"A wave of new research has emerged suggesting that private school vouchers may harm students who receive them."
You don't say! Just as a new policy agenda is about to be implemented, there's a "wave" of research suggesting it should be blocked. What a complete surprise.
It would seem, David, that valid policy research should acknowledge that there are better and worse ways to frame a voucher program, and significant differences in the way these programs have been structured in the various states where they've been tried. Valid policy research might want to distinguish between systems where the private schools where vouchers can be applied require credentialing of the educators who staff their classrooms, for example, and systems where no such credentialing is required. Or it might want to note whether the state level departments of education in various states' voucher programs provide any kind of oversight or enforce any standards.
It turns out making valid education policy recommendations actually requires mastery of the details and the conditions on the ground in the educational systems in question. The condition of public school systems in Southern Arizona may not be the same as the condition of public schools in surrounding Portland, Oregon, or Minneapolis, Minnesota. Diocese of Tucson schools may not be the same as other diocesan systems throughout the nation. "Catch all" categories like "students using vouchers," which obliterate meaningful and significant differences between the characteristics of the systems the students in question are leaving when they "use a voucher" and the systems they are entering, are utterly useless as a basis for formulating policy.
So it comes down once again to what your real motive may be in writing this, as a die-hard Democratic party machine propagandist. Your motive, as you have shown many times in your various writings on vouchers, on charters, and on our largest local DISASTER of a public school district, is to keep the $$$$$ in the public district system that is interwoven with the Democratic party both locally and nationally.
So why not just say so?
Oh yeah, because "Adopt policies that benefit my party!!!" doesn't generally go over well with the masses you are trying to sheep-herd into your policy corral. Nevertheless, that is precisely what you are saying, over and over again in this sad little blog.
Let's get together and make killing the unborn free to anyone!
A fundraiser for Planned Parenthood that is being promoted as "Family Friendly?"
That takes a whole lot of chutzpah! Because as we all know not everybody winds up with a family.
So you are saying that failing public schools are failing because of low income students? And then to top it off the public schools are fixing grades?
When all else fails, blame Bush.
The logic of this article escapes me. It seems to be comparing contemporary slang English with "traditional Chinese". First, "traditional Chinese" is undefined: "Chinese" is not a language, but a family of languages. The article never states which Chinese language was used for translations. It seems unlikely that all Chinese languages use the same terms to refer to sex. If "traditional Chinese" means "classical Chinese", which is indeed used to refer to a single language, then it seems preposterous to compare words used in classical literary Chinese with contemporary English slang.
Moreover, it is surprising these days to find an article that is unaware, or ignores, the obvious fact that perception of vulgarity is subjective: based on social and personal tastes. The terms the author finds poetic might be offensive to others, while terms like "cock" and "pussy" - which are simply animal metaphors, based on physical appearance - do not bring to my mind the violent negative connotations mentioned here.
Try this experiment: learn a few slang Cantonese sex terms, then ask a Cantonese-speaking journalist if those words are vulgar or melodic - you may be surprised.
Misled by how great she sings Mexican music, I 've always thought she was Mexican... .. amazing.
How about the fact the the home ownership rate was low because Bush's buddies threw millions out of their homes when they couldn't find jobs... seriously, economic recovery was better under W? That's when he and his pals took the entire world economy down. And Gahdaffi was a mistake? What about the longest running war ever that Obama inherited from Cheney and the gang? And that other little war that was actually justified... in Afghanistan... and who took out Georde Sr's buddy, Bin Laden? with actual police work instead of invading two more countries that were not connected... your hatred of Obama is irrational, based on the facts...
If you are having trouble connecting with the email address link, you're not alone. The correct email address is firstname.lastname@example.org, I'm pretty sure.
I notice you couldn't defend Obummer with any facts. All you know how to do is hide behind a dozen fake names and insult people,
. Big whoop.
Well, you've convinced me, Mr. 13. You're truly the champion in the arena of ideas.
Hello Ms. McSally. You were given Gabby's job. Show us the same courage.
Jason LeValley's comment reads like an extended Trump tweet
That's according to the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, but what do they know? Whether or not it was more than all U.S. presidents combined is a moot point. He did what he did. At least you had the cojones to challenge me,
I suggest you actually meant the "New Mexico border."
("One of Our 50 is Missing.")
Can't wait to witness this epic event!
He didnt add more to the debt than all the past presidents combined if you adjust the debt increases by every president for inflation. You cant logically compare spending in the single thousands of dollars spent 200 years ago to today.
Dislike. Dislike. Dislike. Not one of you chickenshits could offer a single challenge to any one of the points I made. I'd dislike it too if I drank the Kool-Aid and it turned out to be rat piss!!
I think this information is helpful, but "Fight Back" and a fist is a really bad choice of language and iconography to use when you're creating a flyer for someone who is almost certainly not English as a first language, and likely nor familiar with US history and the use of such icons.
It should show something suggesting litigation or justice, perhaps simply the scales of justice of even the statue of liberty. Put differently, it should focus on taking this situation to court, and getting representation.
That's all we need is someone who is stressed and misinterprets this to mean literally fight. That will not help them in any way and could even result in an incident that makes this situation worse for everyone.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation