Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 661 to 688 of 688

Thread: Revolution in Wisconsin

  1. #661
    That article talks about the current response. The broad strategy is to close them all.

    Public schools don't really pay rent either, do they? These aren't private schools; they're basically public schools that are run by private individuals. There is no tuition. The government gives these schools what ever money they would have spent on them in a public school. Sometimes, they also get money from philanthropists.

    They take kids from crappy neighborhoods. Even the "high performers" there don't perform all that well. And the results speak for themselves; you're not going to see those kind of results in a school that's 90% Hispanic even if you don't look at the schools of the special ed students.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Also, the article mentions they leave the special needs and nonnative students to the public schools, it's not exactly hard to outperform other schools if you only take the best students
    on top of the trouble makers, underperformers, families that refuse to help, etc.
    Stats wise, for every student a charter school rejects, they go up and the public system goes down.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    on top of the trouble makers, underperformers, families that refuse to help, etc.
    Stats wise, for every student a charter school rejects, they go up and the public system goes down.
    It is a sad fact that the main public schools do their best to reject and dump all those students too, into "alternative" schools, independent-study, and the proliferation of other similar programs which ideally are there to get them the tailored instruction and environment they need but in reality are just a dumping ground with a rapidly changing turning-over body of bottom-rank instructors. In fact, a number of charter schools are actually mechanisms for just that sort of dumping.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    And I would like to refer you to stipulation one of my underhanded dig. Relevance, or rather the lack of it. Do you have any pertinent data what-so-ever from a reliable source that might support any of your claims I have contested?
    You're asking for "a reliable source" that puts everything in a neat package of relevancy and context. That doesn't exist. I've linked to wonky articles analyzing our economy, the slow/jobless recovery, Wages and Productivity relationships, inflation and COL etc. in other threads. The Economist seems to be "a reliable source" most people don't have beefs with, but almost every other "source" is challenged as left/right, liberal/conservative, even Euro-centric, and I don't care to get into a citation war.

    We've done threads about Education funding, taxes, policies, outcomes....income disparity, social immobility, middle-income/middle class destruction....housing bubbles bursting, growing personal credit/debt, the financial crisis, Healthcare crisis -- they're all part of a big picture that can't be separated into tiny bits. However, since many people blame Teacher Unions for problems in our educational system, and want to reduce or eliminate their negotiating influence, we can discuss teacher salaries and deferred reimbursements benefit packages.

    Obviously, healthcare benefits have a monetary value. That's escalated over the years as healthcare costs spiraled out of control. Without Unions in the bargaining process, salaries will have to reflect the shift to buying insurance and/or eliminating the employer (state) subsidy, plus housing prices, medical prices, COL, huge chunks of what people buy with wages. Some states have been freezing teacher pay and shrinking benefits at the same time -- effectively reducing their income, relative to purchasing power, and standard of living.

    That's why teachers (and other public employees) were protesting in WI.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You're asking for "a reliable source" that puts everything in a neat package of relevancy and context. That doesn't exist. I've linked to wonky articles analyzing our economy, the slow/jobless recovery, Wages and Productivity relationships, inflation and COL etc. in other threads. The Economist seems to be "a reliable source" most people don't have beefs with, but almost every other "source" is challenged as left/right, liberal/conservative, even Euro-centric, and I don't care to get into a citation war.
    So essentially you don't have a source to support your claims, and you don't want to admit you were wrong?

  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    So essentially you don't have a source to support your claims, and you don't want to admit you were wrong?
    No, I don't have "one reliable source" that would satisfy your demands. I've tried to explain my rationale using multiple resources, over several years, and a number of threads here in D & D....but that's not enough for you. You prefer to pounce on any one statement, or any source, as some kind of "proof" that my opinion is wrong.

    Newsflash: you can't support your claims using that same criteria, either. At this point, I'm not even sure what claims YOU are making! Teachers aren't professional educators? They shouldn't earn a middle-income salary? They're already over-paid? If we pay them less....we'll get better student outcomes?

