Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
31 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I don't know shit about fuck either but some quick back of the napkin math:

There are 10,500 AISD employees.  At an average salary of $50,000, that's $525,000,000 in raw salary.  Add in 40% for payroll taxes, benefits, retirement, that's another $210,000,000.  So, it's $735,000,000 for just staff.

I would also guess that the electric bill each month is at a minimum of $10,000. For 113 campuses, that's over  $13,000,000/year just in electric bills.

Big numbers don't make them make no sense. The tax revenue from AISD alone is insane. Everyone including people who don't have kids pay the ISD tax through rent or actual property tax. (1.7B+ in 2024) I understand recapture (robinhood) fucks up a lot of math for big districts that would otherwise be well funded. 

19 minutes ago, 1978horn said:

The bonds are paid off with property taxes.  They separate property taxes between M&O and I&S(bond debt service).  Two different buckets that can't be used to pay for the other.  The little funds that the state does give go to M&O.

I'm acutely aware of how and out of what buckets things get paid, very obviously from my post. This isn't helpful in what they are having a shortfall on. 

11 minutes ago, tchookem said:
41 minutes ago, immamac said:
I don't pretend to know what things cost in schools, but why is this so expensive? Outside of teacher salaries, the real estate is free/tax free/funded with bonds that aren't ISD dollars. Maintenance shouldn't be insane, the tech/refresh cycle is long enough to not be a huge cost and books etc are also reusable for years on end. 
What eats the budget? 

You ever seen how middle schoolers treat Chromebooks?

$20 per device per year per student that is also legally allowed to be a passthrough cost to the student/family for use of a multi hundred dollar device for the year. 

8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I can't speak to other districts, but the teacher salaries that you mentioned take up 84% of our ISD's budget and are what is drawn from the stagnant state stipend. That leaves 12% for the non-bond related streams. I think data processing, etc are also under that part of the budget.

Thanks for giving a good answer that helps understand how the budget gets eaten up, I knew that teachers took a lot of it, but this is wild. Is there a big imbalance in pay for teachers in rural districts that benefit from recapture and the big districts that pay out a lot? It seems pretty wild that the overwhelming cost of education is humans and that those humans arent even well compensated (non administrative functions). Is the teacher to student ratio off in some of these places? 

7 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

My wife's ISD changes curriculum pretty much every single year in order to find a mix that works for testing. That has to be expensive.

This is an administrative choice, it doesn't have to be that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
State money going to already rich families at the expense of poor families. Brilliant.

Okay, but even then, only a small percentage of rich families who may then see their education expenses rise by a similar number. What’s the point?
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, immamac said:

 Is the teacher to student ratio off in some of these places? 

 

I can't answer that in a knowledgeable way, but the ratio is set by the state w/respect to class size etc so I'll hazard that it can't be too out of balance? What some districts do is cut the extra staff like librarians, school nurses, etc. Maybe the paraprofessionals as well. Administrators take up around 1-2% IIRC and there are a number of employees that are responsible for keeping up with testing,  metrics, federal requirements, SPED assistance, etc.

That the governor has held the same $ since 2019 isn't helping either. It's breaking something in order to come in with a solution that only favors a select few (which is the way public education was prior to Brown v. BoE.

The specifics may have changed somewhat, but it's still a tilt of the table.

 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
nvm
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Another interesting sidebar… Something I’ve been told by reliable folks at top tier (tuition level at least) private schools is those elite schools aren’t planning to accept vouchers. Don’t need em, don’t want the potential for state bullshit attached.   

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:


Okay, but even then, only a small percentage of rich families who may then see their education expenses rise by a similar number. What’s the point?

Listen to the Texas Take podcast from a couple weeks ago. They go into a 30 min deep dive, one thing brought up is a gop party leader in Fort Worth calling out this bill/setup as a vendor bill that’s being set up to benefit those hand picked management companies. They get a cut of the ~8% total admin overhead. If this grows to 5Bn as planned that means there’s $400M in admin fee less whatever the comptroller needs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That the governor has held the same $ since 2019 isn't helping either.

