Thursday Apr. 17, 2014
Comments on:
State Sen. Llew Jones, of Conrad, spent two years drafting the measure
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), accuse someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By Westside2 on 02-22-13 @ 10:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
31 up | 22 down


Why put so many eggs in one basket, whatever the source?  If school funding is a priority, which
a solid majority agrees upon, then diversify the funding.
By Mindy on 02-23-13 @ 6:53 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
45 up | 23 down


I thought Dee Brown ran on her interest in Schools? Obviously she and Verdell Jackson don’t really
care about education or school funding with their vote in opposition of something to help our kids and
property taxes. Really?
By jr2jr2000 on 02-23-13 @ 9:12 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
34 up | 32 down


The easiest thing we could do in this country to improve education would be getting rid of the
teacher’s unions.  Another question, how do private schools turn out much better students than
public schools, while spending about $4000 LESS per student? One main reason is they don’t have
to deal with Teacher’s Union’s and can get rid of bad teachers and keep good ones.  And they
don’t have to be POLITICALLY correct with ever action they take, as to tip toe around the Union’s
big stick.
By redhawk on 02-24-13 @ 10:20 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
38 up | 20 down


Private schools can also get rid of the bad STUDENTS and keep the good ones.  It’s pretty easy
to skew the result when that dynamic is ignored.
By Mark W. on 02-24-13 @ 10:35 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
28 up | 31 down


Imagine if they put on a Government School, and nobody showed up? 

Dare to dream people, dare to dream.
By mooseberryinn on 02-24-13 @ 10:46 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
29 up | 30 down


Relying on natural resource extraction seems to be setting up conflicts between school funding and
environmentalists?  Is there really hope that we can actually have both?  We’ll see.
By reggie on 02-24-13 @ 11:44 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
41 up | 24 down


Most top performing states have strong teachers unions. Public schools, mostly with unions,
outperform charter schools which are mostly nonunion. Finland is 100% union and doing a
better job than the U.S….. Unions are not the problem.
By inthemiddle on 02-24-13 @ 3:35 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
39 up | 17 down


This is a very flawed bill in several ways. First it makes school funding reliant upon resource
development which is not a very stable way of insuring continued basic funding of public education.
It does leave the potential of creating friction between consevationists and public schools both of
which are traditional Democratic areas of support. Right wing groups in the future will use school
funding to be able to exploit sensitive areas where development is not currently allowed, drilling for
oil in the Scapegoat anyone. Secondly this bill favors the smaller schools in the basic funding
formulas, it funds schools on the basis of the number of teachers instead of based upon the
number of enrolled students, larger districts tend to have fewer teachers per student than smaller
schools. Most of our local High school districts will suffer because of this. And third the distribution
of most of the oil and gas money will be allowed to stay in the district where it was pumped, this is
the exact opposite of what occured in the past with timber money from western Montana which
was added to the general education fund and distributed state wide. Most supporters of education
are only looking at the short term gains from this bill and are not looking at how it will actually be
detrimental to education and to our state in general in the long run. This is a poor bill and we are
selling our souls to the devil for short term gains. Governor Bullock’s bill was superior in every way
to this bill.
By BleedingHeartCapitalist on 02-25-13 @ 12:28 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
32 up | 30 down


Mindy, just because someone votes against funding for bureaucrats in the government’s education
establishment doesn’t mean that they don’t really care about education.  They actually care more
about GOOD education than those who vote FOR increased funding for this monopoly, because they
know that very little—if any—of the funding will actually benefit the kids.

It would be FAR better to destroy the behemoth and let the kids scatter into private schools,
where they’ll get a REAL education and where the school has to operate efficiently and follow
the will of the parents in order to stay in business.  The quality of the kids’ education would
greatly improve, and the efficiency of the system that you’re paying for would jump by leaps and
bounds over-night.
By Mark W. on 02-25-13 @ 10:59 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
27 up | 27 down


We’ll still need to fund the schools at some level, though.  We’re going to need a place to house
teachers and administrators until retirement so they’re not running around on the streets all day. 
Plus, when a new crop of teachers has been educated outside the System, we can start feeding our
kids back into that infrastructure, so we might as well keep it maintained.
By Practical on 03-01-13 @ 10:48 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
29 up | 17 down


Dear BleedingHeartCapitalist,  First, private schools only educate students who are easy to
educate.  They kick out students who are difficult to educate.  Public schools can’t do that.
They are required to provide an equal education for all students regardless of their
circumstances.  They aren’t allowed to kick out the students who are difficult to educate.  They
stick with these students year after year, and work hard to try to break whatever cycle it is
that makes these students difficult to educate. Their goal is to try to create future citizens
who will not be a burden on society.  So that is why your public schools come off looking like
chumps while your private schools look like they have some magic formula that provides a
superior education for their students. The fantastic education results of private schools is a
result of skewed data. 

Using tax dollars to fund private schools will result in private schools for the elite students
who are easy to educate, and public schools full of the students that the private schools kicked
out. If you eliminate public schools all together… as you seem to want, you will end one of
two things.  You will either have private schools that will get stuck with the responsiblity of
educating those students who they formerly kicked out, (which will result in lower overall
achievement results for the private schools like the public schools have), or you will end up
with more students who won’t recieve an education because they ended up gettin kicked out of a
private school and didn’t have a public school to fall back on.
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown12h
@kellynbrown
The latest Best of Preps edition is out. Great photos by @gl_photo http://t.co/RYiLUVGOY8 #mtscores http://t.co/yM5hxluamZ
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish9h
@djtabish
Groups Criticize Governor Over Forest Priorities http://t.co/jcYrryw3oe Original story by @TribLowdown here: http://t.co/du8AWgWoj2 #mtnews
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy7h
@mollypriddy
@mallelis What do you ladies use to wrap your Lembas bread? I can't find organic mallorn leaves anywhere
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott16h
@tristanscott
Your Survival Guide To Coachella http://t.co/hlyov5FZjv via @IamJessicaLima http://t.co/0b5csXZiN8
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines8h
@flatheadbeacon
Groups Criticize Governor Over Forest Priorities http://t.co/DsjY7nOJbT