What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Betsy Devos....probably going to need her own thread. (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s said:
She is saying there is something very wrong with it. She’s the Sec of Ed. She’s criticizing teachers while being totally out of touch. 
Click to expand...
I am not defending her. I am pointing out her comments make no sense because they are mostly incorrect and that teaching that way isnt even a problem. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I am not defending her. I am pointing out her comments make no sense because they are mostly incorrect and that teaching that way isnt even a problem. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was early and I hadn't had my coffee yet. Although if there is a blackboard in the room, that school probably needs an update lol.

 
Ilov80s said:
Sorry, it was early and I hadn't had my coffee yet. Although if there is a blackboard in the room, that school probably needs an update lol.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wish teachers used more old school methods across the country. So while I get that if you are the only class using a blackboard still kids will scoff at it, but they shouldnt. We have tons of districts spending piles of money on technology yet teachers are spending out of their own pockets because a large % of the kids in the class don't have proper school supplies?

So yay! Look at our awesome classroom setup with our cool whiteboards and unique adjustable desks and web subscription to totallyawesomeonlinelearningcontent.com, oh, what's that? You don't have a notebook to write in or even a pen?

 
parasaurolophus said:
Sometimes I wish teachers used more old school methods across the country. So while I get that if you are the only class using a blackboard still kids will scoff at it, but they shouldnt. We have tons of districts spending piles of money on technology yet teachers are spending out of their own pockets because a large % of the kids in the class don't have proper school supplies?

So yay! Look at our awesome classroom setup with our cool whiteboards and unique adjustable desks and web subscription to totallyawesomeonlinelearningcontent.com, oh, what's that? You don't have a notebook to write in or even a pen?
Click to expand...
Agreed...which also makes the idea of arming teachers a ridiculous one.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Sometimes I wish teachers used more old school methods across the country. So while I get that if you are the only class using a blackboard still kids will scoff at it, but they shouldnt. We have tons of districts spending piles of money on technology yet teachers are spending out of their own pockets because a large % of the kids in the class don't have proper school supplies?

So yay! Look at our awesome classroom setup with our cool whiteboards and unique adjustable desks and web subscription to totallyawesomeonlinelearningcontent.com, oh, what's that? You don't have a notebook to write in or even a pen?
Click to expand...
I don't know. We got a big tech upgrade in the last couple years. Chromebooks for every kid in every class, short throw interactive projecter, document cameras, microphones, sound systems, etc. It instantly improved my teaching by a mile. Now I am tech savy. The district made the mistake I warned them- they are not spending enough time to train staff on how to use all the stuff. Old school methods work pretty well for math IMO, but in every other subject, teachers lecturing and writing notes on the board are basically just talking to themselves and are being rather inefficient with their class time. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Michigan schools are not doing better.
Click to expand...
Ofcourse not. There are a few different reasons (brain drain of educated people leaving State due to lack of employment opportunities) but also if you look at her ~20 years of influence, she has diverted millions and millions of dollars away from public schools and into for-profit charter schools. It should not be surprise that taking money away from public schools has hurt them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick Monahan‏Verified account @pattymo 16h16 hours ago

MAGA people are rushing to defend Betsy DeVos, who was ambushed by unfair gotcha questions like “Have you ever been in a cafeteria” and “What do you think schools do”

 
Once again, here's her track record:

Michigan has the highest number of for-profit charter schools in the nation, 
Click to expand...


 Students at these schools don’t perform as well as students at non-profit charter schools
Click to expand...


$1 billion of the public school budget goes to charter schools, and 140,000 children attend them. The report also stated that 61 percent of the 370 charter schools in Michigan were owned by for-profit companies
Click to expand...

 
Textbook GOP tactic at play here - appoint people who have no clue about what they are doing and then say "See! We told you government sucks!"

 
honky kong said:
Textbook GOP tactic at play here - appoint people who have no clue about what they are doing and then say "See! We told you government sucks!"
Click to expand...
Not sure if Reagan invented it, but he sure made it an artform.  It's now almost cliche for a R to appoint people to tear apart government.

 
honky kong said:
Textbook GOP tactic at play here - appoint people who have no clue about what they are doing and then say "See! We told you government sucks!"
Click to expand...
Devos has made her entire "career" out of trying to crush public schools so she was obviously the ideal choice to oversee them all. 

 
It's not surprising at all that the 60 Minutes interview didn't go well for her.  Despite this, it's also not surprising she was allowed to do it.

 
Hilts said:
She hasn't deliberately visited struggling public schools? Does this mean she's accidentally stumbled into some? 
Click to expand...
I think she is saying she’s been to schools but doesn’t really know if they were struggling or not. She’s only been orchestrating Michigan’s education system for 20 years and the country for a year, I am sure she will soon get around to visiting a struggling school very soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me that she'd want to visit a bunch of struggling public schools if only to be able to point to them and say "THIS is why we need to hire Blackwater to run my Amway-branded charter schools!"

 
Just shows how dumb some of these people are. Taking a billion a year out of public schools will make them better? I’d love to see how much money the charter school owners/shareholders have profited from this.

