The suggestion has been made that the best teachers at Stanton and Paxon should be placed in the lowest performing schools and what a terrible suggestion it is.
Mr. Littelpage presupposes that our best teachers are at Paxon and Stanton since they are two of the best schools in the nation. It’s exactly this low order thinking that has seen the rise of ideas like merit pay, virtual schools and a teachers experience and education don’t matter. They might sound reasonable or good and all but the facts show the opposite.
I have no doubt the halls of Stanton and Paxon are filled with brilliant teachers but I likewise have no doubt that the intervening schools have brilliant teachers as well.
If all we did was switch the staff at Stanton with one of the staffs at Ribault, Jackson or Raines, at the end of the year Stanton would still be one of the best schools and the other would still be struggling.
We need real solutions, not just ones that sound good.
Friday, March 4, 2011
A letter to Littlepage
A letter to Littlepage
Mr. Littlepage started his latest editorial on our low achieving intervene schools, I don’t pretend to be an expert on education. Right there he hit the nail on the head, one of the problems with our intervening schools and our school district in general is we have several people who are pretending to be education experts and they are in charge.
He is then both right and wrong. He is right that it is a good thing that we are finally getting mad and that we are finally noticing how things have been going, but when he writes, we should have been mad years ago, he is wrong about that because some of us have been mad for years.
For years I have been writing about the brain drain of magnet schools and
how since they get to pick and choose who they take and keep are unfair.
For years I have been writing about how pushing kids along without consequences, a work ethic or the skills they need to be successful, does them and the city a disservice. For years I have been writing about how forcing every kid into a one size fits all curriculum regardless of aptitude and desire sets them up for failure and for years I have written about who is at the epicenter of this problem; a school board made up of politicians on their way up or way down and people filled with hubris that have tenuous relationships at best to our local schools. Littlepage on the other hand, for years, in his writings have given them a pass.
I imagine it’s fairly easy to run schools where the parents are involved and the kids don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or violence in the streets. It gets a little more challenging when those are concerns and they are very real concerns, for the students at many of our schools. I try not to question the school boards commitment to our children but it’s hard for me not to question their depth as in they are out of theirs and this should have been made incredibly obvious when you look at their solution to fix the intervening schools. They want to split them into two smaller theme based schools? Why don’t they instead try to address the real issues the schools are facing? The school boards brilliant (sic) solution inspired Mr. Littlepage to write, we finally have the school board and superintendant we need in place.
Mr. Littelpage they are probably just good enough for the Southside and beaches, for Mandarin and Bay Meadows but for the west and north sides of Jacksonville we need something different.
What Mr. Littelpage also fails to acknowledge is the problems our intervening schools are facing are the same problems we have in many of our other high schools and middle schools too. Lee, Forrest, Ed White, First Coast and many of our middle schools, which one colleague of mine compared to Lord of the Flies, aren’t doing that much better. They aren’t getting the same publicity but don’t sleep well at night thinking those schools are fine. We have a systemic problem in Jacksonville and we need real change to fix it.
It seems like the city is slowly starting to wake up; hopefully Mr. Littelpage is because he has a voice that can speak for our children, he more than me on my little blog can get the word out but until we do completely wake up, you should know that we will have more kids falling through the cracks, more kids doomed to a menial existence or at best have their development retarded and we will have more kids who we have let down too.
I have been mad about that for a while as well.
Mr. Littlepage started his latest editorial on our low achieving intervene schools, I don’t pretend to be an expert on education. Right there he hit the nail on the head, one of the problems with our intervening schools and our school district in general is we have several people who are pretending to be education experts and they are in charge.
He is then both right and wrong. He is right that it is a good thing that we are finally getting mad and that we are finally noticing how things have been going, but when he writes, we should have been mad years ago, he is wrong about that because some of us have been mad for years.
For years I have been writing about the brain drain of magnet schools and
how since they get to pick and choose who they take and keep are unfair.
For years I have been writing about how pushing kids along without consequences, a work ethic or the skills they need to be successful, does them and the city a disservice. For years I have been writing about how forcing every kid into a one size fits all curriculum regardless of aptitude and desire sets them up for failure and for years I have written about who is at the epicenter of this problem; a school board made up of politicians on their way up or way down and people filled with hubris that have tenuous relationships at best to our local schools. Littlepage on the other hand, for years, in his writings have given them a pass.
I imagine it’s fairly easy to run schools where the parents are involved and the kids don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or violence in the streets. It gets a little more challenging when those are concerns and they are very real concerns, for the students at many of our schools. I try not to question the school boards commitment to our children but it’s hard for me not to question their depth as in they are out of theirs and this should have been made incredibly obvious when you look at their solution to fix the intervening schools. They want to split them into two smaller theme based schools? Why don’t they instead try to address the real issues the schools are facing? The school boards brilliant (sic) solution inspired Mr. Littlepage to write, we finally have the school board and superintendant we need in place.
Mr. Littelpage they are probably just good enough for the Southside and beaches, for Mandarin and Bay Meadows but for the west and north sides of Jacksonville we need something different.
What Mr. Littelpage also fails to acknowledge is the problems our intervening schools are facing are the same problems we have in many of our other high schools and middle schools too. Lee, Forrest, Ed White, First Coast and many of our middle schools, which one colleague of mine compared to Lord of the Flies, aren’t doing that much better. They aren’t getting the same publicity but don’t sleep well at night thinking those schools are fine. We have a systemic problem in Jacksonville and we need real change to fix it.
It seems like the city is slowly starting to wake up; hopefully Mr. Littelpage is because he has a voice that can speak for our children, he more than me on my little blog can get the word out but until we do completely wake up, you should know that we will have more kids falling through the cracks, more kids doomed to a menial existence or at best have their development retarded and we will have more kids who we have let down too.
I have been mad about that for a while as well.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wisconsin's Scott Walker rated false
From Politfact
have adopted a new expression when it comes to describing the state of government finances: "We’re broke."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker started using the "broke" description as he unveiled his controversial budget-repair bill, which would force state employees to pay more for health care and pensions and curtail collective bargaining rights for most public employees.
"I don't have anything to negotiate," Walker said Feb. 11, 2011, the day he unveiled his budget-repair bill, aimed at closing a $137 million gap in the budget that ends June 30, 2011. "We are broke in this state. We have been broke for years."
Since then, he’s repeated the phrase many times.
"The bottom line is we are trying to balance our budget and there really is no room to negotiate on that because we’re broke," Walker said Feb. 21, 2011 on ABC’s "Good Morning America."
"
At a news conference that day, he said: "We’re broke. We don’t have any more money."
He added: "We have a $3.6 billion budget deficit (for the next two years). You can’t really negotiate if you don’t have any money to negotiate with."
In his March 1, 2011 budget speech, the governor said: "The facts are clear: Wisconsin is broke and it’s time to start paying our bills today – so our kids are not stuck with even bigger bills tomorrow."
Walker, of course, has promised not to turn to one conventional tool the state has available to make ends meet -- raising taxes. That’s a political decision and one we are not focused on in this item. Rather, we’re focusing on the language Walker and supporters are using to describe the state’s finances and to persuade taxpayers that his solutions are best.
Since the "broke" description has become so common, we decided to look at exactly what it means and whether it is an accurate description of Wisconsin’s financial state.
Let’s start with some dictionary definitions:
Broke: having no money; bankrupt.
Broke: without money; penniless.
Broke: Synonyms: bankrupt, beggared, bust, cleaned out, destitute, dirt poor, flat broke , impoverished, in Chapter 11, in debt, indebted, indigent, insolvent, needy, penniless, penurious, poor, ruined, stone broke, strapped, tapped out.
We’ll add a more conversational use: "I’m broke. Can you buy this round of beers?"
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor was referring to $58.7 million plus interest owed to Minnesota under a discontinued tax-reciprocity deal and at least $200 million owed to the Patients Compensation Fund after a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision said former Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration illegally tapped into the fund.
Werwie also cited the "Medicaid deficit", the "corrections deficit" and "other things out there." The state, he said, has been running "massive structural deficits for years."
in earlier items, we found the deficit in the budget ending June 30, 2011, is real and rated False a claim that the $3.6 billion deficit projected for the next two fiscal years is a "bogus" number.
Walker wants to close the current deficit with a combination of debt restructuring and changes that would affect most public employees -- including limiting collective bargaining rights to only wages, and then only within limits. The outcry over that provision stirred the huge protests in Madison, the walkout by Democrats in the state Senate, and numerous efforts by Walker and Republicans to explain their position.
