and that would have no bearing on the union members. For example, the company would be free to pay you a much higher salary and better benefits than they pay the union thugs and that wouldn't even be any of their business that you have a much better deal as a reward for not belonging to their radical organization.
Your employer would also be barred from deducting union dues from your paycheck even if you authorized them to. If you really wanted to join the union, it would be up to you to voluntarily send in your dues payment on your own free will. No employer can ever deduct union dues from anyone's pay check in a free right to work state--maintaining the freedom of choice.
Once again, total freedom instead of being forced against your will.
With regard to your benefiting from the contract, that is absolutely a falsehood spread by unions.
In a right to work state, you would not be subject to the contract unless you voluntarily joined the union. What the union and their members agreed to would have absolutely no bearing on you, and you would be free to negotiate your own deal with your employer and that would have no bearing on the union members. For example, the company would be free to pay you a much higher salary and better benefits than they pay the union thugs and that wouldn't even be any of their business that you have a much better deal as a reward for not belonging to their radical organization.
Your employer would also be barred from deducting union dues from your paycheck even if you authorized them to. If you really wanted to join the union, it would be up to you to voluntarily send in your dues payment on your own free will. No employer can ever deduct union dues from anyone's pay check in a free right to work state--maintaining the freedom of choice.
Once again, total freedom instead of being forced against your will.
Unions simply protect incompetence, guaranteeing people who could never survive on their own by guaranteeing them the same pay as those who actually do their job well. No matter how well you do your job, you never get anything more than the most incompetent boob that can't even spell his own name.
Post a Comment