There was an article last week that said when adjusted for inflation, Texas school funding is at the 2011 levels. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yea, my first thought was "uh, what about the cost of child care those days?" Parents going to get slaughtered.  There's not even a camp ecosytem for well off parents to absorb that kind of thing. But I guess there will be...some business will open to fill that gap for a price. 

Maybe the vouchers can be used for that child care.  Yeah, I know, that's a stupid idea the Republicans will never buy . . . .

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, immamac said:

 

This is an administrative choice, it doesn't have to be that way. 

Not necessarily. While yes, it's a choice that is made, the nature of how all funding from the state is tied to test scores (which has already fucked up how we educate our children), might made re-doing this shit every year more of a necessity than you might think. More now when there is even less public money to go around to schools, they'd better hit those test scores. Forther ruining our curriculum, and around we go...

19 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I can't answer that in a knowledgeable way, but the ratio is set by the state w/respect to class size etc so I'll hazard that it can't be too out of balance? What some districts do is cut the extra staff like librarians, school nurses, etc. Maybe the paraprofessionals as well. Administrators take up around 1-2% IIRC and there are a number of employees that are responsible for keeping up with testing,  metrics, federal requirements, SPED assistance, etc.

That the governor has held the same $ since 2019 isn't helping either. It's breaking something in order to come in with a solution that only favors a select few (which is the way public education was prior to Brown v. BoE.

The specifics may have changed somewhat, but it's still a tilt of the table.

 

I can tell you from my own experience that many of the laws mandating the teacher/student ratio are already being ingored in many places. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, bluto said:

Another interesting sidebar… Something I’ve been told by reliable folks at top tier (tuition level at least) private schools is those elite schools aren’t planning to accept vouchers. Don’t need em, don’t want the potential for state bullshit attached.   

But you bet your ass there will be a bunch of new RED EAGLE JESUS ACADEMY type schools that will be built on the premise of accepting them.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Providing education services to special ed kids/kids with behavioral issues is expensive af, and public schools don't get to turn them away like privates do.

Also, don't forget about all of the unfunded mandates that the state pushes onto school districts - for example the 2023 law requiring all districts to have an armed officer at each campus with 0 additional funds to pay for it. Armed security personnel aren't exactly cheap.

Edited by elguapo
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
Listen to the Texas Take podcast from a couple weeks ago. They go into a 30 min deep dive, one thing brought up is a gop party leader in Fort Worth calling out this bill/setup as a vendor bill that’s being set up to benefit those hand picked management companies. They get a cut of the ~8% total admin overhead. If this grows to 5Bn as planned that means there’s $400M in admin fee less whatever the comptroller needs. 

Someone should alert Elon and DOGE to go after this FRAUD!!! that is happening in his own state.
Posted
6 minutes ago, elguapo said:

Providing education services to special ed kids/kids with behavioral issues is expensive af, and public schools don't get to turn them away like privates do.

Well, special education is currently on the chopping block so public school won't be providing that service either.  Look at all the money saved!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

Well, special education is currently on the chopping block so public school won't be providing that service either.  Look at all the money saved!

Look, man, all of those kids shouldn't be fucking retards and cripples and defectives and whatnot, and they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

We are diving headlong into the "every man for himself....and not only to hell with everyone else, but the only way you can know that you are being selfish is if you are actively fucking over other people" era.  

TLDR: the cruelty is the point, it tells you the MAGA is working.

Posted
2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Well, special education is currently on the chopping block so public school won't be providing that service either.  Look at all the money saved!

Showtime GIF by The Chi

Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

I don't pretend to know what things cost in schools, but why is this so expensive? Outside of teacher salaries, the real estate is free/tax free/funded with bonds that aren't ISD dollars. Maintenance shouldn't be insane, the tech/refresh cycle is long enough to not be a huge cost and books etc are also reusable for years on end. 

What eats the budget? 

Collectively, a bunch of things that add up.  Some I can think of are:

* School districts collect money based on their property tax basis.  But the state allows them to have revenue based on average daily attendance.  The state can control how much is spent on education regardless of the property tax raised by the local district.  The state is raising the amount by less than inflation, or in some years not at all, so eventually district budgets get crushed.  Cost of living rises faster than teacher salaries rise, so eventually teachers are priced out of the district they serve.