The Republican explanation has been that Walker’s "budget-repair bill" includes modest requests of state employees and brings their benefit contributions in line with private sector workers. And it’s continued: The state has no choice....because we’re broke.
To be sure, some local governments have gone belly up, but not many.
The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel reported in fall of 2010 that fewer than 250 of the nation’s 89,000 government units have filed for bankruptcy since 1980.
"Recent close calls in Harrisburg, Pa., and Central Falls, R.I., spark predictions that the next phase of the financial crisis will be a tsunami of municipal bankruptcies and defaults," Wessel wrote. "Muni-bond experts at rating agencies and bankruptcy lawyers assure us that isn't likely."
He added: "After Vallejo, Calif., won a federal judge's OK to use Chapter 9 in 2008 to extricate itself from union contracts, there were widespread predictions that other cities would follow.
‘Two and a half years later that hasn't been the case,’ says Robert Kurtter, who oversees state and local government ratings at Moody's Investors Service."
In an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin, Kurtter said few municipalities have filed for bankruptcy because it’s a long, complicated and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. In addition, states are prohibited from filing bankruptcy under federal law.
A columnist for Governing magazine addressed the issue in fall of 2010.
"There may be talk about governments being bankrupt and insolvent when what is meant is, ‘We don't want to raise taxes and don't want to spend so we have to cut.’" Penelope Lemov wrote in the article.
Meanwhile, in January 2011, Moody’s issued a national report that combined state debt and pension liabilities. Moody’s studies and rates debt issued by governments and corporations, and its ratings can affect how much those issuing bonds will have to pay in interest.
The report says that combining those obligations makes it easier to compare the fiscal health of states. Those with the highest ratings have the most serious debt burdens, which makes them less appealing to investors.
Wisconsin’s rating was 37th as measured by the amount of debt per capita, 38th (debt by GDP) 39 (by personal income) and 41 (by revenue).
"States’ liability rankings versus revenue or economic measures tend to be indicative of the nature of risks these states carry in funding their obligations over the long term," the report says.
So according to the Moody’s debt ranking, Wisconsin fares well when compared with other states. That’s one measure of the state’s fiscal health.
We asked a few local experts about the use of the term "broke" to describe the state of Madison’s finances:
Andrew Reschovsky, a UW-Madison professor of public affairs and finance, said use of the term didn’t make sense when it comes to the state’s financial situation.
"That’s obviously absurd," Reschovsky said. "We obviously aren’t broke. The analogy to a household is really a fallacious one."
He said the government has powerful tools at its disposal to make ends meet: taxes or manipulating fees. You could also put off some spending or shift some debt into the next fiscal year -- tricks that state budget offices have routinely used.
Walker has taken tax increases off of the table. He proposed in his budget-repair bill to restructure the state’s debt, pushing some payments off into the future.
"For the amount of money that we’re talking about there’s a wide range of things that could be done," Reschovsky said.
The $137 million deficit in the budget year ending June 30 represents about 0.456 percent of the $30 billion state budget, or less than half of 1 percent. The projected $3.6 billion deficit for the next two-year budget is more serious: about 12 percent of the overall budget.
Connie Kilmark, owner of a Madison firm that consults people in financial trouble, said of Walker’s "broke" rhetoric: "It’s just not true. He’s trying to scare us all."
The state has taxing power, and revenue is continuing to flow in -- both key factors in making ends meet, she said. As the economic recovery continues, tax revenue is expected to actually rise $1.5 billion in the next two-year period, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
Claire Ann Resop, a Madison attorney who handles bankruptcies and reviews other bankruptcy cases filed in that part of the state, said "broke" is measured by whether or not you can pay your bills. Said Resop: "I haven’t heard that they’ve been defaulting."
That said, some of the bills are due. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, for instance, has expressed impatience with Wisconsin’s delays on repayment, saying in January that Wisconsin should pay up immediately.
Ken King, of the Family Service Association in Sheboygan, which runs a consumer credit counseling center, said, "When you have nothing to draw on anymore, you’re broke."
Ralph Anzivino, a Marquette University Law School professor who teaches bankruptcy law, said, "Broke is a lay term, a street term."
He said it would be more accurate to say that the state was insolvent but has options at its disposal to put its house in order. They include: raising taxes, laying off workers and cutting costs or finding other savings.
Then there is this perspective from within state government itself.
"The state is no more broke than it was two, four or 10 years ago," said Frank Hoadley, capital finance director with the state Department of Administration.
"There’s always a huge gap" as budget deliberations begin, he said. "And it always gets hammered out."
In unveiling his two-year budget, Walker cut aid to local schools and government by about $1 billion. But the proposal, which now goes to the Legislature, included new spending in some areas, including adding $1 million in raises for prosecutors, $993,800 for additional public defenders and $1.04 million to investigate Internet crimes against children.
On the opposite side of the ledger, the budget reduced revenue by some $140 million through a variety of tax cuts, including ones aimed at businesses and individuals with Health Savings Accounts.
Finally, we took the question to Wall Street and the experts at Moody’s, who are hired by the state to study and rate its debt. A Moody’s panel, including Kurtter, one of the most respected municipal finance experts in the country, discussed Wisconsin’s dilemma and Walker’s assertion and made these observations:
The state’s debt has a very high credit rating of AA2 and that has not changed in years. That compares favorably with other states, including Illinois, that face far more severe budget crunches.
Wisconsin is in the same boat as numerous other states face unprecedented economic pressures due to the effects of the recession, said Kurtter, who added that budget pressures will continue to mount.
"This is not a problem that’s isolated in Wisconsin," said Kimberly Lyons, a Moody’s analyst.
Kurtter noted that Wisconsin faces unique challenges because the state does not have a reserve or "rainy day" fund.
The state’s "budget stabilization fund" had an average balance of $1.685 million in January, according to Robert Lang, director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. That supports a budget that has a $14 billion in general fund spending.
Kurtter said Wall Street will look at several factors when deciding how much risk Wisconsin presents to future investors. They include: whether or not a budget is adopted, whether it closes the shortfall, and whether it does it in a "structural way," that is long-term.
So, let’s review.
Walker and other Republicans say the state is broke, so broke that there’s no money, and because there’s no money, they are unwilling to negotiate over the terms of the budget-repair bill.
Experts agree the state faces financial challenges in the form of deficits. But they also agree the state isn’t broke. Employees and bills are being paid. Services are continuing to be performed. Revenue continues to roll in. A variety of tools -- taxes, layoffs, spending cuts, debt shifting -- is available to make ends meet. Walker has promised not to increase taxes. That takes one tool off the table. Another tool was never there: declaring bankruptcy. We’re not broke or bankrupt in part because under federal law we can’t be.
We rate Walker’s statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/03/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsin-broke/
have adopted a new expression when it comes to describing the state of government finances: "We’re broke."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker started using the "broke" description as he unveiled his controversial budget-repair bill, which would force state employees to pay more for health care and pensions and curtail collective bargaining rights for most public employees.
"I don't have anything to negotiate," Walker said Feb. 11, 2011, the day he unveiled his budget-repair bill, aimed at closing a $137 million gap in the budget that ends June 30, 2011. "We are broke in this state. We have been broke for years."
Since then, he’s repeated the phrase many times.
"The bottom line is we are trying to balance our budget and there really is no room to negotiate on that because we’re broke," Walker said Feb. 21, 2011 on ABC’s "Good Morning America."
"
At a news conference that day, he said: "We’re broke. We don’t have any more money."
He added: "We have a $3.6 billion budget deficit (for the next two years). You can’t really negotiate if you don’t have any money to negotiate with."
In his March 1, 2011 budget speech, the governor said: "The facts are clear: Wisconsin is broke and it’s time to start paying our bills today – so our kids are not stuck with even bigger bills tomorrow."
Walker, of course, has promised not to turn to one conventional tool the state has available to make ends meet -- raising taxes. That’s a political decision and one we are not focused on in this item. Rather, we’re focusing on the language Walker and supporters are using to describe the state’s finances and to persuade taxpayers that his solutions are best.
Since the "broke" description has become so common, we decided to look at exactly what it means and whether it is an accurate description of Wisconsin’s financial state.
Let’s start with some dictionary definitions:
Broke: having no money; bankrupt.
Broke: without money; penniless.
