Thread: WI Recall of Gov. Walker Produces 1 MILLION Signatures

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

And pigs can fly. Walker cut funding to public schools. Class sizes will be increased and programs like art and sports will be cut. WHERE will the money come for more teachers? Is Walker the tooth fairy?

Why in the hell would you need more teachers when your increasing class sizes and cutting programs?

The budget bill and the budget repair bill require school districts to make big cuts and essentially directed the districts to compel their teachers to bear the brunt of the cuts.

Sure, they are the one's that got the sweetheart deals with liberal legislators in exchange for their vote.

School districts will have to repeat their cost-slashing exercises next year and every subsequent year until the state’s school funding formula is overhauled. It is quite unlikely that we’ll be able balance our budgets on the backs of our teachers more than once. So this isn’t anything close to a permanent solution to school districts’ annual budgeting challenges.

What is permanent is cutting teachers wages and benefits that were out of control.

There are longer-term issues as well. While the Governor has wanted to send the message around the country that Wisconsin is open for business, the message that he indisputably sent everywhere, around the globe as well as around the country, is that Wisconsin has it in for its teachers.

And what the hell is wrong with that. You think these teachers are some kind of God. I don't think so. You can't fire a bad teacher no matter what, it's not about teaching, it's about a bad teacher doing nothing but getting a tax payer paycheck. Then the second you hire a new teacher they automatically get tenure. Teachers union have destroyed our education system

If you’re a teacher, or plan to be one, we’re telling you that we’re not going to be very welcoming in this state. We’ll cut your take-home pay, worsen your working conditions and, by gosh, we’ll make you like it.

No, if a fucking teacher does not like what they get paid or the conditions they work, QUIT.

It’s puzzling the extent to which folks seem to think that we can cut teachers’ pay and load them up with new responsibilities and yet not expect that there will be any effect on their job performance. The world doesn’t work that way. Teachers, like everyone, react to incentives.

Now you want to speak of job performance, they don't produce any job performance, you can't fire a fucking teacher, so why in the hell would any teacher perform? They go into immediate retirement the day they get hired.

You get what you pay for. As we cut teachers’ pay, make their working conditions less attractive, and demonstrate in other ways that we don’t value their contributions to the educational enterprise, then, all else equal, teachers with other options will leave our employment. The teachers who stay won’t be as willing to go above and beyond their minimum obligations. We’ll be unable to attract as high a caliber of applicant for teacher vacancies as we have in the past. The quality of the teaching profession in Wisconsin will eventually but inevitably go down. Our students will learn less as a result.

Listen to yourself, we pour more and more money into our schools, yet we get less and less performance. Who are you kidding. Let the schools fire teachers and pay the good ones and our students will get more educated not less educated as it is now.

Long term, we’ll have two options. We can try to address this problem or we can ignore it.

Walker has already addressed it. Where have you been.

And then you post up those union teachers whining, like who cares. They've been living high on the hog for a long time and now they want to whine.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Like I said...fairy dust. You DON'T have a marketplace that is expandable to create profits, you have a finite amount of revenue for education. Every school, whether private or public will have overhead costs and wages. Is the magic fairy going to find PhD's that will teach for $10,000?

I never said that a private school would not have overhead costs.

In fact, I would rather say that you were the one who suggested that the private school system has expenses that the public school system does not. "Free market" does not mean "free to do whatever the hell you want." There are constraints as to how much profit a school can make.

No, there is no such thing as "profit" in a public system . . . but I guess if you're that ideologically opposed to having some money left over, we could always do what the WI public school system does, and raise the salaries of administrators until there's nothing left.

For 2009, some categories of spending were above average and some below. Wisconsin's spending on student support amounted to $495 of the $11,078 total per pupil, 13.5 percent below the national average. Also below average were building administration ($559) and transportation ($440), each 3.4 percent below average. Spending on instruction ($6,756 per pupil) was 6.1 percent above the national average. Staff support spending ($534) was 4.3 percent higher and general (district) administration ($285 of the $11,078 total) was 42.3 percent higher.

