Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
quote tweet doesn't show up in the comments to the person who tweeted but it is does make your criticism public.
RRISD superintendent assault investigation saga
- Thread starter Statalyzer
- Start date
quote tweet doesn't show up in the comments to the person who tweeted but it is does make your criticism public.
It sometimes draws them out because they DO get notice of the QRT...
They need to get rural Republicans to get on board. That has been the challenge for the last 20 years. The legislative momentum has also been a bit rudderless since the teacher unions went to war in the Republican primary in 2006 and took out Kent Grusendorf who was the big voucher bad-*** and champion.
It also hasn't helped that there's no Democratic support anymore. Twenty-five years ago, there was. Guys like Reps. Glenn Lewis (Fort Worth), Domingo Garcia (Dallas), and Ron Wilson (Houston) were willing to publicly support vouchers. Privately, Jesse Jones (Dallas) and Sylvester Turner (Houston) and Sens. Royce West (Dallas) and Rodney Ellis (Houston) were supportive or at least receptive. Other than West, those guys have all either retired or have been primaried and defeated by teacher union-backed candidates, and after seeing what happened to Lewis, Jones, and Garcia, I doubt West would go along now. In fact, Democrats will go to war to stop it. They'll pull every procedural tactic in the House and filibuster it in the Senate. The leadership will have to be prepared to suspend the 2/3 rule in the Senate, because there's no way in hell we'll get 21 votes.
Having said that, opposition to vouchers will probably soften in rural areas as the rabid wokeness becomes systemic in public education rather than something confined to urban schools and as that becomes more and more obvious. Maybe we're at that point now. I hope so.
(Side note - Kent Grusendorf was and is a great man, and his staff was even better. Back in 1999, I was told by my boss to learn everything there was to know about vouchers. I spent about an hour on the phone with his chief of staff - a guy named Byron Schlomach (who's sadly, an Aggie) who explained the issue like I had never heard it explained before or since. He absolutely eviscerated every ******** argument from the teacher unions - not with eloquence or persuasive prowess but merely by the methodical deployment of raw facts and evidence. Everything I know about vouchers came from that phone call, and it's when I really discovered that the anti-voucher argument is wholly dependent on fraud. In a reality-based world, it is completely indefensible.)
The answers will vary depending on the voucher plan's specifics, but here's how the Texas proposal from back in the day would have worked.
The parents of poor students in underperforming schools would have been given a voucher to send their children to the private school of their choice. Other programs are broader, but the Texas program was a pilot program designed to help a specific group of students. It isn't that Grusendorf wasn't for a broader program. He was, but he wanted to start off with a program that would be easiest to sell to the rest of the Legislature and to prioritize kids who needed it the most. Even though he was a pretty conservative lawmaker, there was a social justice element at play. He had special concern and sympathy for poor kids stuck in terrible schools, which is why it resonated with some black and Hispanic lawmakers who weren't whored out to the government school lobby.
The voucher did not consist of the entire school funding for that student. It left quite a bit of the funding with the public school (to account for fixed costs), which meant that the per-pupil funding for the public school actually increased.
Yes. And if the school was in the nearby area, public school buses would still provide transportation to that student.
Effectively, yes. The private school had to accept the voucher as full and final payment. Grusendorf didn't want the private schools to take the easy money and then gouge parents for whatever they could sucker out of them (like universities do with financial aid and student loans). That wouldn't have done anything for poor students.
Then the parent would have to find another school. Nobody was going to force private schools to expand their capacities.
By "the school," I assume you mean the private school. If so, yes. They were permitted to have their own disciplinary systems, which could include suspension and expulsion for bad behavior.
It's important to understand the point of vouchers. It isn't to save every kid. If a kid is a ****-up and has crappy, checked-out parents, vouchers aren't going to save that kid. The point is to help kids who are on the margins - kids whose parents do care but who are stuck in atrocious public schools. It's to reward those parents for caring and give their kids a chance at a real education rather than waiting on the school districts to suddenly get a conscience.