  7. #667
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    No, I don't have "one reliable source" that would satisfy your demands. I've tried to explain my rationale using multiple resources, over several years, and a number of threads here in D & D....but that's not enough for you. You prefer to pounce on any one statement, or any source, as some kind of "proof" that my opinion is wrong.
    You were not offering opinions, you were offering facts. The facts you presented were demonstrably wrong. If you believe that teachers should make more money then you have every right to hold and express that opinion. There may even be good reasons to hold that opinion. However, if you believe that teachers should make more money because they are making less money now than they were in the 60's, or that other countries with successful education systems are paying their teachers more then your basing your opinion on a premise that is false. A false premise is not a good basis for an opinion you want us to take seriously.

    Newsflash: you can't support your claims using that same criteria, either. At this point, I'm not even sure what claims YOU are making! Teachers aren't professional educators? They shouldn't earn a middle-income salary? They're already over-paid? If we pay them less....we'll get better student outcomes?
    My claims are and have been that teacher pay does not play a significant role in student outcomes. I maintain that teachers could make six figure incomes yet we wouldn't see a significant positive change in student test scores. Students, families, and what role they think education and learning should play in their lives are what will have the largest difference on student outcomes. Change those and you will get students who can succeed despite their teachers instead of students who can only achieve because of them. That's how you can get incredibly high test scores in countries with middling to low incomes for teachers.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-06-2014 at 10:49 PM.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    You aren't offering opinions, you were offering facts. The facts you presented were demonstrably wrong. If you believe that teachers should make more money then you have every right to hold and express that opinion. There may even be good reasons to hold that opinion, and facts to back it up. If you believe that teachers should make more money because they are making less money now than they were in the 60's, or that other countries with successful education systems are paying their teachers more then your basing an opinion on a premise that is wrong.
    I'm not wrong because I put teacher salaries perspective and in context over time. I think you are wrong in not realizing (or admitting) that US teacher salaries haven't reflected their true value for decades. It's been bound up in deferred payments (health insurance, pensions, legacy costs) and tax policies for so long that most people can't distinguish the difference.

    No offense, but I think you don't see the trees because you're stuck in the forest. And you're too ready to "pounce", and force people into a defensive position....without making your own positive assertions.


    My claims are and have been the teacher pay does not play a significant role in student outcomes. I maintain that teachers could make six figure incomes yet we wouldn't see a significant positive change in student test scores. Students, families, and what role they think education and learning should play in their lives are what will have the largest difference on student outcomes. Change those and you will get students who can succeed despite their teachers instead of students who can only achieve because of them. That's how you can get incredibly high test scores in countries with middling to low incomes for teachers.
    Woo hoo....where's "the reliable source" that supports your claims? Can you explain the differences between Teaching standards and Student outcomes? How about the Scholastic Testing industry, or the Academic Publishing industry -- do you believe they all work independently, yet in tandem....with a shared mission for student success?

    Teacher pay and student outcomes are linked, but there are other variables at play, that neither teachers nor students (or their families) can control. That's where social constructs and safety nets come into play. IF we want every child to have equal access to high quality education, we can't rely on "the invisible hand of free markets" to be the main arbiter. If you disagree....can you cite the data and reliable sources that supports your position?

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'm not wrong because I put teacher salaries perspective and in context over time. I think you are wrong in not realizing (or admitting) that US teacher salaries haven't reflected their true value for decades. It's been bound up in deferred payments (health insurance, pensions, legacy costs) and tax policies for so long that most people can't distinguish the difference.
    Then please, provide a source that shows contextually how teachers are paid less than they used to be. The source I provided shows that their salary when adjusted against the CPI is higher in the 21st century than it ever has been before. It seems it is very easy for you to make a claim, thus far it has been impossible to get you to back it up with anything other than nebulous ranting about perspective and context.