Chalkboard: Wisconsin dropping among the states for school spending

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Read through the thread, it's all there. I can't help it if you are too lazy to keep up with the thread.

Like I said you don't have any proof. Just like the post I responded to, your full of BS.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Like I said you don't have any proof. Just like the post I responded to, your full of BS.

You can spin it anyway you want, and keep shitting on teachers, but the people in this country are not stupid. Teachers already make 25% less than the private sector, so now with Walker's cuts, they make 34% less.

After over 50 years of collective bargaining, there was no malfeasance. Teachers and public employees are not overpaid. And hundreds of thousands of citizens didn't show up at Walker's door for nothing, and one million citizens didn't sign a petition to recall Walker for nothing.

The American people know a rat when they smell one. And the rat is in the State house, not the classroom. Most people went to public schools and can probably name teachers that were mentors in their lives. And like me, they had children who went through public schools and got to know all their children's teachers. They came across dedicated professionals who genuinely cared about our kids, worked extra hard and were role models and mentors.


"Teachers are givers in a world dominated by takers, and they're also sharers. This collaborative instinct makes our profession unlike any other."
Barbara Keshishian

Originally Posted by Haplo

I never said that a private school would not have overhead costs.

In fact, I would rather say that you were the one who suggested that the private school system has expenses that the public school system does not. "Free market" does not mean "free to do whatever the hell you want." There are constraints as to how much profit a school can make.

No, there is no such thing as "profit" in a public system . . . but I guess if you're that ideologically opposed to having some money left over, we could always do what the WI public school system does, and raise the salaries of administrators until there's nothing left.

You keep forgetting. You are the one who used a private enterprise model that doesn't fit education, not me.

Both schools would have almost identical costs (overhead, wages etc), and both would have a finite amount of revenue for education. So now if you have to add profit, how do you cover that cost?...fairy dust.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You can spin it anyway you want, and keep shitting on teachers, but the people in this country are not stupid. Teachers already make 25% less than the private sector, so now with Walker's cuts, they make 34% less.

Looks like BS, because if it was true you'd have a link to support that teachers are now making less that what they did a short time ago. It also looks like you're still unable to answer the question regarding what negative effect has occurred (<---notice the past tense) due to Walker's policies.

Money, money, money....boohoo. Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Fast Facts

Spending has going up, every year, and this includes adjustment for inflation.

In world rankings we are a strong #4, with not much space between 1-3 in front of us.

U.S. Falls In World Education Rankings, Rated 'Average'

The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics.

Despite our spending constantly going up and being ranked in the top tier for spending our actual rankings are continually falling. So we are paying more, for less, every year. Money is not the problem, the problem lies with our educators being completely unwilling to hold any kind of standard. Everyone gets a gold start.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You can spin it anyway you want, and keep shitting on teachers, but the people in this country are not stupid. Teachers already make 25% less than the private sector, so now with Walker's cuts, they make 34% less.

Prove it.

After over 50 years of collective bargaining, there was no malfeasance. Teachers and public employees are not overpaid. And hundreds of thousands of citizens didn't show up at Walker's door for nothing, and one million citizens didn't sign a petition to recall Walker for nothing.

You want to have a blind eye to reality go ahead, but it's fact that liberal legislators gave the unions what they wanted in exchange for their vote. This practice has been witnessed across this country. And states like WI are now correcting that malfeasance. There you go with your blind eye, 1 million citizens signed a petition, I give you that, except there was one bragging he signed it 86 times.

The American people know a rat when they smell one. And the rat is in the State house, not the classroom.

It is in the class room filled with bad teacher that no one can fire.

Most people went to public schools and can probably name teachers that were mentors in their lives. And like me, they had children who went through public schools and got to know all their children's teachers. They came across dedicated professionals who genuinely cared about our kids, worked extra hard and were role models and mentors.

Then those teachers would never have to worry about being fired. Now would they. But the rest would get pink slips.

