Former dean for for-profit, fraud filled college to head DOJ college fraud unit

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No it wouldn't. There is actually a lot of flexibility at the state level for things with higher education, and with that flexibility they have consistently cut the budget.

Cut the budget because of the federal backstop. They wouldn't cut it if the Feds dropped out.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 11:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No. State level protections would be fine. I am sure people in every state share he same beliefs. Do you actually think that there is a state that wouldn't have disability protections?

Yeah, Florida is a great example of a state where everyone shares the same beliefs.

This is novice level trolling. You're better than this. Do you need me to write you a note so you can take the day off until you're feeling better?

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 11:58 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Cut the budget because of the federal backstop. They wouldn't cut it if the Feds dropped out.

They have cut the budgets are a rate far greater than the feds increasing. So while there is a correlation argument, there is not a causal one. Care to try again?

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 11:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And you actually said I always take the negative view of others lol.

There is no way this would happen in today's america.    Which states do you think would cut disability protections?

All the ones that are already cutting their budgets who will lose even more funding when the "America First" party is done taking away all funding.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting

Quote:Adding to states’ struggles, federal policymakers have cut ongoing federal funding for states and localities, thereby worsening state fiscal conditions.  For example, federal spending for Title I — the major federal assistance program for high-poverty schools — is down 11 percent since 2010 after adjusting for inflation, and federal spending on education for disabled students is down 9 percent.[9]  (See Figure 5.)

Quote:Most states provide less support per student for elementary and secondary schools — in some cases, much less — than before the Great Recession, our survey of state budget documents over the last three months finds.  Worse, some states are still cutting eight years after the recession took hold.  Our country’s future depends crucially on the quality of its schools, yet rather than raising K-12 funding to support proven reforms such as hiring and retaining excellent teachers, reducing class sizes, and expanding access to high-quality early education, many states have headed in the opposite direction. These cuts weaken schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs. 


Our survey, the most up-to-date data available on state and local funding for schools, indicates that, after adjusting for inflation:

• At least 31 states provided less state funding per student in the 2014 school year (that is, the school year ending in 2014) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold.  In at least 15 states, the cuts exceeded 10 percent.
• In at least 18 states, local government funding per student fell over the same period.  In at least 27 states, local funding rose, but those increases rarely made up for cuts in state support.  Total local funding nationally ― for the states where comparable data exist ― declined between 2008 and 2014, adding to the damage from state funding cuts.
• While data on total school funding in the current school year (2016) is not yet available, at least 25 states are still providing less “general” or “formula” funding ― the primary form of state funding for schools ― per student than in 2008.  In seven states, the cuts exceed 10 percent.
• Most states raised “general” funding per student slightly this year, but 12 states imposed new cuts, even as the national economy continues to improve.  Some of these states, including Oklahoma, Arizona, and Wisconsin, already were among the deepest-cutting states since the recession hit. 
  

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 11:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea. It a cost and some states certainly only spend that money because it is federally mandated. With no mandate and no medicaid or SSDI funding, they won't bother to do anything special. That or they will have entirely exclusive schools as they did in the past. 

Mainstreaming these children isn't always the best. A school for themselves would provide them exactly what they need.

There is a lot of pro inclusion belief but there is also quite a bit against it as well. If I had a disabled child I am not sure I would be in favor of inclusion. Depending on the disability of course.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 11:58 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Cut the budget because of the federal backstop. They wouldn't cut it if the Feds dropped out.

Kansas proves your speculation is inaccurate at best.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 12:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Mainstreaming these children isn't always the best. A school for themselves would provide them exactly what they need.

There is a lot of pro inclusion belief but there is also quite a bit against it as well. If I had a disabled child I am not sure I would be in favor of inclusion. Depending on the disability of course.

Mainstreaming.

Unbelievable.

Another troll job.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: All the ones that are already cutting their budgets who will lose even more funding when the "America First" party is done taking away all funding.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting

Take away the federal money and the states will have to adjust. The fact that states need to balance the budget is perfect. They can make cuts in other places to accommodate for education.

Would state taxes rise? Probably

Public employee unions would also be in trouble which would be a plus.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Kansas proves your speculation is inaccurate at best.

You can easily elect new reps if you do not like what your state is doing.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 12:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Take away the federal money and the states will have to adjust. The fact that states need to balance the budget is perfect. They can make cuts in other places to accommodate for education.

Would state taxes rise? Probably

Public employee unions would also be in trouble which would be a plus.

Public employee unions are not as relevant as you think. These problems exist in places where they don't. Like Virginia.

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 12:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Take away the federal money and the states will have to adjust.   The fact that states need to balance the budget is perfect.   They can make cuts in other places to accommodate for education.  

Would state taxes rise?   Probably

So we pay more no matter what. What the heck difference does it make then?

Oh...right..."small government" LMAO!

(08-31-2017, 12:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Public employee unions would also be in trouble which would be a plus.

Speaking as someone with many friend in public employee unions...they already are in trouble. And if anyone thinks that is "a plus" that are an insensitive person who thinks only of themselves and has zero understanding of how anything works outside of their own business.

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 12:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Mainstreaming these children isn't always the best.  A school for themselves would provide them exactly what they need.  