    Woo hoo....where's "the reliable source" that supports your claims?
    Because, and as I've pointed out several times already in this thread, there are a lot of other countries who pay their teachers much less than the United States that have much better student outcomes. As a corollary, there are also countries that pay their teachers more that have similar results to ours.

  10. #670
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Then please, provide a source that shows contextually how teachers are paid less than they used to be. The source I provided shows that their salary when adjusted against the CPI is higher in the 21st century than it ever has been before. It seems it is very easy for you to make a claim, thus far it has been impossible to get you to back it up with anything other than nebulous ranting about perspective and context.
    National averages are very broad metrics, and can't/don't reflect differences by state or municipality. Do you have "a reliable source" showing teacher salaries are 'higher than ever' relative to other costs -- such as college, medical care, housing, energy, childcare, credit/debt -- that have escalated over several decades? Would it adjust for demographic, socio-cultural, policy and tax changes, too?

    I don't think there's one source, study or graph, that can adequately reflect the changes in Public Education....let alone teacher pay. We've come a long way from one-room school houses, 'school marms', neighborhood schools, or teaching as a vocation. Elementary teachers are still predominantly women (~80-85%), but now it's a professional career. It's not something single women do until they marry and start families, and male el-ed teachers aren't just biding time until they 'advance' into Administration or 'upgrade' to university education.

    But we still have a societal attitude toward teachers (and education in general) that belongs in the 50's, not the 21st century. In combination with information technology and politics....we now have "Home Schoolers", mostly in male one-income households where the female 'stays home' to be the Educator. That's a reflection of multiple things, including but not limited to the notion that Teaching is easy, anyone can do it, and do it better than professional Teachers!

    Because, and as I've pointed out several times already in this thread, there are a lot of other countries who pay their teachers much less than the United States that have much better student outcomes. As a corollary, there are also countries that pay their teachers more that have similar results to ours.
    I'll repeat myself, too. Advanced democratic nations who pay their teachers 'less' have comprehensive public infrastructure/services. Their educators don't have to buy (or negotiate via Unions) Healthcare, Child Care, Elder Care, Family Leave, paid sick/vacation days, etc. from their salary package like ours do.

  11. #671
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    National averages are very broad metrics, and can't/don't reflect differences by state or municipality. Do you have "a reliable source" showing teacher salaries are 'higher than ever' relative to other costs -- such as college, medical care, housing, energy, childcare, credit/debt -- that have escalated over several decades? Would it adjust for demographic, socio-cultural, policy and tax changes, too?

    I don't think there's one source, study or graph, that can adequately reflect the changes in Public Education....let alone teacher pay. We've come a long way from one-room school houses, 'school marms', neighborhood schools, or teaching as a vocation. Elementary teachers are still predominantly women (~80-85%), but now it's a professional career. It's not something single women do until they marry and start families, and male el-ed teachers aren't just biding time until they 'advance' into Administration or 'upgrade' to university education.

    But we still have a societal attitude toward teachers (and education in general) that belongs in the 50's, not the 21st century. In combination with information technology and politics....we now have "Home Schoolers", mostly in male one-income households where the female 'stays home' to be the Educator. That's a reflection of multiple things, including but not limited to the notion that Teaching is easy, anyone can do it, and do it better than professional Teachers!
    I know I'm coming to this conclusion pretty late in the game, but I don't really think we can have a fruitful conversation about this, or much of anything. You seem intent to make whatever point you are trying to make by whatever means necessary. This includes creating your supporting 'facts' out of whole cloth. You don't really seem to care about facts, you care only about progressing your narrative.

    I wish you the best, but I think I'm done trying.

  12. #672
    I'm just as skeptical, disappointed, and frustrated as you are, Enoch. But don't shy away from the difficult parts of debate and discussion so easily. We don't have to persuade one another to change philosophies, in order to have a "fruitful" conversation, do we?

    I know you care deeply about our future, as a nation, and realize that education is a crucial element. I don't think you're "done trying" at all, and that's a good thing. Maybe we'd do better to recognize the principles we share and have in common, and work our way from there. We don't have to behave, or communicate, like the politicians we criticize.