 
Joe Summer said:
It seems to me that she'd want to visit a bunch of struggling public schools if only to be able to point to them and say "THIS is why we need to hire Blackwater to run my Amway-branded charter schools!"
Click to expand...
:lmao:

I should find the link of the last time she thought it was a good idea to visit a school - and she was escorted away by her security detail....

BTW - since when does the Education Secretary need a protection detail?  

 
Ilov80s said:

Just shows how dumb some of these people are. Taking a billion a year out of public schools will make them better? I’d love to see how much money the charter school owners/shareholders have profited from this.
Click to expand...
It's the kind of downward-spiraly argument that Republicans love.

One of the core philosophies of conservatism is that "Government is not the solution". (See also: Reagan, Ronald.)

Therefore, when a government program fails, the obvious conservative answer is to take the taxpayer money from the government program and divert it to private enterprise.

So far, so good, right?

But when private enterprise fails at the exact same subject, conservatives would never consider the possibility that their core philosophy might be flawed...........so their answer is basically "We need MORE taxpayer money for private enterprise!"

It's the exact same argument that liberals make, but in reverse.

And the circular argument will just continue to infinity. Liberals will say "We need more government to solve this", just as conservatives will say "We need more private enterprise to solve this". Neither side wants to look at whether their solution is viable or efficient or successful.

 
Joe Summer said:
It's the kind of downward-spiraly argument that Republicans love.

One of the core philosophies of conservatism is that "Government is not the solution". (See also: Reagan, Ronald.)

Therefore, when a government program fails, the obvious conservative answer is to take the taxpayer money from the government program and divert it to private enterprise.

So far, so good, right?

But when private enterprise fails at the exact same subject, conservatives would never consider the possibility that their core philosophy might be flawed...........so their answer is basically "We need MORE taxpayer money for private enterprise!"

It's the exact same argument that liberals make, but in reverse.

And the circular argument will just continue to infinity. Liberals will say "We need more government to solve this", just as conservatives will say "We need more private enterprise to solve this". Neither side wants to look at whether their solution is viable or efficient or successful.
Click to expand...
This liberal doesn't necessarily think we need more government, I think we need better government. You know, by putting people in charge that know what the #### they're doing. 

 
For much of my adult life I was in favor of vouchers. I was a libertarian, and I read lots of libertarians like Tibor Machan, who argued, open up the marketplace! Make schools competitive with each other. Some close black friends of mine, otherwise liberal, were for the idea. They argued that blacks in inner cities wanted the chance to send their kids to better schools. It never occurred to them, or to me, to question why not improve the public schools they were currently attending. 

In any case over time my mind changed on this for two reasons. The first is that all attempts to set guidelines were defeated by the groups that pushed for the vouchers. They didn’t want the parochial schools being told by the government what should and what should not be taught. But they wanted my tax money to pay for tuitions for a school in which the taxpayer had no say as to the curriculum? Screw that. I don’t want to pay for teachers to tell kids that evolution doesn’t exist or that homosexuality isn’t evil or that abortion is immoral. If you want your kids to learn that, you pay for it. And of course, there is all the historical revisionism they teach as well. 

The second reason was that I was not aware of the historical context for vouchers. They go back to the civil rights movement. Private schools exploded after integration. But the people who went to them wanted the government to pay, or else they didn’t want to have to pay for public education. So vouchers were created. Are they racist? They’ll insist that they’re not, and they’ll show off the small number of minorities who are lucky enough to go to their otherwise white school. But meanwhile the funding for the inner city schools, where the bulk of minority students attend, is cut. Bad idea, no thanks. 

So I’ve come 180 on this. Vouchers are a bad idea. What we need is better teachers and more money for public education. 

 
Joe Summer said:
It's the kind of downward-spiraly argument that Republicans love.

One of the core philosophies of conservatism is that "Government is not the solution". (See also: Reagan, Ronald.)

Therefore, when a government program fails, the obvious conservative answer is to take the taxpayer money from the government program and divert it to private enterprise.

So far, so good, right?

But when private enterprise fails at the exact same subject, conservatives would never consider the possibility that their core philosophy might be flawed...........so their answer is basically "We need MORE taxpayer money for private enterprise!"

It's the exact same argument that liberals make, but in reverse.

And the circular argument will just continue to infinity. Liberals will say "We need more government to solve this", just as conservatives will say "We need more private enterprise to solve this". Neither side wants to look at whether their solution is viable or efficient or successful.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily think more government is the answer to all of our problems, but I do feel that the government is better suited to handle certain aspects of society (healthcare, education, infrastructure, military, etc...)  Other than riversco I think we all agree that government is necessary for a functioning society, but we disagree over how the departments/services are weighted.  Liberals like me would probably prefer more be spent on health services and education and less on "defense", while conservatives seem to want the opposite.  If a government program fails then we should look at ways to fix it, but just throwing more money at it or instantly assuming the private sector would be able to handle it better are both silly assumptions.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
964
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
2K
jm192
jm192
fantasycurse42
Dear GOP Voters
2 3
Replies
100
Views
4K
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top