* In AISD, they have 100,000 seats available but only about 73,000 students.  Demographic projections show that they will be flat over the next 10 years, or slightly down.  You don't want to operate at 1 kid 1 seat, but they could at least trim 15,000 seats and have room to spare.  They still have to heat and cool and clean the empty spaces, and this costs money.  As an example, LBJ in Austin has about 600 students.  LASA has about 1600.  They are in the same sized buildings and they have similar number of janitors.  It costs more per kid to keep LBJ clean than LASA, just because the ratios are higher.  The district has not balanced enrollment across the district and they are operating too many schools.

The "small school" problem raises costs in other ways.  You need more coaches, more band directors, more principals, more money for transportation, more lawn mowing.  Schools try to share resources, like having a band director or coach cover two schools, but the person eventually bails when they find a job that doesn't require them to split their attention.

* Districts spend more on some items than the state allocates.  In AISD, here are a few:
  + Safety and Security: State allocates $2.5 M, AISD spends $23.3 M -- a $20 M deficit
  + Transportation: State allocates $5.8 M, AISD spends $38.2 M -- a $32 M deficit
  + Special Education: State allocates $96.6 M, AISD spends $169.8 M -- $73.2 M deficit

* AISD didn't do much to maintain their schools from 1980-2010.  They are now digging out of a big maintenance hole.  So for the next 25 years or so, maintenance is going to be high.  But, they have the bucks to do this, they are limited by the speed of construction.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

But you bet your ass there will be a bunch of new RED EAGLE JESUS ACADEMY type schools that will be built on the premise of accepting them.

Do you have dibs on that name? Can I use it?

Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Jeff said:

Collectively, a bunch of things that add up.  Some I can think of are:

* School districts collect money based on their property tax basis.  But the state allows them to have revenue based on average daily attendance.  The state can control how much is spent on education regardless of the property tax raised by the local district.  The state is raising the amount by less than inflation, or in some years not at all, so eventually district budgets get crushed.  Cost of living rises faster than teacher salaries rise, so eventually teachers are priced out of the district they serve.

* In AISD, they have 100,000 seats available but only about 73,000 students.  Demographic projections show that they will be flat over the next 10 years, or slightly down.  You don't want to operate at 1 kid 1 seat, but they could at least trim 15,000 seats and have room to spare.  They still have to heat and cool and clean the empty spaces, and this costs money.  As an example, LBJ in Austin has about 600 students.  LASA has about 1600.  They are in the same sized buildings and they have similar number of janitors.  It costs more per kid to keep LBJ clean than LASA, just because the ratios are higher.  The district has not balanced enrollment across the district and they are operating too many schools.

The "small school" problem raises costs in other ways.  You need more coaches, more band directors, more principals, more money for transportation, more lawn mowing.  Schools try to share resources, like having a band director or coach cover two schools, but the person eventually bails when they find a job that doesn't require them to split their attention.

* Districts spend more on some items than the state allocates.  In AISD, here are a few:
  + Safety and Security: State allocates $2.5 M, AISD spends $23.3 M -- a $20 M deficit
  + Transportation: State allocates $5.8 M, AISD spends $38.2 M -- a $32 M deficit
  + Special Education: State allocates $96.6 M, AISD spends $169.8 M -- $73.2 M deficit

* AISD didn't do much to maintain their schools from 1980-2010.  They are now digging out of a big maintenance hole.  So for the next 25 years or so, maintenance is going to be high.  But, they have the bucks to do this, they are limited by the speed of construction.

Great post.

The issue is that everything you just said is true and logical and rational. But then when you talk about (and it happened here just a page or two back) shutting down schools due to legitimate demographic and attendance data, people react emotionally in the negative and don't want to accept that as reasonable. I suspect they just want to throw more money at it (raise taxes? not sure where all these free money tree mangroves are) rather than rationalize within reason and good financial sense, to maximize efficiency and results.

It's the same issue with DOGE. I think the execution of DOGE has been horrific, but the actual underlying idea of efficiency is smart and sound.

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Look, man, all of those kids shouldn't be fucking retards and cripples and defectives and whatnot, and they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

We are diving headlong into the "every man for himself....and not only to hell with everyone else, but the only way you can know that you are being selfish is if you are actively fucking over other people" era.  

