Kris Haight watched the Carmen's Union protest on Devonshire Street in advance of a meeting Gov. Baker was scheduled to attend this morning.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Kris Haight watched the Carmen's Union protest on Devonshire Street in advance of a meeting Gov. Baker was scheduled to attend this morning.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
There was a public
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 8:33am
There was a public counterprotest but no one could get there because of breakdowns and noshows on the MBTA this morning. /sarc
Reminds me of cabbies vs uber.
Cabbies against Uber
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 8:47am
T workers against. privatization
BPS against Charters
We love us some monopolies!
Reality against Fantasy
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:12am
Sorry, but schools and transit are like healthcare - they don't run best on the profit motive.
There is a reason that the Europeans kick our arse when it comes to all three. It isn't privatization.
am not a big fan of the T but
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:21am
am not a big fan of the T but I agree. You think it shits now? It would be far worse if privatized.
See this
By cybah
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:52am
Thanks for the nod Adam. Twice in one week.. I feel special!
But, here's pictures of the handout they were giving out. Yes it would get very worse if it was privatized.
[img]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5783/21465334199_f1...
(Click here for full image)
[img]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/599/21464239430_8f9...
(Click here for full image)
once a privatizer, always a privatizer
By Nancy L
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:58am
Baker was co-director at Pioneer when MA charter school law first passed, about 18 years ago. The bill was their baby. They started small with tight limits on charter growth.
By 2010, Mass. passed an ed reform law that raised the charter cap to 18% of district budget. It's significant because budget cuts at this level hurt good public schools.
The MA senate voted down charter expansion last year because they saw how the finances work, and they didn't want to continue building two parallel schools systems when we have trouble affording one.
Now Baker wants to lift the cap again and they've set up three ways to make it happen,
He really wants this. My point is this. They started small and now Baker, after 2 decades wants to take the cap off charter expansion and privatize BPS, Lawrence, Holyoke, Springfield and every other district with kids who live in poverty (they're the ones with low scores.)
Towns like Andover, Weston and Wellesley will fend off charter expansion in their districts. Their school budgets are limited too and money spent on charters comes right out of the budget.
The carmen's union is right to see the writing on the wall.
Charlie Baker is a privatizer and as a result a union buster. He's just smarter about it than Walker and Kasich but they're doing exactly the same things. Walker turning 5 public schools turned into charters every year in Milwaukee. Baker wants 50 new charters opened, the majority of which in the state's biggest urban district-- Boston.
I'm sure Baker has business friends who'd love the ready-made business opportunity to run transit subsystem or invest in a charter schools. There's a lot of NYC hedge fund money invested in charter schools. Their pitch is, they can double your invetment in 5 years using federal tax credits.
Stand up. Fight Back. The 1% do not deserve to inheret profit from out transit and public schools.
Read about
By Hall
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:09pm
Read about Kevin Johnson out in Sacramento. It'll make your blood boil.
Ohio too
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:43pm
Ohio too. "Charter schools’ failed promise (Columbus Dispatch)"
Strawmen
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:13pm
First - please stop spreading the untruth that charters hurt Boston's school budget. They take the gross revenues of the city, multiply by 35-36% and that's how they arrive at the school budget (I think it was 35.9 in 2003 and it's now 35.4% mainly because the percentage of fixed costs has risen faster so everything else has to be cut a little) - meanwhile - the total budget grows at 2-3 times the rate of inflation. If these 8000 (and growing) number of children came back to BPS - they wouldn't and couldn't bump up the budget a dime - so the expenditures per child would fall about 15%.
As for "profits" from running the transit system - ask Keolis - and others before them. I'd be surprised when it's all said and done if they are making a penny running the commuter rail. This is an open bid process - I believe we had Amtrak running it for a while, then a pretty incompetent local splinter group and now Keolis. Nobody's been able to do a very good job of it because we haven't spent the huge investments in transit we have made on new equipment - we've spent it on payroll and benefits.
BPS budget
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:27pm
Some Boston Schools parents met with Superintendent McDonough last year to learn about how school financing works at BPS. They found out that it's more complicated than it appears. One of them put together this info graphic.
As a general rebuttal
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:04pm
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the kids attending charters currently are largely poor, minority kids drawn from neighborhoods with bad schools. One way or another, we'd be paying to educate these kids - either through BPS or a charter. They aren't going to go to Holy Name or Catholic Memorial, saving the taxpayers from paying for their schooling.
Sometimes the rhetoric around this issue gets weird as the anti-charter crowd focuses on the hedge fund villains presumably behind it vs. the parents who send their kids to charter school. The people I've met at the Brooke are largely just families who really want access to what they think is the best option for their kid(s). I can't claim to represent that community as the school is mostly non-white, non-middle class folks who aren't from Roslindale. I assure you though that they aren't in this to somehow screw over the taxpayers or make some hedge fund person rich. If you want to limit any further growth of charters, be sure to explain to someone who puts their kid on the bus at 6:30am what your better option is for her kid.
What does this have to do with bicycles?
By Markk02474
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 3:08pm
...or even the MBTA?
That's ridiculous
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:38pm
And exactly the part of the problem. As the number of students shrinks, you can maintain services per student with fewer heads - but we never cut heads. If 20 kids leave - you need one fewer teacher. If 1000 kids leave, you need 50 fewer teachers - and probably 1-2 fewer schools . This whole argument rests on the assumption that if a teacher is "lost" due to a loss of population, somehow students lose out. But if you look at student/teacher ratios - they remain very consistent over time - and in fact staff/student ratios have been increasing because as BPS shrinks, they've maintained most of their headcount - which has driven expenditures per pupil up about an additional 10-15% in the last dozen or so years. With student populations down 10-15%, we've only cut a handful of schools - which is why we have read about so much "seat" overcapacity. Sounds like some aren't happy with the allocation of those resources - but the total resources to BPS are night and day compared to what the system had 15-20 years ago. We've gone from a marginal (and perhaps typical urban) district, to a district that can spend money on par with some of the wealthiest districts in the country (and Beacon Hill has figured this out - which is why we get less aid than we used to).
How so?
By ccd
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:44am
State(and Federal) bureaucracies have little motivation to maintain a balance budget or even run above break even. While they have to answer to tax payers, how's that working out for us? The national debt is $18T. These officials and bureaucrats make 6-figures and pensions for life a the while losing gobs of tax payers $$$. Its far more complicated that but is generally the case.
Actually I work for a federal
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:05pm
Actually I work for a federal agency and we are required by law to have a balanced budget at the end of the year. A ton of programs and badly needed maintenance projects just got deferred last month because people elsewhere in the agency spent idiotic amounts of money on a new hospital across the country and the agency has to be at 0 by end of fiscal.
True but
By Roman
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:11pm
for agencies that don't collect fees and rely on the general fund, they may have to balance the budget in that they can't spend what they aren't allocated, but the treasury ends up borrowing or printing money and/or shuffling IOU's to get the funding to the agency that spends it. The government as a whole still ends up spending more than it collects in taxes and fees.
You're right
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:05pm
It is far more complicated than your standard issue talking points.
I would disagree
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:35am
My healthcare coverage and pricing was amazing prior to Obamacare!
And I would beg to disagree with you
By adamg
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:41am
Before Obamacare, my health insurance costs were outrageous!
YA your cost are down
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:23am
Because you now have a $1,000 - $2,000 deductible!
Nice try, but, no, my deductible is the same
By adamg
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:27am
The difference is I'm paying about $900 a month less thanks to the Obamacare subsidy I wasn't eligible for under Romneycare AND we have dental coverage now.
As they say, YMMV and the plural of anecdote isn't data, but, no, not everybody has just been crushed into socialist gruel under Obamacare. Plus, as an American, I find it kind of nice to know that millions of people not fortunate enough to live in Massachusetts can now get insurance - and routine medical care.
Healthcare rates are in flux
By Markk02474
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 3:11pm
Companies are still sorting out out the numbers and changing rates, so don't rush to any conclusions.
health insurance inflation, mortgage-backed devaluation
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:04pm
My BC/BS premium climbed to over $600/mo. It was a high level plan so I cut back and paid about $250 for less.
It too grew to about $600/mo after about 5 years.
I learned BC/BS reserves held a lot of mortgaged backed securities and so when that "AAA rated" sh*t pile was discovered (~2008) BC/BS made up their loses by raising premiums. year after year. F*ck Wall Street. F*ck BC/BS.
My premium is affordable and it's not rising like it was.
So it was better under
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:53am
So it was better under Romneycare, the same basic program but it had a Republican name so it was so much better? Under either, you can get (and most have) private insurance, so you don't make any point other than anything Obama does you are against.
If Eurocare is so great why
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:47am
If Eurocare is so great why are their cancer and premature infant mortality rates abysmal?
Why did so many elderly people in French hospitals drop dead from a simple heatwave?
Why is is the NHS in the UK a continental joke?
Millions of people wouldn't visit the US for healthcare from Europe each year if something wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
I almost died overseas on a waiting list for their 'wonderful' healthcare.
Go on, please tell us all about this " Eurocare"
By Neal
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:28am
And tell us about how the "Eurocare" system is operated. Try doing it without using vague right wing talking points. Put a little substance into your argument, you may even earn a gold star!
You apparently know no one in the UK or the Continent.
Again, pure fantasy. Besides maybe the ultra rich seeking care in some exclusive Beverly Hills clinic, virtually no one from the developed world is coming here for healthcare. Residents of the developed world generally regard our extremely expensive healthcare "system" as the sick joke it is. They'd be stupid to exponentially overpay for the same quality of service at they can get at home at a far less cost.
Speaking of the NHS in the UK
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:05pm
There are MANY serious problems with it, regardless if we're talking about England, Wales, Scotland, or N. Ireland. If we're going to compare the NHS (single payer, nationalized, the most genuinely socialist healthcare system of the major European countries) with other major Western Euro countries, certainly France, Germany (both multi-payer universal healthcare systems), are much better. But comparing a huge country like the U.S. with much smaller Euro countries is apples and oranges, and much more complex. At the end of the day, health and life expectancy in the U.S., Western Europe, UK, is roughly the same, equal. In some things the U.S. does better or worse, dittoEurope and the UK.
I'm not a right winger or left winger. There are serious problems with both the leftist and rightist narratives and agendas. And I find the left wing obsession with alleged European superiority (meaning they're more socialist? That depends on the country, and what kind of 'entitlements' we're talking about, and the U.S. is much more socialist than most ignorant Europeans realize and most far left Americans will admit) tedious and hackneyed. We aren't living in the 60s and 70s anymore.
I can attest! Family in
By Patricia
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:41pm
I can attest! Family in Ireland - hates the healtcare system, and she's a nurse!
Friend in Ireland, sister died and the family swears she could've beat her disease if they could've gotten her to the US. Of course, all that is speculation
Co worker in Canada; he worked with us here in the US but had to go home for visa issues. At home, contracted an infection. I talked to him on a Friday night, by Saturday morning he was in coma. He languished in a Canadian hospital. The owner of my company used his connections to get the head of a department at MGH ( I forget if it was surgical, or what) to contact said hospital in Canada. the MGH doctor became exasberated when he could not talk to my co workers doctor. He finally got a hold of a doctor at the hospital and he wanted to arrange my co worker to be flown back to the states for treatment, namely at MGH.
The doctor he was speaking with admitted that my co workers life would be saved if they could get him to the States, but he said that unfortunately they were about a day late (maybe the day spent trying to get the attending physician on the phone?? or to even return a call).
My co worker died.
To have the Canadian doctor admit that treatment would've been better in the States is all I need to know.
As always...
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:07pm
The plural of anecdote is not data. I'm sure there are thousands of people in the US who died because they could not arrange to be treated by a department head from MGH, even if you ignore the millions who have died because they had no health insurance at all.
Do you have a link to the
By Patricia
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:46pm
Do you have a link to the millions that died without health insurance?
Hospitals treat the uninsured through a "pool".
No one is turned away.
I'm not being snarky, I really want to know if it's true that millions have died.
And of course, there are just as many complaints in the UK of bad treatment.
I find it nauseating when people really think the UK NHS system is better. There are just as many issues in patient care, and I wonder about research.
Do you have a link to the
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 3:28pm
Well, that took about five seconds of googling:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcar...
...
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:18pm
The U.S. has some great doctors, here in Boston especially. That's not in dispute. The healthcare system in the U.S., however, is a subject of scorn and derision in the rest of the developed world - for good reason. Why should healthcare be privatized? Why shouldn't it be a universal right to receive medical care and attention WITHOUT having to choose between illness/death and a lifetime of crippling debt? Why should insurance companies - who exist to make money, even if they pretend (as the one I used to work for persisted in pretending) to be "non-profit" - make billions of dollars from something that should be, I repeat, a universal right? In other countries - Australia, for instance, just because I lived there - all citizens have Medicare. It covers them for basic care and emergencies and medical necessities. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but it's a damn sight better than what we have here. Citizens who are wealthy enough are free to purchase additional health insurance if they want, but it's very much a non-necessity.
We have good doctors. We have a TERRIBLE system. Full stop.
This is a stupid thing to say
By erik g
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:47am
I'm probably screaming into the abyss here, but this is a uniquely pig-ignorant comment, anon, and you've awoken in me that age-old need to tear down every part of every stupid thing you just said.
Because cancer rates are positively correlated with wealth (through a mechanism not totally understood, but which may have something to do with the fact that wealthier people are the ones getting tested, and when poor people die of cancer it doesn't get reported as cancer), which is why some pockets of extreme wealth in the US also have the highest reported cancer rates--even among people with access to the highest quality of care.
You must mean the infant mortality rates that are lower in every western European nation than in the United States? Or are we including the eastern European nations without nationalized health care, in this big flaming man-o'-straw?
Probably for the same reason that they drop dead at the same rate in American heat waves: because they're elderly and more susceptible to hyperthermia.
You mean the same NHS that they thought highly enough of to feature as the prominent theme at the Olympic opening ceremony? The one whose health outcomes are improving faster than other European countries, despite the fact that the UK’s health spending has only just reached the average European levels?
They're mostly visiting because their government-backed health care is paying the costs for them to come visit, because of a supply shortage in their home country. The rest of them are rich tourists who are willing to pay absurd prices to skip the lines of plebians waiting for healthcare in their own country. Meanwhile, the number of Americans seeking care in foreign countries because of insane costs of care here is rising much more rapidly.
And yet here you are today, proudly waving your flag of ignorance. Pray tell, what terminal condition were you denied treatment for?
Stomach cancer. NHS course of
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:04pm
Stomach cancer. NHS course of treatment was no treatment. Returned to the US and survived thanks to Dana Farber.
Must be an NHS thing because
By Patricia
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:48pm
Must be an NHS thing because that is also what affected my friends sister in Ireland. The family said she had horrible treatment.
He got the same diagnosis (genetic?) and was cured by the wonderful doctors at Lahey.
Um...
By Neal
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 4:46pm
You are aware that NHS is not the healthcare provider in Ireland, are you?
I believe...
By John-W
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:39pm
...it was acute gullibility, which goes to prove his point! They didn't cure him of it.
Whoops
By Rob O
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:55am
MA charters are required to be non-profits. Their motive is teaching children, not making money.
Even still
By cybah
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:02am
Maybe not charters but have you looked at the scandals with for profit schools? (Lincoln Tech, University of Phoenix, etc).. Yeah they aren't public schools per say but they are for profit schools. This is why we don't want private enterprise running the public school system.
Have you looked at Harvard
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:57am
Yeah - that's a non-profit!
Yes
By cybah
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:02am
But harvard isn't begging for federal student loan monies and then ripping off students in the process.
Uhh...
By Jeff B
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:19am
This is not a defense of Phoenix, but you realize the cost of tuition is directly linked to the amount of money they can get from people right?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/08/stu...
Harvards tuition is just as influenced by the money they can collect (boosted by easy, often unfortunately so, loans) just like the housing bubble was created by easy loans as well? Phoenix just doesn’t have to be as choosy as Harvard.
There are good and bad actors in any economic area, but U. Phoenix being a bad one, doesn’t imply they all are.
Government backing of student loans the problem
By Markk02474
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 3:22pm
that leads to U of Phoenix and other for profit colleges soaking students and thus taxpayers.
Blame goes to lawmakers who took huge campaign donations from for-profits for writing the rules allowing the exploitation.
US teens ranks 36th in the
By ccd
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:59am
US teens ranks 36th in the world when it comes to math, science, and reading. "The U.S. ranks fifth in spending per student. Only Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland spend more per student. To put this in context: the Slovak Republic, which scores similarly to the U.S., spends $53,000 per student. The U.S. spends $115,000." - per the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2012.
A large majority attend of public schools while some sites suggest only 10% attend private schools. The point of this? Use deductive reasoning.
Great point
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:29am
I bet the cost of living is a lot lower in the Slovak Republic.
Since this is Massachusetts ...
By adamg
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:30am
Could you do a similar comparison for Massachusetts vs. the world? I think you'll find different rankings.
We would be in the top 10
By Nancy
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:28pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/20...
And just imagine
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:30pm
What would happen if we could bump up performance in some of the urban districts?!
Well maybe..
By John-W
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:41pm
...we should just rout out those fucking morons in the urban districts who bring down our numbers...
Maybe we could stop sending
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:11pm
Maybe we could stop sending so much of our federal tax dollars down to the intellectual hole that is the south and reinvest that money in our own struggling populations.
non-profit charters?
By anon42
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:03am
Check out the situation in Philapelphia if you think that "non-profit" protects us from financial mismanagement or guarantees better schools:
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/Philly_Char...
Here in MA the DESE numbers demonstrate that non profit charters in MA do not equal better education. No one is talking about the charter attrition rates and that they do not back fill seats. Thus a 100% graduation rate is based on "suggesting out" kids which results in a school that goes from approx. 100 kids in 9th grade to approx 45 kids in 12th grade--this is not 100%. Meanwhile the kids who are "suggested out" do their testing in the BPS.
Think the the globe investigate this? Not likely.
Not my point
By Rob O
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:59am
Non-profit means there is no profit than can be returned to the mythical "investors" I often hear about in this context. I was simply correcting an oft-repeated piece of misinformation re: MA charter schools.
I'm not sure your other points are supported by the facts, but that's another argument for another day.
non-profits
By John-W
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 12:47pm
This is a really good point. Not having kids and not being in the education field (and bored to death listening to people fight about it) I haven't had a good understanding about how investors in the private sector are going to make money off this -- which is obviously why this is a thing. (I mean nothing in this country "is a thing" if it's not involved with making someone very rich.)
Can anyone shed a little light on this one? I noticed when looking up the Excel Charter school (which seems to to be metastasizing all over East Boston) there are multiple entities -- some owning buildings, some being parent associations (with millions of dollars) -- it seems like a shell game of some sort and I'm sure there are some for-profit entities involved, but can't figure out how it all fits together. Anyone got the Cliff Notes on this one?
Pretty Cynical
By Rob O
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 1:18pm
There are all sorts of "things" in this country that exist despite the lack of profit-motive. The MFA comes to mind immediately. These "things" are often funded in part by donors who want to support the cause. In the charter school world, Bill and Melinda Gates are some well known donors (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/...)
That isn't totally true
By KBHer
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:00am
That isn't totally true actually. Most of the major European urban transit agencies (and many of the intercity systems) are, in fact, privatized to an extent. The model they tend to use is one of state ownership but where the agency acts more like a private enterprise: the agency can issue it's own stock and bonds, raise it's own capital, but must also meet a high base-service requirement. That's not quite the "privatization" you're talking about, granted, but there are far more options than just "run for profit of small cadre of investors" or "run by state".
But in spirit, I'm with you. Vast majority of the T's payroll accrue to union workers who are protected by Federal, not State, transit union regulations. Even if we got someone crazy enough to want to privatize the MBTA, they wouldn't likely be able to fire workers or streamline payroll expenses because of said regs, their only option for cost-cutting would be to slice up service across the board.
I say, just let the Swiss run it for a decade.
Profits?
By Stevil
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:03am
Haven't seen anyone making boatloads of money off charters (in Mass - can't speak for what goes on in the rest of the country)
Of course Europe has a better transit system than us. When 20% of your population is out of work, they need a way to get to the unemployment office.
I have mixed emotions about medicine - it needs to remain affordable - FOR ALL - but without the profit motive I'd probably have a lot of dead relatives who are alive because somebody had the motivation to invent new procedures, tests, medicines and more. Those things happened here - for a reason - not in Europe.
Non profit is a filing status
By Googie Baba
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:05pm
This comment was really for Rob O above. I put it in the wrong thread:
You understand that a non profit can still make hand over fist off of taxpayer money? Non profit is just the filing status.
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/Philly_Char...
IRS
By Rob O
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:01pm
You do realize there are requirements to invoke the non-profit filing status, right?
I read that article. What's the point you are making with it?
Non profits make "money"
By Googie Baba
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 2:05pm
You seem to have a hard time grasping that charters "make money" even if the filing status is non profit.
You need more precision
By Rob O
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 3:35pm
"Make money" is a very imprecise term. Let's say that's true. What is your concern? Are you concerned that there are people (investors?) who have put forward money to start the charter and are now extracting money from the charter school? That has been my understanding of this criticism of charter schools, which I believe to be untrue in Massachusetts.
I'm being sincere, I don't understand what the concern is.
An example of the imprecision of that term: district school teachers "make money" by teaching in district schools. That money comes from the taxpayers. But that has never been a concern for anyone.
My only point
By Googie Baba
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 8:26pm
I am ONLY responding to your repeated statements that charters are non profits. It doesn't matter. They can still be scamming people. People can still be getting rich off of them. They can still be a waste of taxpayer dollars. The fact that they are non profits is irrelevant. That is my only point.
HOW?!?!
By Rob O
Thu, 09/24/2015 - 11:03am
How could people be getting rich off of charter schools in MA given the fact that for profits cannot operate them? HOW? That is my question.
Nonsense
By Jeff B
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:15am
“Private” does not implicitly mean profit motive. It just means not run by the state, and generally speaking is far more responsive to its customers. Stop conflating the two.
We are also a nation of 315
By ccd
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 11:19am
We are also a nation of 315 million, so you cant really compare to European nations. Apples to oranges.
Privatize 93 and 95, sell
By Baker-Christie 2016
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 8:40am
Privatize 93 and 95, sell them off to private companies that can install tolls and run them more efficiently.
If you think that's a solution
By roadman
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:42am
I have three words for you - Indiana Toll Road
You know
By ChrisInEastie
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:42am
If traffic actually flowed and my suspension wasn't being destroyed every time I used them, I'd gladly pay a small toll.
How many of these unionazis
By anon
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 8:46am
Called in sick to attend this protest?
I don't know,
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 10:14am
tell us anonazi.
Don't blame em
By Lunchbox
Wed, 09/23/2015 - 9:32am
If I was making over $100,000 and could take off 57 days / year for driving a bus, and was in a job where I basically couldn't get fired, I'd fight tooth and nail against any changes too
Pages
Add comment