Joshua wrote:

After reading this, you just might decide to empower parents and vote for Referendum 1:

http://theeducationrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/10/referendum-1-is-about-power.html


Yes, nobody's ever gone wrong basing their opinions on sources as reliable as Phyllis Schlafly ... :

earljr wrote:

When the NEA came out encouraging children to experiment sexually with peers of their own gender because that might be more comfortable than making the big leap to the opposite gender, I decided that vouchers were really, really good.


Yes, the NEA forces students to have sex with each other; then the students are graded on the number of unusual acts they have been able to work into their repertoire.

And, if you believe that, I've got a voucher school you might be interested in ...

RangerGordon wrote:

earljr wrote:

When the NEA came out encouraging children to experiment sexually with peers of their own gender because that might be more comfortable than making the big leap to the opposite gender, I decided that vouchers were really, really good.


Yes, the NEA forces students to have sex with each other; then the students are graded on the number of unusual acts they have been able to work into their repertoire.

And, if you believe that, I've got a voucher school you might be interested in ...


You mean I could go to a school where sex is encouraged? Yippeee !

GrackMarginal wrote:

Orem Parent wrote:
I agree completely. The problem is that from everything I have read, the states that have tried vouchers have later regretted them. Too many problems.



Geez, where do they get this stuff? This isn't true at all.


Isn't it? After all this time of such a "successful" voucher program in Milwaukee, why is it that their legislature refuses to even consider expanding it??

Hammer wrote:

Just curious; Has anyone though of this possibility? The whole voucher issue is backed by several high-powered investment groups. To me, that just says more big business. You know, like big oil, big insurance and the like. Now this would turn into big education, which is exactly what I believe it is. And they chose to try it on Utah. Why? Because someone told them those Utahns are really easy to dupe.


Oil I understand. WalMart I understand. But exactly how does someone get rich running private schools at half what the public schools spend? And if they are already rich, why would they waste time on this? And you don't benefit from big business at all do you? You would prefer to get your electronics, toiletries, and gasoline at a government run store?

Joshua wrote:

Chuck E. Racer wrote:

RangerGordon wrote:

When the NEA came out in favor of reading, I decided not to allow my children to learn to read because everybody knows the NEA is an evil, corrupt, communist organization.


Excellent! That sounds like PCE all the way!


Referendum 1 is about power. Allowing the NEA to keep its monopoly is allowing it to override parental concerns and promote its own agenda. It is a good idea to be skeptical whenever the NEA is asking to keep or increase its power. What is the NEA's agenda? After reading this, you just might decide to empower parents and vote for Referendum 1:

http://theeducationrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/10/referendum-1-is-about-power.html


What "power" does the UEA or NEA have in Utah? If they had real power then every school district would have been out of school the last two days and it would still be called "UEA Recess" instead of being called "Fall Recess.

In case you didn't know the legislature passed a bill in the last session that makes it so that no school recess or holiday can be named for any teacher's union or association. Also, there were at least 5 school districts that were not out of school for the real UEA break.