TLDR: the cruelty is the point, it tells you the MAGA is working.

IMO I think the issue is a span of authority or span of control issue. The trend in general seems to be one of retrenchment and that is extending to state and local stuff too. I think folks want to decouple from a broader, big tent and regroup around smaller, more homogenous and more regional/cultural/tribal pods because they look out and think the bigger picture isn't working for them individually. That's my opinion as a neutral observer (not having children in public ISDs) but being concerned about it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

Posted
39 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

IMO I think the issue is a span of authority or span of control issue. The trend in general seems to be one of retrenchment and that is extending to state and local stuff too. I think folks want to decouple from a broader, big tent and regroup around smaller, more homogenous and more regional/cultural/tribal pods because they look out and think the bigger picture isn't working for them individually. That's my opinion as a neutral observer (not having children in public ISDs) but being concerned about it.

No.

It is about two things: greed (quit spending money on...anything, so I don't pay any more taxes) and performative cruelty (being cruel is the ultimate power display of dominance, and America's pathetic loser class - which seems to be the majority of Americans - likes to make themselves feel better about themselves by hurting anyone they see as weaker than them.

Stop overthinking it.  Find the explanation that is the shittiest, and that's the correct one.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

These are our concerns, dude.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

Public schools allow trannies and queers and wetbacks to attend.  So anything that hurts them is good.

There, done.   There's your explanation.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

No.

It is about two things: greed (quit spending money on...anything, so I don't pay any more taxes) and performative cruelty (being cruel is the ultimate power display of dominance, and America's pathetic loser class - which seems to be the majority of Americans - likes to make themselves feel better about themselves by hurting anyone they see as weaker than them.

Stop overthinking it.  Find the explanation that is the shittiest, and that's the correct one.

I had the Keller kerfluffle from a couple of pages in mind as well. That doesn’t seem cruel for cruel sake or greed, but more what I described around retrenching in smaller homogeneous values and class tribes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

That doesn’t seem cruel for cruel sake or greed, but more what I described around retrenching in smaller homogeneous values and class tribes.

Keller....where they want to exile minorities to a separate, stand-alone, ultra-poor district.

So, yeah, what I said stands.  The purpose for every single thing is "hurt the marginalized, because hurting people is the thing that makes us happy."

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

You're not going to find anyone here who supports, them, or can make a case to support them. 

1) No one is asking those questions. Because if they do they'll get primaried. 
2) Ill answer this below
3) It does no good, but they're brainwashed into pulling the R lever because liberals are evil.
4) See point 1.

Lets look at point #2, which I think will make everything else make sense. Public schools have things they have to teach. And more importantly, things they CAN'T teach, specifically religion. But also, soon, things like slavery will be off the table. Science...man, that can often get in the way of believing in Jesus. Exposure to ethnic diversity, different people, critical thinking...that shit isn't helping anyone in their view of religion.  If you want to teach your kids that the law of the Bible should rule the land, and that not all people or religions are created equal, the only places to indoctrinate that line of thought all day every day is in a private school or in a home school.

And if you have christian nationalist views and tendencies, and you believe that the only future of this country is one run by Christian (white) men, an increasing minority, well, you're going to have to make some drastic changes to what people believe, and how they're made to believe it. Pushing more kids to religious education while shattering the education of a majority of people in a state, well, that's a great way to kill two birds with one stone, imo. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

When a school district goes to 4-day weeks, do they cut teacher and staff salaries by 20%? That's the bulk of expenses for an ISD. I think that has happened in other states.

But but vivek swarmymotherfucker told us we need to have more school and less tv time?  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Keller....where they want to exile minorities to a separate, stand-alone, ultra-poor district.

So, yeah, what I said stands.  The purpose for every single thing is "hurt the marginalized, because hurting people is the thing that makes us happy."

I think that’s being too much. I think it’s likely more the sociopathy of, “we want what we want and, oh? It hurts others? Oh well.” Versus your argument of psychopathy where the whole intent is the cruelty versus the self-centered value creation with little care to the blowback.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
3 hours ago, wild_turkey said:


Okay, but even then, only a small percentage of rich families who may then see their education expenses rise by a similar number. What’s the point?