  13. #673


    Wisconsin Justices Uphold Union Limits, a Victory for the Governor
    By MONICA DAVEYJULY 31, 2014

    CHICAGO — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a law that significantly limits collective bargaining rights for most public workers, dealing a decisive blow to labor unions in the state and handing Gov. Scott Walker a crucial victory in an election year.

    The law, known as Act 10, became the signature legislation of Mr. Walker, a Republican who drew national notice when he proposed it after taking office in 2011. The measure brought thousands of union supporters to the State Capitol in protest and galvanized efforts to limit unions in Republican-controlled states.

    In a 5-to-2 decision, justices rejected arguments that the restrictions on collective bargaining violated freedom of association and equal protection rights, among others.

    “No matter the limitations or ‘burdens’ a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation,” Justice Michael J. Gableman wrote in a majority opinion.

    “The First Amendment cannot be used as a vehicle to expand the parameters of a benefit that it does not itself protect,” he also wrote.

    The justices also ruled on two other closely watched issues, upholding a law requiring voters to show photo identification and another creating a domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples. The immediate effect of those rulings was somewhat limited because of other, still-waited decisions expected on related issues in the federal courts.

    In a written statement, Mr. Walker said of the collective bargaining case: “Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers more than $3 billion. Today’s ruling is a victory for those hard-working taxpayers.” The law had been entangled in litigation since its passage.

    Mr. Walker, who is talked about as a possible presidential candidate in 2016 even as he is in the midst of a tight race for re-election, has said that Act 10 is needed to solve an expected deficit in the state budget.

    Union leaders — who have long dismissed Act 10 as an excuse to diminish the power of unions, which often back Democratic candidates — said they were disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. While the State Supreme Court is nominally nonpartisan, some critics say it has often split along predictable conservative-liberal lines with a majority of the justices siding with the conservatives.

    Some labor leaders said that Mr. Walker’s measure all but eviscerated many public sector unions, leaving members wondering exactly what bargaining ability they were getting for their dues, which under the law can no longer be automatically withdrawn from their paychecks. Act 10 limited bargaining rights to pay raises within the rate of inflation. And with higher contributions from workers for their health care and pensions under the law, some union members said they could no longer afford dues. One Wisconsin union said it had lost as much as 60 percent of its membership.

    “We were preparing our locals for this outcome, and in all honesty, we have been moving forward under the assumption that it would be this way,” said Kim Kohlhaas, the president of AFT-Wisconsin.

    With the legal challenges over, at least for now, union leaders and Democrats, who hold minorities in both of the state’s legislative chambers, said they would still pursue changes through the coming elections.

    Act 10 proved divisive in the state, which decades ago became the nation’s first to give public sector unions the ability to negotiate contracts. The changes led to recall efforts against Mr. Walker and legislators in 2011 and 2012, and remain an issue in Mr. Walker’s re-election campaign this year.

    “It’s been a sobering time, but we carry on and people are ready to make it right,” said Boyd McCamish, executive director of District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in Milwaukee.

    Mr. Walker’s opponent this fall, Mary Burke, a Democrat and former business executive, has said she favors collective bargaining. Polls have shown the race is close. “Mary supports the right of workers to collectively bargain, and believes that the concessions on health care and pension were fair, but should have been reached through the collective bargaining process,” a statement from Ms. Burke’s spokesman, Joe Zepecki, read in part.

    In a pair of other rulings, the justices upheld a state law requiring that photo identification be shown at polling places, while also requiring officials to consider waiving the cost of securing documents needed to get such identification. The rulings will have no immediate effect on Wisconsin voters, however, because of a federal court decision in April that the law violates the Constitution. That decision is being reviewed by a federal appeals court in Chicago.

