Obama's radical idea teachers matter when it comes to education. Shocking

[geefloyd46]

For more on the GOP's war on knowing things. http://laborspains.blogspot.com/2012/06/obamas-radical-idea-teachers-matter.html

[link:

#!|

[mzteris]

1. but but but . . .

I thought Obama HATED teachers! and education! oh my!

[JDPriestly]

5. Might as well. He is not all that fond of teachers' unions.

He favors and promotes charter schools most of which don't have unions.

And charter schools without unions weaken schools that have unions.

Charter schools without teacher' unions weaken teachers' unions.

So, he may like the abstract idea of a teacher, but when it comes to the real flesh and blood needs of teachers including their need to work together as union members -- not so much.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

12. Never thought of it that way. Enlightening. nt

[mzteris]

13. how do you know he supports

charters without unions?

Did you know there are charters that are unionized? That in fact some charters were started by teachers unions?

There is s HUGE difference between the big box for profit corporations (may they rot in hell) that are trying to take over the promise that charters can bring and the independently run, parent, teacher, local non-profit organizations that are set up to do exactly what charters were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO DO.

The original idea was - and is - a very good one. What the Republicans, the rich, have done and are doing in order to line their pockets is despicable. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Charters are only as as good as the laws in the state make them be. Outlaw for-profits and strengthen the requirements.

[geefloyd46]

2. As it gets closer to the election...

I guess he's grown to see their value. That is the whole problem with US politics one side wants to execute them and the other side wants to strangle them slow. Now go vote....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Some think that his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has continued a policy of privatization.

Maybe they're wrong?

Or is it that privatization is good for the country?

[geefloyd46]

4. Trust me as someone who has experience privatization first hand

It is my experience. That public money disappears and goes into private piles of the politically well connected. It is never private business on its own that leads to corruption but the rot comes from the nexus of business and government. Unfortunately, too many Americans are so removed from their children's world that they're having the pocket picked right in front of them and they can't feel their wallet being lifted.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. I believe you. In pay-to-play States such as Illinois, money is paid but surreptitiously to those

in control. This is what got Blagojevich, and his predecessor Ryan, in trouble. What they did was not all that unusual in a pay-to-play State.

With privatization, the transfer of money to gain an unfair advantage can now be above board.

Honest and honorable teachers will not pay kick-backs to those in hiring positions to be hired. In the public sector, it is illegal to do so. It could lead to a bribery arrest and prosecution. In contrast, in the private sector, those in control can benefit to a greater extent because the persons paying-to-play will be less inhibited and will be limited only by their conscience and their resources.

[JDPriestly]

7. Privatization is destroying the country.

It is promoting class division, disparities in income and ruining the economy. Thanks to privatization, the rich take more and more and the poor get poorer and poorer and can afford less and less.

If we aren't careful, the streets will no longer be public easements but rather be privately owned, and the poor won't be permitted to walk on them.

Toll roads were common in the Middle Ages I have read.

Middle ages

A 14th century example (though not for a road) is Castle Loevestein in the Netherlands, which was built at a strategic point where 2 rivers meet, and charged tolls on boats sailing along the river.

Many modern European roads were originally constructed as toll roads in order to recoup the costs of construction. In 14th century England, some of the most heavily used roads were repaired with money raised from tolls by pavage grants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_road

Privatization is, in my opinion, a direct route to a replay of the Middle Ages. A successful, modern nation state is based on the concepts of fair taxes and sharing basic amenities like roads and schools and libraries, etc.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. You don't have to wait too long. In Chicago, the streets with parking meters are already effectively

own by a private company. "Owned" in the sense that they get to collect the profits from the parking meters. The streets are still public in the sense that the public pays for their upkeep.

In Indiana, the Republicans sold off one of their highways to a corporation in foreign country. The corporation collects the tolls.

[1monster]

8. How does privatization help public education? Especially when the goals of

privatizaton are profits and profits only?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. It, of course, doesn't.

When the Republicans and Arne Duncan support the privatization of schools, and we support the re-election of President Obama, I guess we are supposed to uncritically support privatizaton as well.

We need a motto. How about, "Let's all be lemmings."

[geefloyd46]

9. What I've seen of privitization

is that it is an attempt to undermine union contracts. Thus creating positions for younger, more inexperienced teachers who are largely throw away teachers. They are turning public education into the peace core in which teachers do a year or two before they go off into their career. What that indirectly sends the message is that their children really aren't to professional teachers who have to know very much. Instead you've got those at the top giving you a script to tell their children.