Just want to see whay ya think?

I assist in a biology class for education majors as part of my teaching assistantship duties for grad school. Some of the students are going to be wonderful teachers. Others, well, let's just say that they aren't the brightest crayons in the box. Some are very motivated, and others are incredibly lazy and whiny individuals. I'm hoping that those are the ones that will get drummed out by the system.

In the province where I live, teachers are unionized. They are well-paid and they have a terrific indexed pension plan. This means that there is competition to get into the education programmes at universities. The Bachelor of Education is a one year post-graduate programme up here.

The people who are poorly paid are the ones who go into the pre-school end of things. This requires a two-year college diploma and these folks are not unionized. Pre-schools up here are all private, you see.

Why? They are already being funded by the tuition that the parents usually have to pay. Most local private schools I've seen have been better funded than the local public schools. If they get funds from the public school funds, then their private funds should also be redistributed to other schools. And they should have to live up to the same standards and restrictions that public schools have to, if they want those public funds.

In my province in Canada each school district has a "price per pupil operating cost" or PPOC. The private and independent schools get a portion of the PPOC for each student depending on what their own operating costs are. If an independent school's own PPOC is equal to or lower than the school district's they get 50%. For example in our district, the PPOC is around $6000. The school my son is in spends just under that amount per student so we get $3000 per student from the government. If this was a more upmarket private school with lots of specialty teachers that would drive the cost up to over $6000 per pupil that school would receive only 20% or $2000 and therefore have to collect a lot more tuition from parents. Our school is very careful to stay under the provincial PPOC because we know the parent body would not be able to handle the increased tuition otherwise.

Most of the independent schools in the province have no church affiliation (my son's school doesn't), however, it's my understanding that the church schools receive money from the churches and therefore can pass on a lower tuition for the families.

My son's school is a Waldorf school and the teachers salaries are roughly half of what they are in the public school system.

Every once in awhile there is a groundswell of public outcry about independent schools receiving government funding and calls for it to stop, however, the government usually issues figures at that time to show that they actually save money by having some students educated privately. They could not afford to have all those students in the public system.

Everyone has to pay taxes for education and all schools have to meet government standards.

In my province in Canada each school district has a "price per pupil operating cost" or PPOC. The private and independent schools get a portion of the PPOC for each student depending on what their own operating costs are. If an independent school's own PPOC is equal to or lower than the school district's they get 50%. For example in our district, the PPOC is around $6000. The school my son is in spends just under that amount per student so we get $3000 per student from the government. If this was a more upmarket private school with lots of specialty teachers that would drive the cost up to over $6000 per pupil that school would receive only 20% or $2000 and therefore have to collect a lot more tuition from parents. Our school is very careful to stay under the provincial PPOC because we know the parent body would not be able to handle the increased tuition otherwise.

Most of the independent schools in the province have no church affiliation (my son's school doesn't), however, it's my understanding that the church schools receive money from the churches and therefore can pass on a lower tuition for the families.

My son's school is a Waldorf school and the teachers salaries are roughly half of what they are in the public school system.

Every once in awhile there is a groundswell of public outcry about independent schools receiving government funding and calls for it to stop, however, the government usually issues figures at that time to show that they actually save money by having some students educated privately. They could not afford to have all those students in the public system.

Everyone has to pay taxes for education and all schools have to meet government standards.

Thanks for posting this, Devana. I found it very interesting.

I was sent to a private school by my parents when I was young up here in Canada. In fact my parents paid a big bunch of bucks because I was a boarder. And then I grew up and chose not to have kids of my own.

Although my parents and I have paid much more into the school system than we will ever personally harvest I still believe that a country's investment into the intellectual development of the next generation is best thing that the tax paying citizens can do. As to how this might be sorted out with respect to the demands of a private school over a state school, I am very, very confused.

My answer to the Obama question is a resounding, "NO WAY". I won't vote for Hillary either. Not because she's a woman and he's an african American. Condi would get my vote and she is both African American and female. But, her views are much more in line with mine. And I'm sorry but I think an Obama presidency would be an absolute disaster.

I wouldn't vote for either Obama or Clinton, I believe I heard somewhere that Rudy Guiliani (sp) said he was running for president. I think I would vote for him. I think he did a fantastic job with 9/11 so I think he would be great as president, if I heard correctly he definitly has my vote!

rtgirl77: Just curious. What do you think that Obama would do to cause disaster if he were president?