The parents of poor students in underperforming schools would have been given a voucher to send their children to the private school of their choice. Other programs are broader, but the Texas program was a pilot program designed to help a specific group of students. It isn't that Grusendorf wasn't for a broader program. He was, but he wanted to start off with a program that would be easiest to sell to the rest of the Legislature and to prioritize kids who needed it the most. Even though he was a pretty conservative lawmaker, there was a social justice element at play. He had special concern and sympathy for poor kids stuck in terrible schools, which is why it resonated with some black and Hispanic lawmakers who weren't whored out to the government school lobby.
The voucher did not consist of the entire school funding for that student. It left quite a bit of the funding with the public school (to account for fixed costs), which meant that the per-pupil funding for the public school actually increased.
Yes. And if the school was in the nearby area, public school buses would still provide transportation to that student.
Effectively, yes. The private school had to accept the voucher as full and final payment. Grusendorf didn't want the private schools to take the easy money and then gouge parents for whatever they could sucker out of them (like universities do with financial aid and student loans). That wouldn't have done anything for poor students.
Then the parent would have to find another school. Nobody was going to force private schools to expand their capacities.
By "the school," I assume you mean the private school. If so, yes. They were permitted to have their own disciplinary systems, which could include suspension and expulsion for bad behavior.
It's important to understand the point of vouchers. It isn't to save every kid. If a kid is a ****-up and has crappy, checked-out parents, vouchers aren't going to save that kid. The point is to help kids who are on the margins - kids whose parents do care but who are stuck in atrocious public schools. It's to reward those parents for caring and give their kids a chance at a real education rather than waiting on the school districts to suddenly get a conscience.
And since the legislature succumbed to infighting and petty BS politics, the issue has never advanced and many parents (sadly, mostly parents of some means) have turned to homeschooling instead of a voucher system. The voucher system still remains the best chance for the kids you describe - kids with parents who care but both have to work to get by, and who currently have no choice but to entrust thier children to horrible school districts.
I say this as the son of a public school educator of 38 years, the grandson of a public school educator of 35 years, and the husband of a schoolteacher of 25 years. Not all educators are worthless. Not all public schools are worthless. But every year, more and more of them fall further and further from the essential mission of teaching the kids.
They have done what you say they've done, but that isn't why vouchers haven't passed. They haven't passed for two reasons. First, there's a powerful lobby against them. We talk about teachers and they're definitely part of it, but it's really the entire public education machine which is a far less partisan enterprise than teachers are. It's administrators, school boards, and wealthy business interests that are in the sack with the public school system. Many of them lean Republican and on other issues, even lean conservative.
Second, school districts are the dominant economic force in many rural areas, and members from those areas (who are virtually all Republicans) believe that anything that undermines public education funding will massively damage their local economy and therefore their careers. That fear keeps them from getting on board.
Well, they haven't had a choice. Also, some voucher programs provider funding for homeschooling to varying degrees.
If the schools operated the way they did when your parent and certainly when your grandparent were teachers, there wouldn't be a serious voucher movement. Furthermore, homeschooling would be something that only weirdos did like it used to be. Nowadays, normal people do it because it's between that and letting a bunch of delusional freaks fill their child with ******** all day long while giving a crappy education in the 3 Rs.
And I hear you about your wife. Mrs. Deez is an educator and taught in the classroom for about 10 years. Frankly, being married to a schoolteacher is what made me sour on public education more than anything else. I was a little sour because I had to listen to so many of them complain when I worked for the Legislature. They were just incredibly self-centered. However, marrying one and hearing countless anecdotes about how unprofessional and self-centered they are in their professional lives drove the point home much further.
That's going to depend on the specific plan. Some would allow a simple transfer to another public school if that's what the parent chooses.
Depending on where that school is, yes. Obviously if you live in Round Rock but send your kid to a school in Dropping Springs, the bus isn't going to drive your kid out there.