To make my average kid seem like a god to you because of access.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I think that’s being too much. I think it’s likely more the sociopathy of, “we want what we want and, oh? It hurts others? Oh well.” Versus your argument of psychopathy where the whole intent is the cruelty versus the self-centered value creation with little care to the blowback.

Hurting other people makes you feel good.  It's a real thing.  And it is a mass social psychosis that we are covered up in right now.  It's more than just doing what you want and not caring what it does to others.  It's actively wanting to inflict pain on "the other," because that's an expression of power by people who have convinced themselves they've been powerless (and it's the fault of those.....queers and brown people.  Don't ask for logic here.)

Cruelty is its own end, because cruelty makes shitty people feel good about themselves.  And we are, right now, a nation of truly awful, shitty people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

I think that’s being too much. I think it’s likely more the sociopathy of, “we want what we want and, oh? It hurts others? Oh well.” Versus your argument of psychopathy where the whole intent is the cruelty versus the self-centered value creation with little care to the blowback.

I see you've met Brisket for the first time. Enjoy.

Im planning on trying to teach my son this lesson as he ages. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Very few people are sitting in a back room thinking "How can I hurt as many people as possible" I'm not saying there aren't plenty of those people, but that is not what a majority of fucks ruining this country are doing. More likely, it's what I want to make my son understand so he can embrace empathy:

Everyone is the hero of their own story. We're all little snowflakes who struggle to understand that people around us have feelings to, that they're also scared, also threatned, also hurting. Becuase frankly, being Me takes up damn near 100% of my time/thought. Does Tim Dunn do what he's doing because he's evil, and wants people to hurt? More likely, he believes the rotten shit in his brain is truly in the best interests of America, and he's a hero that's trying to so what's best for God and Country and Community. I bet Hitler really thought the Jews were evil. 

And I'm not saying these people aren't evil, but propoganda works and all the guardrails about human decency and community are gone. Education and critital thinking are gone. Misinformation is rampant and everywhere thanks to the internet. So people can believe what they want to believe, and, well, we are all the hero's in our own story. 

  • Like 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

I think like every dumbass American thinks that if taxes and regulations on the rich are low enough, they'll be the next Bezos or Musk; they also think that an $8k voucher is going to enable them to send their kids to St. Marks, Hockaday, Kinkaid, Country Day, etc.  Which is ironic, because the best of those schools are probably as classically liberal and elite as any you'll find.

Of course, the real schools they might be able to afford will be grifty-fraudy fundagelical schools whose "education" aligns with current "conservative" thinking and will leave them ill-equipped to do anything real in the world except run for office on a MAGA ticket.

And, it enables those who can't afford to move from "diverse" districts and schools to believe that they can finally get their kids away from the dirty darkies.

Also, I think there's some vague appeal, like "small government" and "local control" (illusory of course), to letting people out of the "socialism" of paying for education of other people's kids.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I think that’s being too much. I think it’s likely more the sociopathy of, “we want what we want and, oh? It hurts others? Oh well.” Versus your argument of psychopathy where the whole intent is the cruelty versus the self-centered value creation with little care to the blowback.

For your typical nonfundie, the thinking goes:
"I want my child to have a leg up, and getting my kid into an exclusive club ensures a better chance at that, which means we're going to have to start excluding certain people. Yes, I understand it'll hurt other kids, but that only goes to serve my little shit getting that leg up."

Then, there are all the other reasons cited in previous posts for the reich-wing zealots and/or fundagelicals.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

It gives them a mechanism to re-segregate their schools. More expensive school == fewer non-whites to sully your precious little angel

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

I understand all of the objections to vouchers (I'm in that camp), but can someone please provide the rationale for vouchers from those that support them? I'm struggling to see the upside for the vast majority of Texans.

1. From the standpoint of Greg Abbott or one of our other elected state or local officials who is pushing for this, what is the sales pitch in favor of it? Are they saying that private schools are inherently better equipped to provide education than public schools? Isn't that an admission of failure on the part of The State of Texas that they are in control of? How does someone rationalize that? Are they acknowledging that only a small percentage of students will even receive a voucher? What do they claim will be the benefit for everyone else who doesn't receive or qualify for a voucher? Are they at least giving lipspeak to efforts to simultaneously put more money into public schools, or are they just admitting that public schools are failing and nothing can be done?

2. From the standpoint of Tim Dunn or the Wilks brothers or other billionaires who are pushing for these changes, what are they proposing as the upside? Why do they want this?

3. For the families living in any rural or semi-rural community with few or no private school options, what do they get out of it? What good does a private school voucher do for a family with no available private schools? What is Greg Abbott claiming their upside will be? Creation of new private schools to fill that gap? Will anything also be done to help their struggling small town school districts? Surely, many of these communities are filled with Republican voters who support this guy, but this shift seems to directly harm his voter base.

4. For the families who already send their kids to private school, or who plan to in the future, but make too much money to qualify for a voucher, what is the upside? Additional applicants to their existing private school so the rates go up or their kid may not get accepted? How is the state claiming this will benefit them?

Sorry, I know that's a ton of questions, but this entire situation is really hard to understand. If I saw a friend lighting money on fire or cutting off their own finger, I would have a similar list of ridiculous questions.

Others have chimed in but I'll add my 2 cents. 

First off, they will frame this as school choice, as if they give a shit about a poor inner-city kid not being able to go to private school. 

1) It's not about a private school being better, it's that they can send more kids to religious schools with taxpayer money but also reimburse families who are already wealthy enough to send their kids to those institutions. Basically, "my tax dollars shouldn't go to public schools where Jesus is not taught". The current Senate bill does have funding for public schools. The breakout is $4.5 billion for about 5.5 million children in public school and $1 billion to about 100k private school students. The public school funding is being held by Abbott and gang until vouchers pass. The Senate bill also acknowledges the cost of the vouchers will be around $4.5 billion by 2030. Gee, I wonder where they're going to take funds out of to get to that number. 

2) Nobody can answer that but them. 

3) I personally believe you will see a ton of for-profit "schools" pop up where people will try to get some of these funds. The private schools do not come with any testing requirements like public schools, so someone is going to see an easy way to make money off the taxpayers. But yea, no benefits to rural families really. 

4) I think eventually the income limit will be raised and the costs of the program will continue to spiral out-of-control. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, LurkingHorn said:

I personally believe you will see a ton of for-profit "schools" pop up where people will try to get some of these funds. The private schools do not come with any testing requirements like public schools, so someone is going to see an easy way to make money off the taxpayers.

Fuck yes you will.

In a totally unrelated story, what's your address so I can send you a prospectus for Brisketexan's FreedomEagleJesusGun Patriot Academy, and investment opportunity for the ages?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

When a school district goes to 4-day weeks, do they cut teacher and staff salaries by 20%? That's the bulk of expenses for an ISD. I think that has happened in other states.

In Texas, schools have to teach a certain number of instructional minutes, not a certain number of days.
So a 5-day week where the kids are there for X minutes is just as good for funding as a 4-day week where the kids are there for the same X minutes.

If the school is closed on the 5th day, they don't have to pay for transportation, cafeteria, janitorial service, or as much heating and cooling on that day.  The teacher pay is the same.  The teachers are there 4 days a week instead of 5 days, but for longer days.

Some districts are using the 5th day for teacher planning and training, so the school might be open 5 days a week, but Friday becomes teacher-only day.

 It's not so bad of an idea for high schools that are already on an A/B schedule.  It's probably better for affluent schools with a parent at home to turn Friday into super fun extra-curricular day.  It's harder for poorer schools that rely on 5 days a week of other people watching their kids while parents work.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Fuck yes you will.

In a totally unrelated story, what's your address so I can send you a prospectus for Brisketexan's FreedomEagleJesusGun Patriot Academy, and investment opportunity for the ages?

This is why I think the rural folks will vote for it. 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

This is why I think the rural folks will vote for it. 

And I am legit serious about starting a mostly online academy of the sort I proposed.  Because if America is going down the shitter at rapid speed....I might as well get in the toilet bidness and make some money.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

And I am legit serious about starting a mostly online academy of the sort I proposed.  Because if America is going down the shitter at rapid speed....I might as well get in the toilet bidness and make some money.

Let’s create a Surly Junior High (5-8th) and target the siblings of the kids in the “Can’t get into UT thread”. Immamac could spin that up in a day and be ready to ingest $10k checks when they get released.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Not a great start to the House Bill

Quote

House Bill 2 — filed by Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Salado — would increase the base amount that schools receive from the state per student each school year from $6,160 per pupil to $6,380.

Quote

Robison said neither the increase to public school funding nor the changes to employee compensation included in HB 2 come close to what schools need. To account for inflation, schools need at least $1,000 more per student than what the basic allotment currently provides, he said.

“This is wholly inadequate. They have to do better and they can do better,” Robison said of lawmakers’ efforts.

Shell out $10k for private school students but offer a measly $200 of additional funding per student for public schools. I'm sure this is all part of the negotiating game, but these are not people interested in having a good public school system. 

I know my district is currently running at about a $13 million deficit this year. Luckily we are well run and have had a previously established fund to take care of future payroll obligations. That will last us until 2026-2027, but this "raise" would only address about 1/3 of the current deficit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/19/2025 at 5:39 PM, Brisketexan said:

And I am legit serious about starting a mostly online academy of the sort I proposed.  Because if America is going down the shitter at rapid speed....I might as well get in the toilet bidness and make some money.

 

Might as well embrace the taliban-ness of it all and begin writing the mission statement for the Super Patriot Alpha Male academy; no females of course.

Posted
On 2/19/2025 at 5:39 PM, Brisketexan said:

And I am legit serious about starting a mostly online academy of the sort I proposed.  Because if America is going down the shitter at rapid speed....I might as well get in the toilet bidness and make some money.

My son has four years of high school ahead of him, and I'm willing to entrust his education and college preparation to your hands.

  • Haha 1
Posted
My son has four years of high school ahead of him, and I'm willing to entrust his education and college preparation to your hands.

See, folks - that’s what wise parenting looks like.
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Might as well embrace the taliban-ness of it all and begin writing the mission statement for the Super Patriot Alpha Male academy; no females of course.

 No females here

IMG_4206.gif

Posted
On 2/19/2025 at 2:53 PM, Captainant said:

It gives them a mechanism to re-segregate their schools. More expensive school == fewer non-whites to sully your precious little angel

On that note, has anyone seen fatty around lately?

Posted

I predict that a large percentage of schools over the next 10 years will implement a 4 day school week.  Certainly the smaller school districts.  

Like any change or program, the implementation is critical and you have to have a Super that is all in, but the results can be pretty good.  There is a Super in Wagoner, OK that is sort of creating the mold for the program.  Wagoner is a fairly small town with enrollment of around 120 per grade.  They are about 60% white and 40% black and hispanic.  Some highlights:

1) They have chosen to take Mondays off.  Partially because a number of doctors offices and other businesses have limited hours on Fridays.  Also, sports, especially football, are still a big thing in small towns in Oklahoma and they wanted the school spirit/pep rallys, homecoming events etc that are usually on Fridays. 

2) They added 10 or so minutes per required class and go from 7:45 to 4:00, Tuesday through Friday.  Same pay.

What they claim is that test scores have gone up across the board, behavior issues have dropped dramatically, truancy has dropped dramatically, teacher retention is greatly improved (they had a teacher leave and without advertising they had more applications than they could get through).  They just had their first class graduate that had been in the 4 day program for the entirety of middle school and high school (7 years) and their scholarship pool was around $5M for the seniors versus $750K 7 years ago.

They have been very creative on working parents.  They had a local non profit offer free babysitting and CPR/safety certification to any students that wanted it and then offered the school as essentially a day care facility manned by students that wanted a little extra money.  So parents had the option of sending kids to the school for the day or part of the day for a very nominal fee.  When they first decided to go to 4 days many parents were upset but after a few months they only had 5 or 6 kids that showed up on Mondays.

The real proof is that they did polling last year and over 85% of students, parents and staff like the 4 day schedule over the 5 day.

As for cost savings, it wasn't much.  The Super estimated they could retain 2 extra teachers with the savings.  They really did t for the benefits mentioned above.  

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...