I wouldn't vote for either Obama or Clinton, I believe I heard somewhere that Rudy Guiliani (sp) said he was running for president. I think I would vote for him. I think he did a fantastic job with 9/11 so I think he would be great as president, if I heard correctly he definitly has my vote!

What did Giuliani do on 911 that anyone else would not have done?

Giuliani is pro-gun control

Giuliani is pro-choice

Giuliani is pro-gay marriage

Giuliani became famous as a prosecutor winning convictions in high profile organized crime trials. Most of his convictions, however were overturned on appeal.

Giuliani is is not a very stable family man as proven by one annulment (after 14 years), one divorce and three marriages including, when he was caught dating a woman, he announced on a TV press conference that he was separating from his wife (which was news to her). Nice way to treat a woman, huh?

Gut reaction on who I would vote for today until events and/or more information come out.

Guilani is my first choice

Chuck Hagel is my second choice

Obama is my third choice

I dislike Romeny becuase of his being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), I could not bring myself to vote for him.

Well, that'll help balance out the vote of people who won't go for Giuliani because he's Catholic. :rolleyes

He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yeah....he was - by the Landmark Legal Foundation, an ultra-conservative group of Republicans with financial ties to oil and big business.

Green: When I worked for the Attorney General in Richmond, VA, I was shocked to learn that there were laws around the Commonwealth that said that for legal purposes, anyone with one drop of Negro blood was to be considered a Negro.

Until 1967, when it was struck down by a federal court ruling, there were miscegenation laws all across the south. Texas used the "one-eighth" rule to determine a person's race. If you had one great-grandparent who was black, then you were black, and could not marry a white person.

It was a Virginia couple whose trial for violating the state's law against interracial marriage that made its way to the Supreme Court and eventually made it possible for people of any race to marry. Now we just need to work on achieving the same rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Giuliani is is not a very stable family man as proven by one annulment (after 14 years), one divorce and three marriages including, when he was caught dating a woman, he announced on a TV press conference that he was separating from his wife (which was news to her). Nice way to treat a woman, huh?

Anyone who has issues with Bill Clinton's morals had best not climb on Rudy's bandwagon. He is no model of propriety himself.

Amen to the Guliani issue. When 9/11 happened, it came on the tails of a period of time when New Yorkers couldn't wait to get rid of him. Then when he did all of the politicking around 9/11, people decided he was a great and wonderful guy. Yes he supported the Firemen and Policemen very well, but he also took advantage of the situation just as Bush did, and many of the same people who abhorr Clinton's indiscretion in office need to understand that nothing Bill Clinton did holds a candle to some of the stuff Guliani has pulled in his marriages.

What's wrong with a Mormon president? Or a Catholic president?

Hmmm, well now that I think of it Nixon was a Quaker, maybe there is some value in discrimination based on the candidate's religious affiliation? Just kidding. Unfortunately, religious affiliation doesn't necessarily tell you whether an individual actually has high moral standards or just wants you to think he does. Some of the people who rant the loudest about their church and their beliefs are the ones you have to keep an eye on.

rtgirl77: Just curious. What do you think that Obama would do to cause disaster if he were president?

I think that the US is in a very delicate situation with regard to international policy. We need someone who is very well versed in both politics at the international level and the current administration's plan. I don't agree with what is going on but I also have enough sense to see that pulling our troops from Iraq right this second, is begging for a series of big-time problems. It sickens me to hear of another soldier killed in Iraq, another family who will not see their loved one again. I wasn't really for or against the war but as time has gone on, I see that Bush has bitten off more than he can chew but he's too arrogant to admit it to the people. He has perfected his best evasive answers under the guise of national security and he seems to have forgotten that this is a "government of the people and by the people" and that WE are the people who employ him. Our entire government failed us on 9/11 and blame is to be placed in many spots. But, I digress. If we pull our troops out right now, we run the risk that Iran, who by most accounts has nuclear weapons (or at least capabilities) will walk right in and take the goverment over. People underestimate how much we are hated by so many nations and the lengths to which they would go to harm us. What would are life be like if Iran were in control of a huge portion of our oil? I don't think any of us like sitting at home but that is what life would be like for the US because we are dependent on foreign sources for oil. So, for all the liberals who like to shout "war for oil", try living a month without it and see how that works out for you.

To answer your question and get off my long, ranting diatribe: I don't trust Obama. I question his honesty, his history and at the very least his ability to lead our country in what is certain to be several more years of hell for our military. I want to see our troops out of there ASAP but not at the expense of our freedom or the hard-fought freedom of the Iraqis. Hope that answers your question!