I can't speak for what current plans do. I haven't read any of the bills in several years. Since I haven't lived in Texas since 2011 and didn't become a parent until 2014, I had little purpose in studying bills once I quit the Legislature, finished law school, and started doing the Work of the Lord. If the Legislature looks like it's going to actually move on a bill, I'll read it just out of curiosity. And as a homeschooler whose homestead is in Texas, I might be able to benefit from it if I'm reasonably clever.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
What a weird position. Lack of choice, where you must go only to where the dividing line boundaries say you must go, is clearly the more segregatory policy.
Most likely not. There's quite a bit of paranoia, because they are fed a lot of ******** by people who are trusted far more than they deserve to be. They think private schools will pop up (either on their own or as part of churches) and that parents will choose them over the more secular public schools. They think the private schools won't need as many teachers, administrators, and contractors and that they'll be much tighter with money than the school districts are. That would mean lower-paid jobs and fewer opportunities for the cousins of school board trustees to get rich.
Could that happen a little in areas where the public schools are particularly bad? I suppose, but I think it would be the exception, not the rule. I think the big cities would get hit the hardest. What parents in their right minds would send their kids to a Dallas ISD **** hole if they can choose a private school? That would be borderline child neglect.
I think suburbs would go through a bit of a sorting, and the schools would go off the deep end. Secular progressive parents would generally keep their kids in the public schools. I think religious parents who are currently in the public schools but are having to constantly be on alert for progressive lunacy and have to go to war with the school boards every few years would pull their kids out and never look back. That would mean there would be nobody to say "no" or tap the brakes on crazy ideas. It wouldn't be long before you'd have mandatory gay sex ed classes with dudes giving live demonstrations. Your eight-year-old would know what a man-train was, but he wouldn't know who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sounds crazy, but ten minutes ago, you would have been laughed at if you thought they'd bring in drag queens to do story time at libraries.
Last edited:
Seems to be our general school thread so WTF! I thought we elected the school boards to work for us?
New Jersey school board's lawyer says parents cannot 'dictate what their children are taught'
New Jersey school board's lawyer says parents cannot 'dictate what their children are taught'
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Mother of student thrown into wall speaks at Round Rock ISD school board meeting, wants apology for son | kvue.com
Mother of student thrown into wall by Texas teacher speaks at school board meeting
RRISD admin throws a kid into the wall for "disciplinary purposes". Mom tries to speak and is cut off by the board - only Weston wanted to let the mom speak further.
Meanwhile those who want to ignore the problems in RRISD are now lying and claiming that Story personally framed Azaiez, and that his sole reason for doing so is that Azaiez is a Muslim.
Mother of student thrown into wall by Texas teacher speaks at school board meeting
RRISD admin throws a kid into the wall for "disciplinary purposes". Mom tries to speak and is cut off by the board - only Weston wanted to let the mom speak further.
Meanwhile those who want to ignore the problems in RRISD are now lying and claiming that Story personally framed Azaiez, and that his sole reason for doing so is that Azaiez is a Muslim.
That's the big battle on public schools. The Left generally thinks that elite education "experts" (a field in which they dominate) should have the sole power to decide what children are taught. It's what sunk Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. The Right doesn't think that way.
I watched the video from Mother of student thrown into wall speaks at Round Rock ISD school board meeting, wants apology for son | kvue.com
Kid looks like a POS. I'm on the teachers' side. Why is a 15 year old allowed to run out of a room or fight? He punched the adult with the Lognhorn shirt after getting thrown back into the room. At that point, I'm okay with taking the kid down. The teacher showed restraint.
Kid looks like a POS. I'm on the teachers' side. Why is a 15 year old allowed to run out of a room or fight? He punched the adult with the Lognhorn shirt after getting thrown back into the room. At that point, I'm okay with taking the kid down. The teacher showed restraint.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
If you are an honest person, you will have to agree with several points.
- The video doesn't show what the student did to get himself removed from class
- Most of what the teachers did was fine even to the point of leading him away from the class physically.
- The VP threw the student into a wall violently hitting his head.
- After the VP attacked him the student got to his feet and put his fist back in striking position
- The student never punched the VP. He didn't follow through on any punch, but started the punching motion twice before stopping short.
- The student was a small lanky kid and the VP was taller, heavier, and stronger.
- The student was a minority.
- The Woke school board who claims to stand for transparency and diversity showed that they are liars and hypocrites.
I agree with points...
Complaints on problem students directed towards staff - not the students or parents - is a huge reason why teaching sucks and why there's a monster-sized teacher shortage.
- 1 entirety
- 2 because "most" is a subset of all
- 3 entirely
- 4 not at all because it's not an attack to stop someone
- 5 not at all from that video
- 6 entirely but not particularly relevant to the topic
- 7 same as six, but this is an even worse argument as it implies let eighth or ninth graders and above run the teachers
- 8 entirely that the school board should let the mother speak, but the school board wasn't part of my comments. I must be missing something about a report or cover up.
Complaints on problem students directed towards staff - not the students or parents - is a huge reason why teaching sucks and why there's a monster-sized teacher shortage.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The student never punched the video. That is what I meant about being dishonest. He simply didn't hit the VP.
When the VP grabs the kid and throws him into a wall hitting his head, that is an attack. He can restrain the student from leaving the room, but you are justifying disproportionate violence against a student who posed no threat at all to the VP.
Yes. The report filed did not mention the bad parts of the video and then the SI and Weir of the school board have protected the VP from any accountability.
When the VP grabs the kid and throws him into a wall hitting his head, that is an attack. He can restrain the student from leaving the room, but you are justifying disproportionate violence against a student who posed no threat at all to the VP.
Yes. The report filed did not mention the bad parts of the video and then the SI and Weir of the school board have protected the VP from any accountability.
You all are concerned with the merits, but is that really the point? This lady is a taxpayer and a parent, and her local officials treated her like garbage. To me, that is the real issue.
Citizens complain to their officials. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. However, the official and his or her office are expected to treat them with courtesy and respect even if they have to tell them they are mistaken and even if the constituent is pissed off. I knew that when I was just a 19 - 23-year-old twirp working as an aide for the Legislature. It wasn't always fun when they were mad, but you do it anyway.
Citizens complain to their officials. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. However, the official and his or her office are expected to treat them with courtesy and respect even if they have to tell them they are mistaken and even if the constituent is pissed off. I knew that when I was just a 19 - 23-year-old twirp working as an aide for the Legislature. It wasn't always fun when they were mad, but you do it anyway.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I think there are multiple important points. I agree that the board treatment of the mother is one of them.
Yes, but I judge the school board by how it treats its citizens.
I agree, but the relationship is different. At least generally, the student is subordinate to the teacher. A constituent is never subordinate to an elected official. You're supposed to be respectful to a constituent and approach them in good faith, even if they're wrong. They are the taxpayers and the voters. They are the boss and are supposed to be treated as such.
I'm not saying the school in this situation was right or wrong. However, dismissing the parent rather than hearing her out (even if they can do so) and then throwing nuisance money from the taxpayer at her to shut her up is atrociously bad governance. Furthermore, that kind of thing is how what might have been resolved with a simple apology turns into a pissed off parent calling a guy like Marty Cirkiel who will sue the district and retain an expert witness on child restraint to nitpick what this "administrator" did (and I guarantee you he'd find something if the kid's head was hitting the wall). If that happens, they'll be writing her a check that's bigger than the $10K they insulted her with.
All the Feller had to do was let the lady talk an additional few minutes and then say, "ma'am we appreciate your sharing your concerns with us, and we will investigate the matter fully." But this board is full of arrogant pricks who think they're above this lady, and they'd rather taunt her into litigation. Very stupid and unprofessional. Could not have been handled much worse, but it won't be Feller's money on the line, so she obviously doesn't care.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 589
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 547
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