    And in the case involving a challenge to a law establishing a domestic partnership registry system for gay couples, the justices said the law did not violate a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But a larger question about same-sex marriages in the state is making its way through the federal court system. In June, a federal judge struck down the state’s ban, and that case, along with a similar one from Indiana, is awaiting a hearing in an appeals court.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us...-by-court.html
    *FAP FAP FAP FAP*

  14. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post

    *FAP FAP FAP FAP*
    Get a room skank...that's disgusting to see in public.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  15. #675
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    While I'm happy they don't automatically take dues or of paychecks anymore (which is particularly dubious considering they also make political donations), why exactly shouldn't voluntary members be allowed to negotiate for a pay rise higher than inflation? Aside from using it as a sort of cheat to prevent higher pay rises by making negotiating about it illegal.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    ...why exactly shouldn't voluntary members be allowed to negotiate for a pay rise higher than inflation? Aside from using it as a sort of cheat to prevent higher pay rises by making negotiating about it illegal.
    You see, people like Dread who tend to salivate over issues like this, deem corporate and municipal personhood to be more important than personal personhood because they have more money to buy elections than personal persons.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  17. #677
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    While I'm happy they don't automatically take dues or of paychecks anymore (which is particularly dubious considering they also make political donations), why exactly shouldn't voluntary members be allowed to negotiate for a pay rise higher than inflation? Aside from using it as a sort of cheat to prevent higher pay rises by making negotiating about it illegal.
    They can negotiate pay increases higher than inflation -- but the state can only sign such an agreement with a referendum. In other words, the law limits the parameters of what the state can/will negotiate without a higher standard of popular consent.

  18. #678
    Wow, three years flies by fast!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    They can negotiate pay increases higher than inflation -- but the state can only sign such an agreement with a referendum. In other words, the law limits the parameters of what the state can/will negotiate without a higher standard of popular consent.
    It's a legislative issue....which makes their voter ID requirements the more important challenge. Hey, if they can limit voting to certain demographics, maybe they can keep that state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, too!

  19. #679
    ID != Demographics

    Are you claiming some demographics are unable or too incapable to get ID?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #680
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    ID != Demographics

    Are you claiming some demographics are unable or too incapable to get ID?
    I'm saying that some Wisconsin Republicans are trying to limit/restrict voting, in hopes that it will affect legislation. It's recognized as part of gerrymandering, but it's still a political (but not democratic) tactic.

  21. #681
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'm saying that some Wisconsin Republicans are trying to limit/restrict voting, in hopes that it will affect legislation. It's recognized as part of gerrymandering, but it's still a political (but not democratic) tactic.
    No it's not recognized as part of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a very specific thing and it is solely about drawing district lines, something which doesn't limit voting in the slightest.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #682
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No it's not recognized as part of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a very specific thing and it is solely about drawing district lines, something which doesn't limit voting in the slightest.
    How do you figure? Gerrymandering has wider impacts, especially when it includes voter ID. If we want to be a representative democracy, voting districts and their processes matter.

  23. #683
    Even if A might be a subset included in B, that does not mean that B=A.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Even if A might be a subset included in B, that does not mean that B=A.
    Theoretically, it shouldn't matter. But in practice, it does.

    There's a gap exploited by political groups....where eligible voters don't register to vote, or exercise their right to vote. If one political party makes voting a real hassle, it's no wonder that people don't vote.

    If gerrymandered districts mean the majority vote doesn't matter, it feeds into the notion that voting doesn't matter, so why bother?

  25. #685
    A gerrymandered district doesn't mean the majority vote doesn't matter. It just works to keep as many minority voters outside that district and instead voting in other districts as possible.

    And in practice, B STILL does not equal A.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    A gerrymandered district doesn't mean the majority vote doesn't matter. It just works to keep as many minority voters outside that district and instead voting in other districts as possible.

    And in practice, B STILL does not equal A.
    Sounds like you're excusing and protecting gerrymandering.

  27. #687
    You hear what you want to hear.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    You hear what you want to hear.
    And you ignore what you want to deny.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •