CSISD drug testing policy

27,535 Views | 200 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Oogway
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 12:12p, 5/16/18
AG
techno-ag said:
Let's face it, this is a good introduction to the real world. Lots of jobs require drug testing these days. Smoke the weed, pay the Piper.
My employer does the same, but the difference is people have more choice in where they go to work. If you don't want to be drug tested, go find an employer or industry that doesn't require that.

Kidlets have less choice in where they go to school. And yes, this isn't proposed to affect every student, but do we really care if a football player smokes a joint now and again? Who is he really hurting with that action?
Reply Quote
3
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tonytx05 • 12:45p, 5/16/18
AG
tonytx05 said:
techno-ag said:
Let's face it, this is a good introduction to the real world. Lots of jobs require drug testing these days. Smoke the weed, pay the Piper.
My employer does the same, but the difference is people have more choice in where they go to work. If you don't want to be drug tested, go find an employer or industry that doesn't require that.

Kidlets have less choice in where they go to school. And yes, this isn't proposed to affect every student, but do we really care if a football player smokes a joint now and again? Who is he really hurting with that action?
Seems very equivalent, thanks for bringing your experience. You're exactly right. Don't want to be drug tested at your job? Work somewhere else. Don't want to be drug tested at CSISD? Don't drive to school or participate in UIL.

It's an illegal activity. Work to change the law if it bothers you.

The Eagle says if the district tests 60 students during 9 testing sessions using the nine-panel-plus-alcohol test ($20) and the synthetic Mary Jane (K2) test ($40), it will only set the district back a measly $32,400. That's less than the salary of one teacher.

Well worth it to bring the hammer down on these potheads, imo.
Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime.

- Joe Biden

I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled.

- Kamala Harris
Reply Quote
6
TaterTot_09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oogway • 1:26p, 5/16/18
Thanks! I need to read up more on it.
Reply Quote
1
JP76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to maddiedou • 1:37p, 5/16/18
maddiedou said:
This is a solution in search of a problem!

There will be very involved parents with kids who drink alcohol and/or do drugs...there will be very involved parents with kids who don't do either

There will be minimally involved parents with kids who drink and/or do drugs...there will be minimally involved parents with kids who don't do either.

Do you see the pattern? Why is more government overreach(yes, public school is a government entity) ALWAYS the solution to problems that "MIGHT happen or could be happening but we just haven't found out yet"?

Perhaps the solution to our overcrowding/underutilized faculties issue is to have one school for parents who want to raise their children to their liking and send them to school to be educated and one school for parents who are fine with constant overreach and intervention.

I respect the opinions of those who like these programs that are put in place to "help the children." I simply do not agree that school has the authority to intrude in this manor unless my child has chosen to join a school sanctioned organization that has a particular mandate in place that both the student and parent must agree to in order to join. Otherwise it is absurd in my humble opinion.

Edit for spelling


So why do you let the same govt screen your children's vision and hearing ?



Reply Quote
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 1:38p, 5/16/18
AG
techno-ag said:
tonytx05 said:
techno-ag said:
Let's face it, this is a good introduction to the real world. Lots of jobs require drug testing these days. Smoke the weed, pay the Piper.
My employer does the same, but the difference is people have more choice in where they go to work. If you don't want to be drug tested, go find an employer or industry that doesn't require that.

Kidlets have less choice in where they go to school. And yes, this isn't proposed to affect every student, but do we really care if a football player smokes a joint now and again? Who is he really hurting with that action?
Seems very equivalent, thanks for bringing your experience. You're exactly right. Don't want to be drug tested at your job? Work somewhere else. Don't want to be drug tested at CSISD? Don't drive to school or participate in UIL.

It's an illegal activity. Work to change the law if it bothers you.

The Eagle says if the district tests 60 students during 9 testing sessions using the nine-panel-plus-alcohol test ($20) and the synthetic Mary Jane (K2) test ($40), it will only set the district back a measly $32,400. That's less than the salary of one teacher.

Well worth it to bring the hammer down on these potheads, imo.

Since when did it become the school's role to eliminate crime in our community?
Reply Quote
2
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tonytx05 • 1:56p, 5/16/18
AG
tonytx05 said:
techno-ag said:
tonytx05 said:
techno-ag said:
Let's face it, this is a good introduction to the real world. Lots of jobs require drug testing these days. Smoke the weed, pay the Piper.
My employer does the same, but the difference is people have more choice in where they go to work. If you don't want to be drug tested, go find an employer or industry that doesn't require that.

Kidlets have less choice in where they go to school. And yes, this isn't proposed to affect every student, but do we really care if a football player smokes a joint now and again? Who is he really hurting with that action?
Seems very equivalent, thanks for bringing your experience. You're exactly right. Don't want to be drug tested at your job? Work somewhere else. Don't want to be drug tested at CSISD? Don't drive to school or participate in UIL.

It's an illegal activity. Work to change the law if it bothers you.

The Eagle says if the district tests 60 students during 9 testing sessions using the nine-panel-plus-alcohol test ($20) and the synthetic Mary Jane (K2) test ($40), it will only set the district back a measly $32,400. That's less than the salary of one teacher.

Well worth it to bring the hammer down on these potheads, imo.

Since when did it become the school's role to eliminate crime in our community?
People are required to not be high or drunk on the job, while driving, etc. School is no different.
Reply Quote
1
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 5/16/18
AG
I would think it would be more important to drug test the teachers than the students, if you really just had cash to burn. It would be hypocritical to not drug test the teachers if you did decide to test the students. What happens when a weed smoking teacher drives her car into my kidlets while high? The teachers would never allow drug testing to be forced on them, and for good reason. I think a small argument could be made to drug test all teachers that drive to school, since they are employees of the district. Students are not employees of the school district. Students should be respected by the school board, not treated like guilty as charged prisoners.

Its funny that $32,000 is considered "measly", when teachers are limited on the number of photocopies they can make. Many teachers are forced to spend there own money to provide the necessary teaching materials to students, because the district "can't afford it". The district affords what it wants, and its easy to spend money when its not all coming out of your own pocket. 100k a year extra to bus students across town for a school popularity contest, no problem. 15 million for an empty campus view high school, no problem. 2 million bucks on "rebranding" schools for ill rezoning agendas, easy peasy. A teacher needs a working pencil sharpener or to make some copies, "sorry we don't have the resources, we are just being good stewards of our tax payers money".
Reply Quote
6
TaterTot_09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 2:52p, 5/16/18
You make an excellent point! There are a lot better things they could spend time and money on. I don't think this is a can of worms worth opening but I'm sure they've already decided.
Reply Quote
5
TaterTot_09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 4:14p, 5/16/18
MTTANK said:
I would think it would be more important to drug test the teachers than the students, if you really just had cash to burn. It would be hypocritical to not drug test the teachers if you did decide to test the students. What happens when a weed smoking teacher drives her car into my kidlets while high? The teachers would never allow drug testing to be forced on them, and for good reason. I think a small argument could be made to drug test all teachers that drive to school, since they are employees of the district. Students are not employees of the school district. Students should be respected by the school board, not treated like guilty as charged prisoners.

Its funny that $32,000 is considered "measly", when teachers are limited on the number of photocopies they can make. Many teachers are forced to spend there own money to provide the necessary teaching materials to students, because the district "can't afford it". The district affords what it wants, and its easy to spend money when its not all coming out of your own pocket. 100k a year extra to bus students across town for a school popularity contest, no problem. 15 million for an empty campus view high school, no problem. 2 million bucks on "rebranding" schools for ill rezoning agendas, easy peasy. A teacher needs a working pencil sharpener or to make some copies, "sorry we don't have the resources, we are just being good stewards of our tax payers money".