"Teachers are givers in a world dominated by takers, and they're also sharers. This collaborative instinct makes our profession unlike any other."
Barbara Keshishian

And their such givers they can't be fired for being a bad teacher, now that is criminal. Tax payers paying a teacher that can't teach the students and who suffers, the student and the tax payer for not getting it's money's worth in a lousy teacher. You hold these distressful teachers as gods. They are nothing more than the rest of the working world, but with these teachers you can't fire them, and when you hire one they automatically get tenure and go into retirement. Now tell me that is like the private sectors. And you wonder why the poeple of this country have grown tired of putting up with these liberal legislators and unions. Hell, unions only last stand is working in the government sector, no one else will have them.

Originally Posted by goober

Thanks for proving my point...

That you don't have a point? That really wasn't a surprise at all.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You keep forgetting. You are the one who used a private enterprise model that doesn't fit education, not me.

Both schools would have almost identical costs (overhead, wages etc), and both would have a finite amount of revenue for education. So now if you have to add profit, how do you cover that cost?...fairy dust.

But that's the point, Bfgrn. Both schools would NOT have identical costs. They have the same tasks to perform, but would accomplish those tasks in different ways.

In the public school system, there is no real motivation to keep down administrative costs, because you can always gang up on your governor and call him "anti-teacher" and force him to keep increasing school funding. As was pointed out, WI is especially guilty of this, as their administrative costs are 42.3% higher than the national average.

But in a private system, you could talk smack about the school's leadership all you want, but at the end of the day, it would always come down to: "This other school charges no more than you do, and delivers a superior education. Why?" At the end of the day, the quest for profit would ensure that the administration keeps the costs of administration as low as they can be, so that they can focus on delivering a quality product, and thus remain competitive.

Liberals always seem to assume that profit is just another cost, added on top of a system that the government could operate just as effectively without profit. This is just not the case. It's like when a right-wing loonie says that EPA regulations are "all cost, no benefit," - this is just not the case.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Money, money, money....boohoo. Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Fast Facts

Spending has going up, every year, and this includes adjustment for inflation.

In world rankings we are a strong #4, with not much space between 1-3 in front of us.

U.S. Falls In World Education Rankings, Rated 'Average'



Despite our spending constantly going up and being ranked in the top tier for spending our actual rankings are continually falling. So we are paying more, for less, every year. Money is not the problem, the problem lies with our educators being completely unwilling to hold any kind of standard. Everyone gets a gold start.

WHAT does that have to do with teachers?

The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries

WHEN we don’t get the results we want in our military endeavors, we don’t blame the soldiers. We don’t say, “It’s these lazy soldiers and their bloated benefits plans!

And yet in education we do just that. When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers. When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.

Compare this with our approach to our military: when results on the ground are not what we hoped, we think of ways to better support soldiers. We try to give them better tools, better weapons, better protection, better training. And when recruiting is down, we offer incentives.

At the moment, the average teacher’s pay is on par with that of a toll taker or bartender. Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education. In real terms, teachers’ salaries have declined for 30 years. The average starting salary is $39,000; the average ending salary — after 25 years in the profession — is $67,000. This prices teachers out of home ownership in 32 metropolitan areas, and makes raising a family on one salary near impossible.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Prove it.

I already did. You are just too lazy to keep up with the thread.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...ml#post2029875

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

WHAT does that have to do with teachers?

The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries

WHEN we don’t get the results we want in our military endeavors, we don’t blame the soldiers. We don’t say, “It’s these lazy soldiers and their bloated benefits plans!

And yet in education we do just that. When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers. When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.

Wow, leave it to the New York Times (and apparently their readers, as well) to be vapid enough to forward and buy this argument. According to the Times, when soldiers lose battles, we don't criticize them, we just try to improve. Atta boy! Except when soldiers lose battles, they're dead. So I guess if we killed all the teachers and then encouraged the NEXT teachers, that would ALMOST make sense. ALMOST. Except you'd also have to ignore the fact that soldiers are fighting against other soldiers and teachers aren't fighting against anything. And you'd have to forget that teachers USED to be able to teach for some reason and now they can't. And you'd also have to ignore the fact that we don't actually restrict any teachers' resources, since the per-pupil spending in America is ridiculously HIGH, not low. So other than all of those problems, this would be a good argument.

The problem is that some people went to ridiculously retarded schools, so now they think that's a good argument.