There is a lot of pro inclusion belief but there is also quite a bit against it as well.   If I had a disabled child I am not sure I would be in favor of inclusion.   Depending on the disability of course.

The vast majority of children receiving services are in the general education classroom working towards diplomas. I don't know of any mainstream advocates arguing against inclusion. It's hard to argue, apart from some of the most serious disabilities, that the least restrictive environment is a completely self contained setting, and even then that's after multiple interventions. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-31-2017, 12:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Public employee unions would also be in trouble which would be a plus.

Without our union, we wouldn't have received a step or COLA raise in 8 years while our superintendent promoted her personal staff from $50k a year jobs to $120k and gave out no bid contracts to friends. Fortunately, our union was able to work out raises and successfully promoted new board candidates in the last election that booted her out of her job. 

I know, I know, unions are socialist death panels. 

[Benton]

(08-31-2017, 11:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No.  State level protections would be fine.   I am sure people in every state share he same beliefs.    Do you actually think that there is a state that wouldn't have disability protections?

If the federal level is an indication, yes. One of the first things the current administration did was do away with online access to IDEA resources.

I'm all for doing more at the state level. Federal regulations should be a general framework. I don't think 'states first' folks realize, though, what the push for a lack of federal framework will cause for education. For poorer states and spread out states, it will result in quality people streaming out of their state. Those that are left will have substandard education options, which are heading in the direction of for profit. People with reduced incomes and options will be paying more to receive less. Meanwhile larger states like Florida, California, New York, Ohio will get flooded with young families moving for better educational opportunities. Most states already can't keep up with the infrastructure burdens they have, what's going to happen with tens of thousands of people migrate into some states due to better education systems and a more balanced protection under the law? 

For argument sake, if Mississippi suddenly does away with protections for handicap students — nut Florida doesn't — how would northern Florida cope with potentially an influx of hundreds of new students with special needs?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:56 PM)Benton Wrote: If the federal level is an indication, yes. One of the first things the current administration did was do away with online access to IDEA resources.

I'm all for doing more at the state level. Federal regulations should be a general framework. I don't think 'states first' folks realize, though, what the push for a lack of federal framework will cause for education. For poorer states and spread out states, it will result in quality people streaming out of their state. Those that are left will have substandard education options, which are heading in the direction of for profit. People with reduced incomes and options will be paying more to receive less. Meanwhile larger states like Florida, California, New York, Ohio will get flooded with young families moving for better educational opportunities. Most states already can't keep up with the infrastructure burdens they have, what's going to happen with tens of thousands of people migrate into some states due to better education systems and a more balanced protection under the law? 

For argument sake, if Mississippi suddenly does away with protections for handicap students — nut Florida doesn't — how would northern Florida cope with potentially an influx of hundreds of new students with special needs?

More people coming to a state would raise the tax base.

I just think that each state needs to have their fingers in education. And if people do not like their level of education they can vote in new reps who will push education.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Without our union, we wouldn't have received a step or COLA raise in 8 years while our superintendent promoted her personal staff from $50k a year jobs to $120k and gave out no bid contracts to friends. Fortunately, our union was able to work out raises and successfully promoted new board candidates in the last election that booted her out of her job. 

I know, I know, unions are socialist death panels. 

You shouldn't need a Union for a raise. You should be able to negotiate with he district yourself or sho your services. I would bust every teachers union in the country. And this is coming from someone who was part of the teachers union for years.

Seems the community can elect new school board members if they do not like the super giving her staff a raise.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: So we pay more no matter what. What the heck difference does it make then?

Oh...right..."small government" LMAO!


Speaking as someone with many friend in public employee unions...they already are in trouble. And if anyone thinks that is "a plus" that are an insensitive person who thinks only of themselves and has zero understanding of how anything works outside of their own business.

State control means you can elect new people to run your state if you are not happy. The people in charge should be the people closest to the public.

I have been in a public employee union for years before. I know what they are all about...

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 01:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: State control means you can elect new people to run your state if you are not happy.   The people in charge should be the people closest to the public.  

I have been in a public employee union for years before.   I know what they are all about...

That's LOCAL.

In PA decisions for students on one end of the state can be made by elected state officials from the other.

Add in some good old fashioned gerrymandering and ta-da!  

[Benton]

(08-31-2017, 01:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: More people coming to a state would raise the tax base.

I just think that each state needs to have their fingers in education. And if people do not like their level of education they can vote in new reps who will push education.

They did. States came up with common core standards. Then lawmakers got involved who didn't understand and said the Feds were to blame and states needed more control.

State lawmakers are doing what they can to misinform the public to maintain control at the state level and in congress. People. It understanding common core is a reflection of lawmaker misinformation.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2017, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The vast majority of children receiving services are in the general education classroom working towards diplomas. I don't know of any mainstream advocates arguing against inclusion. It's hard to argue, apart from some of the most serious disabilities, that the least restrictive environment is a completely self contained setting, and even then that's after multiple interventions. 

Pat, he's just advocating for separate, but equal schools for kids with disabilities. Surely there is nothing wrong with that. Let's make America great again with turn of the 19th century asylum system so these kids can get exactly what they need. Maybe throw in some job training to be coal miner so not only do they learn a useful trade, but they die early so they're less of a burden on Uncle Sam.