You know they're reading this trying to figure out a slick way to rewrite their local policy to allow them to invoice parents for this. "School board saves taxpayers 32k!" Pats themselves on the back for a job well done.
Reply Quote
3
1.618
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37p, 5/16/18
Running 60 tests during 9 testing sessions is not nearly enough to make anyone worry that they have a real chance of being caught. And the cost of the testing is the tip of the iceberg. That is where the expenses *start* and not where they end. Think of all the paperwork, follow up, admin time. etc. And in a growing district, you have to imagine that the costs go up each year.
Reply Quote
3
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 4:52p, 5/16/18
AG
MTTANK said:
I would think it would be more important to drug test the teachers than the students, if you really just had cash to burn. It would be hypocritical to not drug test the teachers if you did decide to test the students. What happens when a weed smoking teacher drives her car into my kidlets while high? The teachers would never allow drug testing to be forced on them, and for good reason. I think a small argument could be made to drug test all teachers that drive to school, since they are employees of the district. Students are not employees of the school district. Students should be respected by the school board, not treated like guilty as charged prisoners.

Its funny that $32,000 is considered "measly", when teachers are limited on the number of photocopies they can make. Many teachers are forced to spend there own money to provide the necessary teaching materials to students, because the district "can't afford it". The district affords what it wants, and its easy to spend money when its not all coming out of your own pocket. 100k a year extra to bus students across town for a school popularity contest, no problem. 15 million for an empty campus view high school, no problem. 2 million bucks on "rebranding" schools for ill rezoning agendas, easy peasy. A teacher needs a working pencil sharpener or to make some copies, "sorry we don't have the resources, we are just being good stewards of our tax payers money".
Salaries are a different line item in the budgets. It's entirely possible for a "rich" district to be able to pay decent teacher salaries, but have a restricted budget for supplies.
Reply Quote
3
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 5:07p, 5/16/18
AG
techno-ag said:

Salaries are a different line item in the budgets. It's entirely possible for a "rich" district to be able to pay decent teacher salaries, but have a restricted budget for supplies.
So adjust that line item higher for supplies, instead of throwing money away treating students like they are on probation and in the legal system. Clearly the idea is to send these students away from the high schools to an alternative school, all in the name of cooking the books. Why not concentrate on actually helping our teachers and students? Wonder if the College View or the rebranding money pissed away could be blamed as forced by state budget and line item issues? I'm sure they would have rather used that money more productively, but their hands were tied.
Reply Quote
2
dman2217
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rhoswen • 6:06p, 5/16/18
What CSISD school do you work at that you cannot get a working pencil sharpener in your room?
Reply Quote
2
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JP76 • 6:20p, 5/16/18
AG
JP76 said:



So why do you let the same govt screen your children's vision and hearing ?



Because you cannot bus off a student to an alternative school for failing a vision or hearing test. Also a vision or hearing test is administered to actually help students, not single them out and attempt to hurt them. Now I fear the school board will be doing away with vision and hearing tests to concentrate more on drug testing. Great.
Reply Quote
3
gibby03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 6:54p, 5/16/18
AG
MTTANK said:
JP76 said:



So why do you let the same govt screen your children's vision and hearing ?



Because you cannot bus off a student to an alternative school for failing a vision or hearing test. Also a vision or hearing test is administered to actually help students, not single them out and attempt to hurt them. Now I fear the school board will be doing away with vision and hearing tests to concentrate more on drug testing. Great.


From what I know of drug testing, students won't be "shipped off" to ISS or Alternative school. That's only if the student is in possession. Which is the same rule today regardless if CSISD does this. Testing positive starts a series of events to intervene in that students choices not to discipline in terms of learning environment.

I don't know what CSISD's plans are but from my experiences I don't know of any school districts that suspend or remove the student from their learning environment because of a positive test.
Reply Quote
1 edit
CSAG96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 9:52p, 5/16/18
AG
Nm
Reply Quote
3 edits
WoodAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58p, 5/16/18
Shipped off?
Ceasing other tests because of this possibility?

Where does this come from?
Reply Quote
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 10:45p, 5/16/18
AG
We don't require anyone with a drivers license to submit to random testing like what is proposed. If someone is intoxicated enough to cause a problem at school, a teacher would see that and report it, the same way a cop sees someone weaving while driving and pulls them over.
Reply Quote
5
Mr Mojo Risin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tonytx05 • 3:04p, 5/17/18
AG
tonytx05 said:
We don't require anyone with a drivers license to submit to random testing like what is proposed. If someone is intoxicated enough to cause a problem at school, a teacher would see that and report it, the same way a cop sees someone weaving while driving and pulls them over.
Yes we do. All district CDL holders (BISD/CSISD and every public district in Texas) that may carry students on a bus are subject to random required testing.