Broke: Synonyms: bankrupt, beggared, bust, cleaned out, destitute, dirt poor, flat broke , impoverished, in Chapter 11, in debt, indebted, indigent, insolvent, needy, penniless, penurious, poor, ruined, stone broke, strapped, tapped out.
We’ll add a more conversational use: "I’m broke. Can you buy this round of beers?"
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor was referring to $58.7 million plus interest owed to Minnesota under a discontinued tax-reciprocity deal and at least $200 million owed to the Patients Compensation Fund after a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision said former Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration illegally tapped into the fund.
Werwie also cited the "Medicaid deficit", the "corrections deficit" and "other things out there." The state, he said, has been running "massive structural deficits for years."
in earlier items, we found the deficit in the budget ending June 30, 2011, is real and rated False a claim that the $3.6 billion deficit projected for the next two fiscal years is a "bogus" number.
Walker wants to close the current deficit with a combination of debt restructuring and changes that would affect most public employees -- including limiting collective bargaining rights to only wages, and then only within limits. The outcry over that provision stirred the huge protests in Madison, the walkout by Democrats in the state Senate, and numerous efforts by Walker and Republicans to explain their position.
The Republican explanation has been that Walker’s "budget-repair bill" includes modest requests of state employees and brings their benefit contributions in line with private sector workers. And it’s continued: The state has no choice....because we’re broke.
To be sure, some local governments have gone belly up, but not many.
The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel reported in fall of 2010 that fewer than 250 of the nation’s 89,000 government units have filed for bankruptcy since 1980.
"Recent close calls in Harrisburg, Pa., and Central Falls, R.I., spark predictions that the next phase of the financial crisis will be a tsunami of municipal bankruptcies and defaults," Wessel wrote. "Muni-bond experts at rating agencies and bankruptcy lawyers assure us that isn't likely."
He added: "After Vallejo, Calif., won a federal judge's OK to use Chapter 9 in 2008 to extricate itself from union contracts, there were widespread predictions that other cities would follow.
‘Two and a half years later that hasn't been the case,’ says Robert Kurtter, who oversees state and local government ratings at Moody's Investors Service."
In an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin, Kurtter said few municipalities have filed for bankruptcy because it’s a long, complicated and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. In addition, states are prohibited from filing bankruptcy under federal law.
A columnist for Governing magazine addressed the issue in fall of 2010.
"There may be talk about governments being bankrupt and insolvent when what is meant is, ‘We don't want to raise taxes and don't want to spend so we have to cut.’" Penelope Lemov wrote in the article.
Meanwhile, in January 2011, Moody’s issued a national report that combined state debt and pension liabilities. Moody’s studies and rates debt issued by governments and corporations, and its ratings can affect how much those issuing bonds will have to pay in interest.
The report says that combining those obligations makes it easier to compare the fiscal health of states. Those with the highest ratings have the most serious debt burdens, which makes them less appealing to investors.
Wisconsin’s rating was 37th as measured by the amount of debt per capita, 38th (debt by GDP) 39 (by personal income) and 41 (by revenue).
"States’ liability rankings versus revenue or economic measures tend to be indicative of the nature of risks these states carry in funding their obligations over the long term," the report says.
So according to the Moody’s debt ranking, Wisconsin fares well when compared with other states. That’s one measure of the state’s fiscal health.
We asked a few local experts about the use of the term "broke" to describe the state of Madison’s finances:
Andrew Reschovsky, a UW-Madison professor of public affairs and finance, said use of the term didn’t make sense when it comes to the state’s financial situation.
"That’s obviously absurd," Reschovsky said. "We obviously aren’t broke. The analogy to a household is really a fallacious one."
He said the government has powerful tools at its disposal to make ends meet: taxes or manipulating fees. You could also put off some spending or shift some debt into the next fiscal year -- tricks that state budget offices have routinely used.
Walker has taken tax increases off of the table. He proposed in his budget-repair bill to restructure the state’s debt, pushing some payments off into the future.
"For the amount of money that we’re talking about there’s a wide range of things that could be done," Reschovsky said.
The $137 million deficit in the budget year ending June 30 represents about 0.456 percent of the $30 billion state budget, or less than half of 1 percent. The projected $3.6 billion deficit for the next two-year budget is more serious: about 12 percent of the overall budget.
Connie Kilmark, owner of a Madison firm that consults people in financial trouble, said of Walker’s "broke" rhetoric: "It’s just not true. He’s trying to scare us all."
The state has taxing power, and revenue is continuing to flow in -- both key factors in making ends meet, she said. As the economic recovery continues, tax revenue is expected to actually rise $1.5 billion in the next two-year period, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
Claire Ann Resop, a Madison attorney who handles bankruptcies and reviews other bankruptcy cases filed in that part of the state, said "broke" is measured by whether or not you can pay your bills. Said Resop: "I haven’t heard that they’ve been defaulting."
That said, some of the bills are due. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, for instance, has expressed impatience with Wisconsin’s delays on repayment, saying in January that Wisconsin should pay up immediately.
Ken King, of the Family Service Association in Sheboygan, which runs a consumer credit counseling center, said, "When you have nothing to draw on anymore, you’re broke."
Ralph Anzivino, a Marquette University Law School professor who teaches bankruptcy law, said, "Broke is a lay term, a street term."
He said it would be more accurate to say that the state was insolvent but has options at its disposal to put its house in order. They include: raising taxes, laying off workers and cutting costs or finding other savings.
Then there is this perspective from within state government itself.
"The state is no more broke than it was two, four or 10 years ago," said Frank Hoadley, capital finance director with the state Department of Administration.
"There’s always a huge gap" as budget deliberations begin, he said. "And it always gets hammered out."
In unveiling his two-year budget, Walker cut aid to local schools and government by about $1 billion. But the proposal, which now goes to the Legislature, included new spending in some areas, including adding $1 million in raises for prosecutors, $993,800 for additional public defenders and $1.04 million to investigate Internet crimes against children.
On the opposite side of the ledger, the budget reduced revenue by some $140 million through a variety of tax cuts, including ones aimed at businesses and individuals with Health Savings Accounts.
Finally, we took the question to Wall Street and the experts at Moody’s, who are hired by the state to study and rate its debt. A Moody’s panel, including Kurtter, one of the most respected municipal finance experts in the country, discussed Wisconsin’s dilemma and Walker’s assertion and made these observations:
The state’s debt has a very high credit rating of AA2 and that has not changed in years. That compares favorably with other states, including Illinois, that face far more severe budget crunches.
Wisconsin is in the same boat as numerous other states face unprecedented economic pressures due to the effects of the recession, said Kurtter, who added that budget pressures will continue to mount.
"This is not a problem that’s isolated in Wisconsin," said Kimberly Lyons, a Moody’s analyst.
Kurtter noted that Wisconsin faces unique challenges because the state does not have a reserve or "rainy day" fund.
The state’s "budget stabilization fund" had an average balance of $1.685 million in January, according to Robert Lang, director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. That supports a budget that has a $14 billion in general fund spending.
Kurtter said Wall Street will look at several factors when deciding how much risk Wisconsin presents to future investors. They include: whether or not a budget is adopted, whether it closes the shortfall, and whether it does it in a "structural way," that is long-term.
So, let’s review.
Walker and other Republicans say the state is broke, so broke that there’s no money, and because there’s no money, they are unwilling to negotiate over the terms of the budget-repair bill.
Experts agree the state faces financial challenges in the form of deficits. But they also agree the state isn’t broke. Employees and bills are being paid. Services are continuing to be performed. Revenue continues to roll in. A variety of tools -- taxes, layoffs, spending cuts, debt shifting -- is available to make ends meet. Walker has promised not to increase taxes. That takes one tool off the table. Another tool was never there: declaring bankruptcy. We’re not broke or bankrupt in part because under federal law we can’t be.
We rate Walker’s statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/03/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsin-broke/
If you voted for Scott are you starting to wonder why?
From Tampa Bay online
A lawsuit against Gov. Rick Scott sends a question to the state Supreme Court that is more important than the high-speed train behind the controversy. Does Florida's governor have the power to single-handedly change state law?
Conservative leaders at the state and national level, who are usually defenders of the rule of law and the limits of constitutional authority, have been oddly silent on the issue.
The lawsuit by Democrat Arthenia Joyner of Tampa and Republican Thad Altman of Melbourne, both state senators, makes a point that has gotten lost in the heated political argument over whether the economic benefits of the project are worth its price.
Money for high-speed rail nationally was appropriated by Congress. The prior governor and Legislature asked for and accepted federal support. In trying to disqualify Florida for the federal grant, Scott is ignoring state law.
It has been easy, and not entirely accurate, to frame the issue as Scott refusing Obama's $2.4 billion gift for the Tampa-Lakeland-Orlando line. As the lawsuit notes, the money is from Congress, not Obama. The state Legislature in 2009 passed a law creating the Florida Rail Enterprise, assigning it the task of overseeing high-speed rail, and providing it future operating money from the state.
Scott's actions effectively undo that law.
His main defense is that he is representing taxpayers and that the courts should stay out of what is a political decision. Who does he think the Legislature and Congress represent? Those are the bodies with the power to make laws, to tax and to spend, not the governor or president.
"The High Speed Rail Act," the lawsuit states, "requires the Florida Rail Enterprise to finance and construct the high speed rail system for the state. There is no discretion."
The court is not being asked to force the governor to back a project he is determined to stop. But it can decide whether he has the authority to kill it or duck the question altogether.
Lawmakers who agree with Scott just because they disagree with high-speed rail should think about how powerful a governor they would be comfortable with. Would they allow a governor to stop any project he thinks wastes money?
Some of these leaders seem more worried about upsetting anti-rail tea-party activists than upholding state law.
As a practical matter, it will be tough to build a major transportation project that the governor doesn't want built. Under Scott's lead, state lawmakers might well change state law to forbid high-speed rail. But so far they haven't.
The cities of Tampa, Lakeland, Orlando and Miami are creating their own agency to accept the federal money and do what Scott refuses to do. The cities have written assurance from the federal Department of Transportation that neither the cities nor the state will have a financial obligation to repay the grant if the rail line fails.
The mayors of Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando and business leaders met with Scott Monday to explain the arrangement lets state taxpayers off the hook. Scott simply ignores the facts.
Despite two statewide ballot issues on rail, state voters haven't had a direct say on the federally funded rail plan. In 2004, voters repealed a state constitutional amendment passed four years earlier that required state taxpayers to build high-speed trains whatever the cost.
We joined many other rail supporters in believing that the project did not belong in the constitution. It was not a direct referendum on rail.
A recent Harris poll found that more than two-thirds of Florida residents support state and federal funding of high-speed rail. Clearly, Scott and his core supporters do not.
Scott's opinion on rail does not negate his oath to uphold state law. It is easy to see how the court could find Scott overstepped his authority, but also hard to see how the court could force him to make this project work.
The best legal and political solution is for the cities to be allowed to build it without Scott's help.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/03/MEOPINO1-a-law-making-governor/news-opinion-editorials/
A lawsuit against Gov. Rick Scott sends a question to the state Supreme Court that is more important than the high-speed train behind the controversy. Does Florida's governor have the power to single-handedly change state law?
Conservative leaders at the state and national level, who are usually defenders of the rule of law and the limits of constitutional authority, have been oddly silent on the issue.
The lawsuit by Democrat Arthenia Joyner of Tampa and Republican Thad Altman of Melbourne, both state senators, makes a point that has gotten lost in the heated political argument over whether the economic benefits of the project are worth its price.
Money for high-speed rail nationally was appropriated by Congress. The prior governor and Legislature asked for and accepted federal support. In trying to disqualify Florida for the federal grant, Scott is ignoring state law.
It has been easy, and not entirely accurate, to frame the issue as Scott refusing Obama's $2.4 billion gift for the Tampa-Lakeland-Orlando line. As the lawsuit notes, the money is from Congress, not Obama. The state Legislature in 2009 passed a law creating the Florida Rail Enterprise, assigning it the task of overseeing high-speed rail, and providing it future operating money from the state.
Scott's actions effectively undo that law.
His main defense is that he is representing taxpayers and that the courts should stay out of what is a political decision. Who does he think the Legislature and Congress represent? Those are the bodies with the power to make laws, to tax and to spend, not the governor or president.
"The High Speed Rail Act," the lawsuit states, "requires the Florida Rail Enterprise to finance and construct the high speed rail system for the state. There is no discretion."
The court is not being asked to force the governor to back a project he is determined to stop. But it can decide whether he has the authority to kill it or duck the question altogether.
Lawmakers who agree with Scott just because they disagree with high-speed rail should think about how powerful a governor they would be comfortable with. Would they allow a governor to stop any project he thinks wastes money?
Some of these leaders seem more worried about upsetting anti-rail tea-party activists than upholding state law.
As a practical matter, it will be tough to build a major transportation project that the governor doesn't want built. Under Scott's lead, state lawmakers might well change state law to forbid high-speed rail. But so far they haven't.
The cities of Tampa, Lakeland, Orlando and Miami are creating their own agency to accept the federal money and do what Scott refuses to do. The cities have written assurance from the federal Department of Transportation that neither the cities nor the state will have a financial obligation to repay the grant if the rail line fails.
The mayors of Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando and business leaders met with Scott Monday to explain the arrangement lets state taxpayers off the hook. Scott simply ignores the facts.
Despite two statewide ballot issues on rail, state voters haven't had a direct say on the federally funded rail plan. In 2004, voters repealed a state constitutional amendment passed four years earlier that required state taxpayers to build high-speed trains whatever the cost.
We joined many other rail supporters in believing that the project did not belong in the constitution. It was not a direct referendum on rail.
A recent Harris poll found that more than two-thirds of Florida residents support state and federal funding of high-speed rail. Clearly, Scott and his core supporters do not.
Scott's opinion on rail does not negate his oath to uphold state law. It is easy to see how the court could find Scott overstepped his authority, but also hard to see how the court could force him to make this project work.
The best legal and political solution is for the cities to be allowed to build it without Scott's help.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/03/MEOPINO1-a-law-making-governor/news-opinion-editorials/
Why does the chamber of commerce hate education?
A couple weeks ago the local chamber refused to come out against the govenors 3 billion dollars worth of education cuts. -cpg
From the Daily Marion.com
By Bruce Seaman
The Florida Chamber of Commerce has taken a moment away from sucking wealth from Florida taxpayers for its big corporate supporters to engage in smears and lies with a brand new radio ad. The ad claims that the Awake the State events planned on March 8th – the opening day of this year’s legislative session – will have union activists bussing in to central Florida, using “bully tactics,” claiming that government workers “don’t want to share in the sacrifices,” and that unions are simply “grappling for power and money.”
Voiced by Florida Chamber CEO Mark Wilson (pictured above), the greedy power broker himself suggests that average folks like him, his wealthy lobbyist Chamber chums, and the radio listener need to call in support of three central Florida Republicans, Rep. Chris Dorworth (R-Heathrow), Rep. Scott Plakon (R-Longwood), and Rep. Jason Brodeur (R-Oviedo).
Why these three? They sponsored the union-busting legislation in the House. Yet Awake the State is happening in 20 locations (and counting) across Florida and has 5000 Facebook followers, the tip of the iceberg in interested individuals. In any case, some folks must be nervous.
The Chamber’s duplicity was noted here in a recent post on their “jobs creation” plan which had nothing to do with jobs creation and everything to do with using power and getting money. In fact, the Chamber is very supportive of putting about 9,000 more everyday, hard-working Floridians on the unemployment line as Governor Scott is advocating.
There is no plan for bussing in union people. Any union folks arriving from out of state probably came in a Winnebago on vacation. This is a grass roots event and gone viral, a swarm moving faster than pissed off African bees; no astro-turfing here.
The “bully tactics” planned for Awake the State include typical acts of freedom of speech, like sign waving and speeches. It’s all pretty tame compared to the Chamber’s campaigns that wrest money and wield power in Tallahassee.
After six – going on seven – years without raises, state workers were getting penalized when the economy and budget were in good shape. State workers know all about sacrifices and through collective bargaining would certainly work with government leaders on fair and balanced remedies, just as they have in Wisconsin (albeit to no avail).
Don’t think that the Chamber is expecting its corporate clients to share that sacrifice. Hell NO! On the contrary, they are counting on hefty windfalls from a reduction in the corporate income tax, a taxpayer-paid bailout of $630 million over 2 years on unemployment compensation costs, the elimination of regulations, and the preservation of all tax exemptions and loopholes and perks. They won’t be “sharing the sacrifice;” they’ll be reaping the profits!
“Power and money” are suddenly dirty words to the Chamber which has made its reputation on grabbing power and money for its greedy cohort. A challenge by those opposed to the Chamber’s legalized theft of the state treasury for its benefactors, daring to organize and exercise their freedom of speech with hardly any funding (compared to Chamber outlays) for this grass roots uprising is something they cannot tolerate.
Find an Awake the State rally near you and register by visiting the web site, or begin organizing your own event. Stand up to the lies and smears of those who want to steal the American Dream, and bring a friend or two.
http://www.dailymarion.com/2011/03/03/scared-florida-chamber’s-lies-and-smears-about-“awake-the-state”/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
From the Daily Marion.com
By Bruce Seaman
The Florida Chamber of Commerce has taken a moment away from sucking wealth from Florida taxpayers for its big corporate supporters to engage in smears and lies with a brand new radio ad. The ad claims that the Awake the State events planned on March 8th – the opening day of this year’s legislative session – will have union activists bussing in to central Florida, using “bully tactics,” claiming that government workers “don’t want to share in the sacrifices,” and that unions are simply “grappling for power and money.”
Voiced by Florida Chamber CEO Mark Wilson (pictured above), the greedy power broker himself suggests that average folks like him, his wealthy lobbyist Chamber chums, and the radio listener need to call in support of three central Florida Republicans, Rep. Chris Dorworth (R-Heathrow), Rep. Scott Plakon (R-Longwood), and Rep. Jason Brodeur (R-Oviedo).
Why these three? They sponsored the union-busting legislation in the House. Yet Awake the State is happening in 20 locations (and counting) across Florida and has 5000 Facebook followers, the tip of the iceberg in interested individuals. In any case, some folks must be nervous.
The Chamber’s duplicity was noted here in a recent post on their “jobs creation” plan which had nothing to do with jobs creation and everything to do with using power and getting money. In fact, the Chamber is very supportive of putting about 9,000 more everyday, hard-working Floridians on the unemployment line as Governor Scott is advocating.
There is no plan for bussing in union people. Any union folks arriving from out of state probably came in a Winnebago on vacation. This is a grass roots event and gone viral, a swarm moving faster than pissed off African bees; no astro-turfing here.
The “bully tactics” planned for Awake the State include typical acts of freedom of speech, like sign waving and speeches. It’s all pretty tame compared to the Chamber’s campaigns that wrest money and wield power in Tallahassee.
After six – going on seven – years without raises, state workers were getting penalized when the economy and budget were in good shape. State workers know all about sacrifices and through collective bargaining would certainly work with government leaders on fair and balanced remedies, just as they have in Wisconsin (albeit to no avail).
Don’t think that the Chamber is expecting its corporate clients to share that sacrifice. Hell NO! On the contrary, they are counting on hefty windfalls from a reduction in the corporate income tax, a taxpayer-paid bailout of $630 million over 2 years on unemployment compensation costs, the elimination of regulations, and the preservation of all tax exemptions and loopholes and perks. They won’t be “sharing the sacrifice;” they’ll be reaping the profits!
“Power and money” are suddenly dirty words to the Chamber which has made its reputation on grabbing power and money for its greedy cohort. A challenge by those opposed to the Chamber’s legalized theft of the state treasury for its benefactors, daring to organize and exercise their freedom of speech with hardly any funding (compared to Chamber outlays) for this grass roots uprising is something they cannot tolerate.
Find an Awake the State rally near you and register by visiting the web site, or begin organizing your own event. Stand up to the lies and smears of those who want to steal the American Dream, and bring a friend or two.
http://www.dailymarion.com/2011/03/03/scared-florida-chamber’s-lies-and-smears-about-“awake-the-state”/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Say goodbye to the American dream
From parents across America.orgt
Throughout the United States, the nation’s public school system is being savaged by budget cuts that will make a mockery of federal legislation designed to reduce the achievement gap between children in low income and high income districts.
In Detroit Michigan, the school district has been told by the state to close half of its schools to close a 347 million dollar deficit, leading to high school classes that could contain as many as 60 students. Providence Rhode Island just handed out pink slips to its nearly 2,000 teachers to reduce its deficit; and Austin Texas may do the same in a response to a ten percent reduction in state funding. And in thousands of school districts throughout the country, teachers are being fired, sports and arts programs are being shut down, AP classes are being cancelled, and class size is going through the roof while state and local governments radically cut education funding to balance their budgets.
Make no mistake about it, these budget cuts will have a disproportionate effect in the poorest school districts, where parents depend on schools to impart skills, which because of educational background or language issues, they often lack. You cut arts and science programs in a upper middle class school district, parents will compensate by finding private tutors or funding additional classes through the PTA.
In poor neighborhoods, once such programs are gone, they are gone for good. You can squeeze the teachers in poor districts all you want to produce magical results on test days; as opportunities to give students individual attention disappear and arts and science enrichment programs are eliminated, the test score gap will grow wider, the dropout rate will increase, and college admission from such districts will plummet.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow that the Dream these budget cuts will destroy was one nurtured by a Republican President, George W Bush. Never mind that the dream was based on false data the Houston school district, never mind that it was used, by politicians, business leaders and the media, to divert attention from confronting sources of inequality outside the school system; it still held as a goal the fact that every child in America had the right to a great education and an opportunity to attend college if they took advantage of that opportunity.
Now that very Dream is in tatters, not just because of the decision elected officials made to cut public school budgets- but because of the decision they didn’t make, to TAX THE RICH. Make no mistake about it, in every state where these budget cuts are being made, the vast majority of these cuts could have been avoided if taxes were raised on the wealthiest five percent of the population, who control nearly 40 percent of national income! Yet in state after state throughout this country, as well as in the Congress of the United States, such taxes were declared “off limits” by politicians of both parties.
Let us be very blunt about the consequences of this choice. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in modern US history, our political leadership has decided to exempt the very wealthy from sacrifice while tragically weakening the one avenue our society had identified for reducing inequality in the nation-our public schools.
Not only is it profoundly immoral to impose hardship on the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, targeting schools for such huge cuts does violence to the very ideal of Equality of Opportunity which once used to unite liberals and conservatives.
If the only schools that can function well are in communities where parents have the resources to compensate for the budget cuts, then we are basically creating a social order where children will remain in the social position of their parents into the next generation, and where poor and working class children are doomed, by inferior training, to be a servant class for the rich, if they are lucky enough to find jobs at all.
I don’t know about you, but this sounds more like the Ancien Regime in France or Pre-Revolutionary Russia than the a country which Abraham Lincoln once praised “for lifting artificial burdens off the shoulders of men.”
The American Dream is dying before our eyes. Will we have the courage to rescue it?
–Dr. Mark Naison, Fordham University
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/03/how-public-school-budget-cuts-herald-the-end-of-an-american-dream/
Throughout the United States, the nation’s public school system is being savaged by budget cuts that will make a mockery of federal legislation designed to reduce the achievement gap between children in low income and high income districts.
In Detroit Michigan, the school district has been told by the state to close half of its schools to close a 347 million dollar deficit, leading to high school classes that could contain as many as 60 students. Providence Rhode Island just handed out pink slips to its nearly 2,000 teachers to reduce its deficit; and Austin Texas may do the same in a response to a ten percent reduction in state funding. And in thousands of school districts throughout the country, teachers are being fired, sports and arts programs are being shut down, AP classes are being cancelled, and class size is going through the roof while state and local governments radically cut education funding to balance their budgets.
Make no mistake about it, these budget cuts will have a disproportionate effect in the poorest school districts, where parents depend on schools to impart skills, which because of educational background or language issues, they often lack. You cut arts and science programs in a upper middle class school district, parents will compensate by finding private tutors or funding additional classes through the PTA.
In poor neighborhoods, once such programs are gone, they are gone for good. You can squeeze the teachers in poor districts all you want to produce magical results on test days; as opportunities to give students individual attention disappear and arts and science enrichment programs are eliminated, the test score gap will grow wider, the dropout rate will increase, and college admission from such districts will plummet.
What makes this a bitter pill to swallow that the Dream these budget cuts will destroy was one nurtured by a Republican President, George W Bush. Never mind that the dream was based on false data the Houston school district, never mind that it was used, by politicians, business leaders and the media, to divert attention from confronting sources of inequality outside the school system; it still held as a goal the fact that every child in America had the right to a great education and an opportunity to attend college if they took advantage of that opportunity.
Now that very Dream is in tatters, not just because of the decision elected officials made to cut public school budgets- but because of the decision they didn’t make, to TAX THE RICH. Make no mistake about it, in every state where these budget cuts are being made, the vast majority of these cuts could have been avoided if taxes were raised on the wealthiest five percent of the population, who control nearly 40 percent of national income! Yet in state after state throughout this country, as well as in the Congress of the United States, such taxes were declared “off limits” by politicians of both parties.
Let us be very blunt about the consequences of this choice. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in modern US history, our political leadership has decided to exempt the very wealthy from sacrifice while tragically weakening the one avenue our society had identified for reducing inequality in the nation-our public schools.
Not only is it profoundly immoral to impose hardship on the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, targeting schools for such huge cuts does violence to the very ideal of Equality of Opportunity which once used to unite liberals and conservatives.
If the only schools that can function well are in communities where parents have the resources to compensate for the budget cuts, then we are basically creating a social order where children will remain in the social position of their parents into the next generation, and where poor and working class children are doomed, by inferior training, to be a servant class for the rich, if they are lucky enough to find jobs at all.
I don’t know about you, but this sounds more like the Ancien Regime in France or Pre-Revolutionary Russia than the a country which Abraham Lincoln once praised “for lifting artificial burdens off the shoulders of men.”
The American Dream is dying before our eyes. Will we have the courage to rescue it?
–Dr. Mark Naison, Fordham University
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/03/how-public-school-budget-cuts-herald-the-end-of-an-american-dream/
The end of teaching
From the blog, Teachers and Teaching
by Les Blackwell
I Wonder What Might Happen......
I wonder what might happen if we had no teachers. Or if few people wanted to be teachers. I'm thinking mostly of the K-12 classes that public schools enjoy now. In recent weeks a number of articles have crossed my computer screen alleging that teacher unions are the cause of this or that state's budget problems. If the state could fire "bad" teachers they (politicians) claim they would have a better school system and the state would not be in a budget crunch.
So I was thinking just the other day about a doomsday scenario. Just make believe but hear me out. Let's start with the premise that there are no teacher unions or education associations. Nada. Next, let's assume that the pay will be minimal--right now the beginning pay in most states is around thirty thousand dollars. But let us not forget we need to take out Federal Income Tax (automatic deduction in most cases) and FICA or social security of about two percent. You with me so far? Then there is health insurance that each teacher has to pay along with the school districts contribution. That varies from district to district and from state to state. But the take home pay is not much. Now let's cut the retirement contribution from the state to as little as we can. Maybe we ought to just say outright that the teacher ought to take care of their own retirement.
Let's add one more criterion--there is no job security. No tenure. There is a good chance that if you do stay for a number of years and get salary increments each year that given that fact, you could be fired in order that a beginning teacher could take your place at a reduced salary.
I'm trying to make a worse case scenario that is probably going to happen in a number of states--indeed, it is already has.
Now let's take an entering freshman at a local university beginning their career for the first time in 2012. One thing that many if not most universities do is mandate (I like that word--it has muscle behind what it means) different initial courses in a variety of subjects. World history, general sciences (perhaps a course in biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics), great literature, economics, a least one writing course, beginning philosophy, and several mathematical courses. The idea behind this mandate is to get the young college student to look at, consider, ponder, digest, and maybe wonder at what the world is all about. And somewhere in this mishmash of thinking a student might begin to consider what they want to do with the rest of their life.
I don't think teaching would be high on their list of possible careers. If I've heard my university's job placement center accurately, mathematics, all the sciences, and computer programing are where the jobs are--good pay, retirement, perks and health benefits PLUS parking! I've been told that in a few cases a graduating senior might even get a signing bonus.
I have already lost a number of my graduate students who were teaching to Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. They report a good salary, some stock options, and good working conditions. In one case my graduate student reported a salary twice what he was making in the public schools.
My question to this group of readers is why would someone go into teaching in this day and age? Even if you really wanted to teach, why go into public school teaching? There are teachers in the State of Washington that are presently studying for or have already received their certified board teaching credentials. And they are NOT going to get the bonus they were promised.
Do you see my point? States are going to GET the unions and perhaps even GET those so-called bad teachers. They are going to decimate the educational system. And who are they going to get to be the teachers? I wonder.
So what is the answer. I really don't know. If I had a graduate student right now that wanted very much to teach, I'd probably send them off to Boeings who just received a 35 billion dollar order for planes. Several of my students already work at Boeings and I know that they have a substantial training department. Maybe that would be a career choice. And I would look into private schools. As the public schools deteriorate, private schools grow larger. However, it all is a sorry mess.
You better thank your teachers for what they did for you before they retire. Several of them have mentioned to me that they might leave teaching early. My best to them all
by Les Blackwell
I Wonder What Might Happen......
I wonder what might happen if we had no teachers. Or if few people wanted to be teachers. I'm thinking mostly of the K-12 classes that public schools enjoy now. In recent weeks a number of articles have crossed my computer screen alleging that teacher unions are the cause of this or that state's budget problems. If the state could fire "bad" teachers they (politicians) claim they would have a better school system and the state would not be in a budget crunch.
So I was thinking just the other day about a doomsday scenario. Just make believe but hear me out. Let's start with the premise that there are no teacher unions or education associations. Nada. Next, let's assume that the pay will be minimal--right now the beginning pay in most states is around thirty thousand dollars. But let us not forget we need to take out Federal Income Tax (automatic deduction in most cases) and FICA or social security of about two percent. You with me so far? Then there is health insurance that each teacher has to pay along with the school districts contribution. That varies from district to district and from state to state. But the take home pay is not much. Now let's cut the retirement contribution from the state to as little as we can. Maybe we ought to just say outright that the teacher ought to take care of their own retirement.
Let's add one more criterion--there is no job security. No tenure. There is a good chance that if you do stay for a number of years and get salary increments each year that given that fact, you could be fired in order that a beginning teacher could take your place at a reduced salary.
I'm trying to make a worse case scenario that is probably going to happen in a number of states--indeed, it is already has.
Now let's take an entering freshman at a local university beginning their career for the first time in 2012. One thing that many if not most universities do is mandate (I like that word--it has muscle behind what it means) different initial courses in a variety of subjects. World history, general sciences (perhaps a course in biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics), great literature, economics, a least one writing course, beginning philosophy, and several mathematical courses. The idea behind this mandate is to get the young college student to look at, consider, ponder, digest, and maybe wonder at what the world is all about. And somewhere in this mishmash of thinking a student might begin to consider what they want to do with the rest of their life.
I don't think teaching would be high on their list of possible careers. If I've heard my university's job placement center accurately, mathematics, all the sciences, and computer programing are where the jobs are--good pay, retirement, perks and health benefits PLUS parking! I've been told that in a few cases a graduating senior might even get a signing bonus.
I have already lost a number of my graduate students who were teaching to Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. They report a good salary, some stock options, and good working conditions. In one case my graduate student reported a salary twice what he was making in the public schools.
My question to this group of readers is why would someone go into teaching in this day and age? Even if you really wanted to teach, why go into public school teaching? There are teachers in the State of Washington that are presently studying for or have already received their certified board teaching credentials. And they are NOT going to get the bonus they were promised.
Do you see my point? States are going to GET the unions and perhaps even GET those so-called bad teachers. They are going to decimate the educational system. And who are they going to get to be the teachers? I wonder.
So what is the answer. I really don't know. If I had a graduate student right now that wanted very much to teach, I'd probably send them off to Boeings who just received a 35 billion dollar order for planes. Several of my students already work at Boeings and I know that they have a substantial training department. Maybe that would be a career choice. And I would look into private schools. As the public schools deteriorate, private schools grow larger. However, it all is a sorry mess.
You better thank your teachers for what they did for you before they retire. Several of them have mentioned to me that they might leave teaching early. My best to them all
Wisconsin, fact and fiction
From the Journal of Educational Controversy
by Lorraine Kasprisin
The Forum for Education and Democracy has set out to distinguish between the myths and the facts around the turmoil in Wisconsin as thousands continue to march on the Capitol to oppose anti-union legislation. They ask their readers to rethink some of the myths that are circulating. We share their ideas about the myths with our readers to rethink also.
•Myth #1: Public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere are overpaid. The truth is they’re probably underpaid when you factor in things like level of education. In Wisconsin, nearly 60 percent of public employees hold at least a four-year college degree – double the private sector workforce. That’s because many are teachers and other professionals. When you compare apples to apples, they earn 4.8 percent less than comparable private sector workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
•Myth #2: Public employees aren’t sacrificing their fair share. In the last round of bargaining in Wisconsin, the American Federation of Teachers alone offered more than $100 million in concessions in the form of higher health insurance premiums, furlough days and increased pension contributions. In Ohio, unions representing public employees gave back more than $200 million in concessions, essentially balancing the budget on their own backs.
•Myth #3: High employee benefits got us into this budget mess. Wisconsin was looking at a budget surplus until Republicans gave $117 million in business tax breaks. The reality is that the state is now facing a budget gap, but the gap is 13 percent of the budget. The average gap in other states is 20 percent, so things in Wisconsin are actually better than the norm.
•Myth #4: The state retirement system is in trouble. Again, Wisconsin is in a better position than many states. The $72 billion Wisconsin Retirement System is over 97 percent funded according to the Center of Retirement Research, a non-partisan think tank. By comparison, the fund in neighboring Illinois is only 52 percent funded.
•Myth #5: The governor has no other option. This is clearly not the case. The public employee unions have already said they will give him concessions to erase the budget gap – if he backs off his pledge to crush their bargaining rights. Also, Wisconsin and other states have large amounts of unspent stimulus funds that could be used to ease the burden. If ever there was a rainy day, this is it!
by Lorraine Kasprisin
The Forum for Education and Democracy has set out to distinguish between the myths and the facts around the turmoil in Wisconsin as thousands continue to march on the Capitol to oppose anti-union legislation. They ask their readers to rethink some of the myths that are circulating. We share their ideas about the myths with our readers to rethink also.
•Myth #1: Public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere are overpaid. The truth is they’re probably underpaid when you factor in things like level of education. In Wisconsin, nearly 60 percent of public employees hold at least a four-year college degree – double the private sector workforce. That’s because many are teachers and other professionals. When you compare apples to apples, they earn 4.8 percent less than comparable private sector workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
•Myth #2: Public employees aren’t sacrificing their fair share. In the last round of bargaining in Wisconsin, the American Federation of Teachers alone offered more than $100 million in concessions in the form of higher health insurance premiums, furlough days and increased pension contributions. In Ohio, unions representing public employees gave back more than $200 million in concessions, essentially balancing the budget on their own backs.
•Myth #3: High employee benefits got us into this budget mess. Wisconsin was looking at a budget surplus until Republicans gave $117 million in business tax breaks. The reality is that the state is now facing a budget gap, but the gap is 13 percent of the budget. The average gap in other states is 20 percent, so things in Wisconsin are actually better than the norm.
•Myth #4: The state retirement system is in trouble. Again, Wisconsin is in a better position than many states. The $72 billion Wisconsin Retirement System is over 97 percent funded according to the Center of Retirement Research, a non-partisan think tank. By comparison, the fund in neighboring Illinois is only 52 percent funded.
•Myth #5: The governor has no other option. This is clearly not the case. The public employee unions have already said they will give him concessions to erase the budget gap – if he backs off his pledge to crush their bargaining rights. Also, Wisconsin and other states have large amounts of unspent stimulus funds that could be used to ease the burden. If ever there was a rainy day, this is it!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
It seems teaching experience does matter
From the Shanker blog
The topic of teacher experience is getting a lot of attention in education debates. In part, this makes sense, since experience (years of service) does play several important roles in education policy, including teachers’ raises and transfer/layoff policies.
Usually, experience is discussed in terms of its relationship to performance –whether more experienced teachers produce larger student test score gains than less experienced teachers. There is a pretty impressive body of research on this topic, the findings of which are sometimes used to argue for policy changes that eliminate the role of experience in salary and other employment policies. Proponents of these changes often argue that experience is only weakly related to performance, and therefore shouldn’t be used in determining salary and other conditions of work. It is not unusual to hear people say that experience doesn’t matter at all.
As is often the case when empirical research finds its way into policy debates, the “weakly related” characterization of the findings on the experience/achievement relationship borders on oversimplification, while the claim that experience doesn’t matter is flat-out wrong. The relationship is substantial but context-dependent, and blanket statements about it often hide as much as they reveal.
The dozens of analyses of teacher experience show that it matters a great deal in the early years on the job (also see here, here, here and here). There is general consensus that the returns to experience are strongest in the first year of teaching. Then the rate of improvement starts to level off quickly – usually stagnating within about 4-5 years (time frames vary a bit). After that, most teachers tend to remain relatively stable in terms of their effects on student test scores (though a very large proportion leaves the profession before that point).
But these overall findings ignore the fact that the experience/achievement relationship differs a great deal by context. For instance, the returns to experience appear to vary by where teachers work. The relationship is more consistent among elementary school teachers (especially compared with those in high schools). The effect of experience on teacher productivity may also be mediated by the quality of their peers in the same school – i.e., that novice teachers with more effective peers in the same school do better.
Similarly, there is evidence that experience matters less – or less consistently – in poorer schools (also see here). There are several plausible explanations for this discrepancy, such as the possibility that teachers in poorer schools burn out more rapidly, or that there are difficulties in teaching lower-income children that are harder to adjust to.
The experience factor not only varies by where you teach, but also by what you teach. Math teachers seem to improve more quickly (and consistently) than reading teachers, while newer evidence suggests that the same is true for teachers who remain in the same grade for multiple years.
Finally, it bears mentioning the obvious point that the effect of teacher experience might be totally different if we were able to look at outcomes other than test scores. The idea that experience doesn’t matter after five or so years incorrectly implies that test scores are the only relevant outcome. Nobody believes that is the case. (And, for what it’s worth, teachers with whom I’ve spoken find the idea that they stop improving after four or five years laughable.)
Teachers who produce test score gains are not always the same ones who are effective at imparting other types of skills. It seems quite plausible (if not probable) that teachers do exhibit longer-term improvement in their students’ learning other skills, such as social/behavioral skills, that elude standardized tests. Let’s also keep in mind that it remains an open question whether the returns to experience follow a similar pattern among teachers not in tested grades or subjects (which is roughly three in four teachers).
That said, experience is actually one of the very few observable teacher characteristics that is consistently correlated with achievement, and its effect is among the strongest, especially for some sub-groups, such as elementary school and math teachers.
Even those who think the magnitude of these returns is not commensurate with the role of experience in education policy cannot dispute that it is still a proven signal of quality, at least during the early years of teachers’ careers. And it is virtually certain that teachers also improve in other ways that don’t show up in their students’ test scores.
So, unless we are going to design employment policies based strictly on test scores (which is both ridiculous and logistically impossible), we might recalibrate these policies to exploit the findings above, including using other measures along with experience, restructuring salary schedules, keeping teachers in the same grade over multiple years, or paying more attention to the important role of peers in shaping teachers’ learning curves. Let’s tone down the rhetoric, and try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
http://shankerblog.org/?p=1319
The topic of teacher experience is getting a lot of attention in education debates. In part, this makes sense, since experience (years of service) does play several important roles in education policy, including teachers’ raises and transfer/layoff policies.
Usually, experience is discussed in terms of its relationship to performance –whether more experienced teachers produce larger student test score gains than less experienced teachers. There is a pretty impressive body of research on this topic, the findings of which are sometimes used to argue for policy changes that eliminate the role of experience in salary and other employment policies. Proponents of these changes often argue that experience is only weakly related to performance, and therefore shouldn’t be used in determining salary and other conditions of work. It is not unusual to hear people say that experience doesn’t matter at all.
As is often the case when empirical research finds its way into policy debates, the “weakly related” characterization of the findings on the experience/achievement relationship borders on oversimplification, while the claim that experience doesn’t matter is flat-out wrong. The relationship is substantial but context-dependent, and blanket statements about it often hide as much as they reveal.
The dozens of analyses of teacher experience show that it matters a great deal in the early years on the job (also see here, here, here and here). There is general consensus that the returns to experience are strongest in the first year of teaching. Then the rate of improvement starts to level off quickly – usually stagnating within about 4-5 years (time frames vary a bit). After that, most teachers tend to remain relatively stable in terms of their effects on student test scores (though a very large proportion leaves the profession before that point).
But these overall findings ignore the fact that the experience/achievement relationship differs a great deal by context. For instance, the returns to experience appear to vary by where teachers work. The relationship is more consistent among elementary school teachers (especially compared with those in high schools). The effect of experience on teacher productivity may also be mediated by the quality of their peers in the same school – i.e., that novice teachers with more effective peers in the same school do better.
Similarly, there is evidence that experience matters less – or less consistently – in poorer schools (also see here). There are several plausible explanations for this discrepancy, such as the possibility that teachers in poorer schools burn out more rapidly, or that there are difficulties in teaching lower-income children that are harder to adjust to.
The experience factor not only varies by where you teach, but also by what you teach. Math teachers seem to improve more quickly (and consistently) than reading teachers, while newer evidence suggests that the same is true for teachers who remain in the same grade for multiple years.
Finally, it bears mentioning the obvious point that the effect of teacher experience might be totally different if we were able to look at outcomes other than test scores. The idea that experience doesn’t matter after five or so years incorrectly implies that test scores are the only relevant outcome. Nobody believes that is the case. (And, for what it’s worth, teachers with whom I’ve spoken find the idea that they stop improving after four or five years laughable.)
Teachers who produce test score gains are not always the same ones who are effective at imparting other types of skills. It seems quite plausible (if not probable) that teachers do exhibit longer-term improvement in their students’ learning other skills, such as social/behavioral skills, that elude standardized tests. Let’s also keep in mind that it remains an open question whether the returns to experience follow a similar pattern among teachers not in tested grades or subjects (which is roughly three in four teachers).
That said, experience is actually one of the very few observable teacher characteristics that is consistently correlated with achievement, and its effect is among the strongest, especially for some sub-groups, such as elementary school and math teachers.
Even those who think the magnitude of these returns is not commensurate with the role of experience in education policy cannot dispute that it is still a proven signal of quality, at least during the early years of teachers’ careers. And it is virtually certain that teachers also improve in other ways that don’t show up in their students’ test scores.
So, unless we are going to design employment policies based strictly on test scores (which is both ridiculous and logistically impossible), we might recalibrate these policies to exploit the findings above, including using other measures along with experience, restructuring salary schedules, keeping teachers in the same grade over multiple years, or paying more attention to the important role of peers in shaping teachers’ learning curves. Let’s tone down the rhetoric, and try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
http://shankerblog.org/?p=1319
Say goodbye to teaching as a profession
From the St. Augstine.com
by Sandra Parks
On March 9 the Florida Senate will vote on SB 736, which will specify statewide policies for teachers' and administrators' evaluation, compensation, and employment. Fifty percent of such evaluations will be based on student performance on FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) over a three-year period.
While the Senate Education committee chaired by Sen. Steven Wise has allowed more input from educators and the public than last year's more seriously flawed SB-6, it contains many of the same problems:
Over-reliance on a single high-stakes test that was not designed for the policy decisions for which it is used. Because teachers, parents, and children know that students cannot show what they have learned on one examination, their stress and resentment of this test will only be intensified as students know that their teachers' livelihoods will now depend on their scores. Race to the Top requires that the 50 percent of teacher evaluation must be based on student achievement; it does not require that either teacher evaluation or compensation must be based on one test! FCAT should be one of several measures (achievement tests, end-of-unit tests, graphics, writing assignments, term papers, projects, and media presentations) to give a more adequate, year-long evaluation of student learning.
Prohibits advanced degrees from being a factor in determining salary, unless it is in the individual's area of certification. Elementary teachers often secure a master's degree in reading, special education, and gifted education because these specialties are not offered at the undergraduate level. These degrees offer more background and require more evaluation than renewing certification by staff development or taking a few courses. Few undergraduate programs offer sufficient subject content to adequately prepare secondary science or social studies teachers to teach either general or advanced courses. In rural counties secondary teachers often have to teach three or four science,, social studies, or mathematics courses for which they are unprepared and may seek a masters' in the related subjects in order to be qualified.
Requires school districts to develop assessments for grades and subjects not tested by FCAT. Duval County spent millions developing 900 such tests. At a time when the legislature intends to cut state funding, this un-funded mandate places an undue financial burden on each county to develop end- of-grade tests whose validity will be untested.
Lacks research basis. This bill assumes that performance pay results in improved student learning. Reports about the results of merit pay are mixed. The first experimental/controlled research on the effects of bonuses, reported in 2010 by the National Center for Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University, showed that merit pay had no effect on student achievement. Across the country school districts and state legislatures are grappling with this issue. It is too soon to know the effects of such policies on student learning or the teaching profession.
Eliminates professional service contracts for teachers hired after July 1, 2011. There has to be a middle ground between career tenure and an annual contract. In what other field would professionals commit to a position with one year's job security? An illness, a divorce, or teaching an unusually challenging group of students may cause a teacher to be dismissed!
Wise's committee gave conscientious consideration to this complex bill and, with the Race to the Top incentives, has moved this whole issue forward. But SB-736 has too many serious consequences for teachers and local taxpayers to merit passage.
Stop this bill now and give DOE and this committee a year to fix it before this legislation has a chilling effect on Florida's teaching profession, requires additional property taxes, and creates greater distress for our children and families.
A companion bill is House Bill 7019, which is rapidly moving through the Florida House of Representatives.
For more than 30 years Sandra Parks has been a curriculum and professional development consultant, serving school districts and universities in 40 states, Canada, Mexico, and the U.K. She holds advanced degrees in curriculum from the University of South Florida and the Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2011-03-01/guest-column-teacher-merit-pay-bill-presents-too-many-problems
by Sandra Parks
On March 9 the Florida Senate will vote on SB 736, which will specify statewide policies for teachers' and administrators' evaluation, compensation, and employment. Fifty percent of such evaluations will be based on student performance on FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) over a three-year period.
While the Senate Education committee chaired by Sen. Steven Wise has allowed more input from educators and the public than last year's more seriously flawed SB-6, it contains many of the same problems:
Over-reliance on a single high-stakes test that was not designed for the policy decisions for which it is used. Because teachers, parents, and children know that students cannot show what they have learned on one examination, their stress and resentment of this test will only be intensified as students know that their teachers' livelihoods will now depend on their scores. Race to the Top requires that the 50 percent of teacher evaluation must be based on student achievement; it does not require that either teacher evaluation or compensation must be based on one test! FCAT should be one of several measures (achievement tests, end-of-unit tests, graphics, writing assignments, term papers, projects, and media presentations) to give a more adequate, year-long evaluation of student learning.
Prohibits advanced degrees from being a factor in determining salary, unless it is in the individual's area of certification. Elementary teachers often secure a master's degree in reading, special education, and gifted education because these specialties are not offered at the undergraduate level. These degrees offer more background and require more evaluation than renewing certification by staff development or taking a few courses. Few undergraduate programs offer sufficient subject content to adequately prepare secondary science or social studies teachers to teach either general or advanced courses. In rural counties secondary teachers often have to teach three or four science,, social studies, or mathematics courses for which they are unprepared and may seek a masters' in the related subjects in order to be qualified.
Requires school districts to develop assessments for grades and subjects not tested by FCAT. Duval County spent millions developing 900 such tests. At a time when the legislature intends to cut state funding, this un-funded mandate places an undue financial burden on each county to develop end- of-grade tests whose validity will be untested.
Lacks research basis. This bill assumes that performance pay results in improved student learning. Reports about the results of merit pay are mixed. The first experimental/controlled research on the effects of bonuses, reported in 2010 by the National Center for Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University, showed that merit pay had no effect on student achievement. Across the country school districts and state legislatures are grappling with this issue. It is too soon to know the effects of such policies on student learning or the teaching profession.
Eliminates professional service contracts for teachers hired after July 1, 2011. There has to be a middle ground between career tenure and an annual contract. In what other field would professionals commit to a position with one year's job security? An illness, a divorce, or teaching an unusually challenging group of students may cause a teacher to be dismissed!
Wise's committee gave conscientious consideration to this complex bill and, with the Race to the Top incentives, has moved this whole issue forward. But SB-736 has too many serious consequences for teachers and local taxpayers to merit passage.
Stop this bill now and give DOE and this committee a year to fix it before this legislation has a chilling effect on Florida's teaching profession, requires additional property taxes, and creates greater distress for our children and families.
A companion bill is House Bill 7019, which is rapidly moving through the Florida House of Representatives.
For more than 30 years Sandra Parks has been a curriculum and professional development consultant, serving school districts and universities in 40 states, Canada, Mexico, and the U.K. She holds advanced degrees in curriculum from the University of South Florida and the Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2011-03-01/guest-column-teacher-merit-pay-bill-presents-too-many-problems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)