bullets13

Dude got away with a travel

I’m good with Sean Miller.

Nope. And private schools will increase tuition next year as well to make more money. The main purpose of this is to give the wealthy a rebate, nothing more.

Possibly, if Kelly or Legacy would even accept them. It’s not like they have to, and they’re gonna avoid having their scores go down unless it’s a good athlete or something.

Arkansas helped me out today. Had them advancing

Aggies Aggied hard

Sure hope so

Fitting end to the horns season. Need a new coach. They have no offensive game plan.

They were going to be deported because they weren’t American, and led disruptive protests on an American college campus. It makes sense. If you’re not American, hate America, and IN America, it’s probably best if America helps you out and sends you home.

I wasn’t stirring the pot, I bumped and tagged yall in this thread because yall were doing the stuff this thread was made for in another unrelated thread. If I recall. That was almost a month ago.

It defies all odds and logic that Nederland managed to tie 9 of 14 district games. I don't even see how that's possible.

Personally, I love it, but a judge has temporarily halted it. Judge temporarily blocks deportation of arrested Palestinian Columbia student | Reuters

lol.

Assuming they lose to Tennessee tomorrow they’ll end the regular season at 19-15 and 6-12 in the SEC. Some really good wins, but some really bad losses as well. Doesn’t seem like a tourney resume to me. If they hadn’t been projected as on the bubble already I’d assume they’d need to upset Tennessee tomorrow as well. But who knows

As a big Texas fan, I’ll admit that I don’t understand how they’ve come into this tourney on the bubble with the season they’ve had. That being said, if they were on the bubble, I don’t see how these two quality wins don’t get them in.

I agree with this. A program designed to predominantly help the wealthy and upper middle class, but will help a small portion of the poor and underrepresented is not the answer. Taking $1B from the public schools where the majority of these kids in poor options already attend isn't the answer either.

Here's some data from other states doing school vouchers: In Arkansas, 95% of voucher recipients did not attend public school in the year prior to receiving vouchers. In Arizona, 75% of voucher program users were already in private school. In Ohio, the percentage of voucher students who had already attended a private school jumped from 7% in 2019 to almost 55% in 2023 after the expansion of the EdChoice program. In Iowa, two-thirds of students who received a voucher were already enrolled in private school. As the legislation is currently worded, Texas will be closer to Arkansas than Ohio. You're absolutely right, some deserving students will benefit. But more often than not it's going to benefit those who don't need the help. Your argument is not unlike the democrats criticizing the dismantling of USAID. Their supposition is that all of the mismanagement, fraud, misuse, and theft isn't a good reason to end USAID because some of what they do is beneficial, which is inarguable. USAID does some good things. The same can be said for school vouchers. I'm personally not okay with $1B being taken from the public school coffers for a program that will likely in 80-90% of instances benefit those who already can afford private school, despite the fact that the program will help a small percentage of poor and poorish students. And that's not even factoring in that a good portion of public school kids who will take advantage of the program are going to be solidly middle class who just choose to leave a good school to go to a private school.

I think it's a lot naive to think that this is what will actually happen with this bill. That said, if the state actually makes moves to ensure that only those who need this can use it, my opinion will change to some degree. But the following things are 100% going to happen: 1. Private schools will raise tuition to ensure that the poor and disabled are unable to make up the difference in cost, while maximizing their profit. 2. Private schools will not relax entry policies to allow those who are supposed to benefit from this plan to actually make it into their school. 3. Fly by night private schools will be opened to take advantage of these funds while not providing a proper education. 4. The overwhelming majority of people who'll benefit from this bill are going to be families who could already afford private school. They'll just get a nice rebate, just like has happened in EVERY state that has enacted these vouchers.

It's also laughable that they're trying to pass this by stating that a main priority is to allow children with disabilities to transfer to private schools. NEWSFLASH: many, if not most, private schools do not have specialized classrooms for special education students. I've had multiple students in my sped class the last 4 years who's siblings attended private schools in Beaumont, but they came to me because those private schools did not have a sped class for them to attend. It's extremely expensive to care for children with severe needs. If a child, for instance, needed a full-time nurse, the district would be responsible for paying for that nurse. Does anyone really think that private schools would accept that child? From an article I'm reading: "Advocates and experts say the bills' broad definition of low-income families - along with lawmakers' unwillingness to require participating private schools to guarantee access to certain student groups - will likely mean Texas' voucher program, like in other states, will end up primarily serving families who are already paying to send their kids to private schools."

Still haven't had explained to me why they get more money to spend at a private school than their child earns a district when they attend public. And you can talk about "speculation", but there's literally no way that private schools are going to take in at-risk kids unless they have something exceptional to offer in athletics. Some of them won't drag down scores. Some of them absolutely will. And most of the schools won't take the risk. Taxpayers aren't going to be applying their money for better opportunities in 95% of the cases. In fact what will be happening is RICH taxpayers will get a nice rebate on the private tuition bill they already can afford to pay. The wealthiest Texans are certainly in favor of school vouchers. Why anyone else is is beyond me.

absurd. my favorite part is how the law doesn't extend to other first responders. so if you attack a firefighter (the bill-pusher's husband happens to be one), you're committing a crime. It's only legal to attack police.

they'll have a good chance, but there's always some variance, especially in those 1-game series. that said, Brookeland appears to have only graduated 2 from a team that 18-3 last year and beat Chester 2 out of 3 times. It seems pretty unlikely Chester steamrolls them.

Should people get to keep their jobs even if they aren't needed? they're downsizing and eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs, and eliminating unneeded and redudant positions in necessary programs. it works exactly the same way the private sector does. If a hospital closed its cardiology dept would they keep paying cardiology nurses and doctors? It's kind of funny how concerned the left is about jobs being cut now. I never heard a word about it in 2024 when 20.3M American employees were laid off across the country.

I'm sure there are instances of this. But most folks are just doing a job.

The vast majority of these folks have been hired to do a job. The question is whether or not the jobs are necessary, and in many cases they are not. Whether it be surplus park rangers or people working in DEI positions, they're not stealing from tax payers. They're just working. The only way they're stealing from the taxpayers is if they're getting paid for work they aren't doing. That said, I'm all for DOGE eliminating unnecessary positions. If 22 park rangers are doing work that should be done by 15 park rangers, cut 7 positions. If there's a whole office of folks being paid by the government to implement discriminatory DEI initiatives, cut the whole office!