To those who have said in this thread, sometimes repeatedly, that we should test the adults first, that is happening.

Coaches, UIL sponsors, anyone who holds the S endorsement on their CDL and works for a school district is subject to random testing at any time. In my 17 years so far of holding the CDL, I have been tested no fewer than 15 times.

If you get into almost any kind of bus "accident," you will be compelled to give a sample.
America was built on speed, hot, nasty, badass speed.
Reply Quote
4
Agmaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 5/17/18
Not sure I'm for or against the testing but you just listed employees. As noted above by other posters, many employers require testing or randum testing as a condition of employment. Not sure thats a good argument to support testing students.
Reply Quote
2
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Agmaker • 3:35p, 5/17/18
AG
Agmaker said:
Not sure I'm for or against the testing but you just listed employees. As noted above by other posters, many employers require testing or randum testing as a condition of employment. Not sure thats a good argument to support testing students.
The employees he's talking about are school district employees. Those employees are already subject to drug testing, making all the hand wringing about students being tested moot.
Reply Quote
1
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mr Mojo Risin • 3:41p, 5/17/18
AG
Johnny FN Football said:
tonytx05 said:
We don't require anyone with a drivers license to submit to random testing like what is proposed. If someone is intoxicated enough to cause a problem at school, a teacher would see that and report it, the same way a cop sees someone weaving while driving and pulls them over.
Yes we do. All district CDL holders (BISD/CSISD and every public district in Texas) that may carry students on a bus are subject to random required testing.

To those who have said in this thread, sometimes repeatedly, that we should test the adults first, that is happening.

Coaches, UIL sponsors, anyone who holds the S endorsement on their CDL and works for a school district is subject to random testing at any time. In my 17 years so far of holding the CDL, I have been tested no fewer than 15 times.

If you get into almost any kind of bus "accident," you will be compelled to give a sample.


Reply Quote
1
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 3:49p, 5/17/18
AG
techno-ag said:
Agmaker said:
Not sure I'm for or against the testing but you just listed employees. As noted above by other posters, many employers require testing or randum testing as a condition of employment. Not sure thats a good argument to support testing students.
The employees he's talking about are school district employees. Those employees are already subject to drug testing, making all the hand wringing about students being tested mooNice
Nice try Techno. Not all teachers that drive to school are under a drug testing protocol, and their union would never allow it to happen. But all students that want to drive to school, that are not even employees of the district should be subject to drug testing? We don't seem to have the money for proven needs for our students, why do we have the money for this nonsense? I did watch the workshop and did some research. These clowns are going to make this one happen either way. I'm sure you will stop seeing pot smoking students running over other kids and destroying our schools anymore immediately. Perhaps it will even produce a few more national merit scholars? Rack up an even bigger deficit and enjoy treating students like they are on probation.
Reply Quote
3
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MTTANK • 3:55p, 5/17/18
AG
MTTANK said:
techno-ag said:
Agmaker said:
Not sure I'm for or against the testing but you just listed employees. As noted above by other posters, many employers require testing or randum testing as a condition of employment. Not sure thats a good argument to support testing students.
The employees he's talking about are school district employees. Those employees are already subject to drug testing, making all the hand wringing about students being tested mooNice
Nice try Techno. Not all teachers that drive to school are under a drug testing protocol, and their union would never allow it to happen. But all students that want to drive to school, that are not even employees of the district should be subject to drug testing? We don't seem to have the money for proven needs for our students, why do we have the money for this nonsense? I did watch the workshop and did some research. These clowns are going to make this one happen either way. I'm sure you will stop seeing pot smoking students running over other kids and destroying our schools anymore immediately. Perhaps it will even produce a few more national merit scholars? Rack up an even bigger deficit and enjoy treating students like they are on probation.


You can't have it both ways. First you say the teachers should be tested. They are. Then you say something about all students... It's not all students either. Just UIL and those parking on campus. If a student doesn't want to be tested, they can choose not to participate in UIL and not drive. Finally, as for being able to afford it, as has been made clear, CSISD is a rich district. No worries there.
Reply Quote
MTTANK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:03p, 5/17/18
AG
techno-ag said:



You can't have it both ways. First you say the teachers should be tested. They are. Then you say something about all students... It's not all students either. Just UIL and those parking on campus. If a student doesn't want to be tested, they can choose not to participate in UIL and not drive. Finally, as for being able to afford it, as has been made clear, CSISD is a rich district. No worries there.

To be clear, teachers should be considered for drug testing before students are even a thought. They are employees of the district so its at least somewhat plausible. To help you better understand, My opinion is teachers should not be tested at all. Complete waist of money. All teachers that drive themselves to the high school campus are not currently subject to testing, nor is it even being considered. So leave the students that drive out of it, and show them the respect they deserve. If you want to be creative with the money we don't have, at least do something that will actually benefit these students. You know, the ones that this is supposed to be all about?
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
soso33
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:09p, 5/17/18
This will be the death knell of the public school system as we know it. And I have to think that is the end game that is ultimately being pushed here.

You want armed teachers and metal detectors. You want random drug testing. You already have a closed campus. The students wear IDs around their necks. What else can you add that would make the kids feel more like they are actually in a prison facility rather than a public school? And if you treat them that way, how do you expect they are going to act?

The word is trust, and any school board that would adopt such a policy has none for the students it serves.

So invest now in for-profit, privatized education because it will be coming soon to the Brazos Valley in a way like we've yet to witness. Everyone will get their socioeconomic segregation they've been crying for under different guises. Those that can afford it will be able to attend the prestigious schools, and those that can't will be stuck in the prisons, er, I mean the public school system that is currently being modified to accommodate them.

It's wrong on so many levels.



Reply Quote
3
1 edit
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to soso33 • 4:11p, 5/17/18
AG
Quote:
So invest now in for-profit, privatized education because it will be coming soon to the Brazos Valley.
We already have that.
Reply Quote
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mr Mojo Risin • 4:18p, 5/17/18
AG
CDL drivers are a minority of the drivers on the road, so that doesn't really apply to my argument. They are wanting to include EVERY student that drives to campus. Why? Has there ever been a single accident involving a student smoking the dreaded pot you guys hate so much? Or any other substance for that matter?
Reply Quote
2
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:18p, 5/17/18
AG
Hardly.
Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tonytx05 • 4:22p, 5/17/18
AG
tonytx05 said:
Hardly.
Is not Allen Academy a for profit private educator?
Reply Quote
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:23p, 5/17/18
AG
techno-ag said:
tonytx05 said:
Hardly.
Is not Allen Academy a for profit private educator?

I wasn't referring to that.
Reply Quote
soso33
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:24p, 5/17/18
techno-ag said:
Quote:
So invest now in for-profit, privatized education because it will be coming soon to the Brazos Valley.
We already have that.

Don't use your scrutiny icon with me. I'm talking about Betsy DeVos-sized private schools large enough to hold the droves of kids that will be heading their way. Erase your conception of a small private school because these will dwarf them.
Reply Quote
1 edit
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to soso33 • 4:31p, 5/17/18
AG
soso33 said:
techno-ag said:
Quote:
So invest now in for-profit, privatized education because it will be coming soon to the Brazos Valley.
We already have that.

Don't use your scrutiny icon with me. I'm talking about Betsy DeVos-sized private schools large enough to hold the droves of kids that will be heading their way. Erase your conception of a small private school because these will dwarf them.
Surely you're not referring to charter schools? Don't we already have that, too?
Reply Quote
tonytx05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37p, 5/17/18
AG
No one has expressed what the problem here is that testing solves?
Reply Quote
2
soso33
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:49p, 5/17/18
techno-ag said:
soso33 said:
techno-ag said:
Quote:
So invest now in for-profit, privatized education because it will be coming soon to the Brazos Valley.
We already have that.

Don't use your scrutiny icon with me. I'm talking about Betsy DeVos-sized private schools large enough to hold the droves of kids that will be heading their way. Erase your conception of a small private school because these will dwarf them.
Surely you're not referring to charter schools? Don't we already have that, too?
I've edited my post, you lovable pedant!
OK. No more strawmans, please, techno.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.