islander wrote:




I work in an FDA regulated field. We're going to be in big trouble if there isn't a BIG change soon.

 ptooey wrote:

One of many. This one is in conjunction with actively vilifying people who are smart and doing work to make things better is particularly wrong headed. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


I'm getting the same feeling from Gordon. I assume it has something to do with $$$$.

On the local level, sure. But I do worry about the extent that (particularly for hiccup's job, but Claire's school is Title I, so...) the federal funding situation is tailspinning. Devaluing education in any society is a step in the wrong direction.

 ptooey wrote:

I still never know where he's going to come down on anything. Isn't he a lame duck/term limited? Why play for votes? I assume he's just stepping aside and letting the Wyo Supremes decide it. Pretty confident they'll shoot it down.

But SPED is always looming over any budget session ... I think families of SPED kids will still send them to town rather than attempt any homeschooling but the cost-per-kid being something like $70k annually for those kids, this immediately cuts it to 10%. So on that point only, bribing parents to keep their kids out of the public schools might actually help the budgets of all schools.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Charters can work well if they're responsibly operated. A lot of inner city districts have serious issues with safety, attendance, retention, and various distractions. Charter schools can help in areas like that, where students who want to learn can do so without extraneous fears and distractions. It's also been my experience though, that a lot of charter schools are scams. Some of them seem almost like money-laundering fronts.

 ptooey wrote:

I'm not envious of students, teachers, or any group that depends on either of them in the near future. Although I would say that the corporate overlords are doing their best to ensure a supply of cheap labor, I don't think that cheap labor will be happy/effective/useful on any long term basis. I see a high profit window for a few years as we wring them out, but in 10-15 years everything is going to be expensive, and only a tiny fraction will be able to afford a meaningful slice of it. 

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Governor signs universal school voucher bill, calling it ‘remarkable achievement for Wyoming’

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Most of the time I agree. But I've got a friend who is a principal at a charter school where the school district has not been able to provide enough classroom space and has determined that it's less expensive/more sensible to fund charter schools. The district isn't responsible for upkeep etc etc. 

 Proclivities wrote:

Our Christofascist governor and superintendent of education want our public schools to be indoctrination facilities for their brand of "Christianity".

Personally I think charter schools are a grift and a means of starving public schools of funding and thereby giving conservatives the old: "see, socialism doesn't work" saw. Public funds should fund public schools, period.

 rgio wrote:
I thought that designation was kind of odd anyhow; I guess each state has different laws of how they designate "private" and "public" schools.  Most states have "public" charter schools, that are funded by taxpayer funds to different extents - those schools are not a part of a public school district, or under that district's supervision, but they are required to do state testing and comply with some other state and federal rules.  Once a religious element is added, they become designated as a "private" school, whether or not they consider themselves a "charter" is immaterial.  They are eligible, but not required to take standardized tests - though many choose to administer the SAT, ACT, or other exams.  Apparently, the OSDE wishes to have religious schools become eligible for taxpayer funding; I hadn't seen that before.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
The Constitution holds... by a thread

Supreme Court tie vote dooms taxpayer funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma

 Lazy8 wrote:

Against the orders of a court. And now they refuse to 'facilitate' his return under further orders.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Pretty informative article. There is one complaint I have with it (and other national media coverage of the issue): the framing of the rendition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was "mistakenly removed to El Salvador."

It was not a mistake. He was fraudulently sent to a Salvadoran gulag.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

almost want to go look at truth social. 

Supreme Court blocks Trump from restarting Alien Enemies Act deportations

 rgio wrote:
"The disintegration of defensive capability" is an evergreen and very, very serious to concerning paranoid 'patriots'. You can frame anyone for national security, etc.

Among the Republican president’s actions was an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

 R_P wrote:
This isn't sport.  Men and women are both allowed in the military, and as Kurt will point out repeatedly... Republicans know which is which. 

If you're either a man or a woman as defined by God and the Republican party, and they both can serve.... who are you excluding?

Apparently no reason needed for the SCOTUS other than the Republican POTUS wants to score points with the base.  

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Supreme bigots. It's very easy to demonize a tiny minority (0.2-0.5%).

Supreme Court allows Trump ban on transgender members of the military to take effect, for now