• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Milwaukee schools to lay off 354 teachers

Busted up doesn't mean gone. They took a beating. They were busted up. Teacher jobs have been lost.

were they lost ... . or given up to continue the assault on Walker .. after all if no teachers would have lost their jobs .. how could this continue to be a big issue .
 
You might want to read my answer to Buck. I would expect a plan not to leave it up to districts to decide, as that is not a plan but passing the buck. If it leaves us with any district cutting teachers and thus increasing class size, we have failed to have a proper plan.

So in your opinion . When spending cuts are involved .. it's a bad plan to allow the districts … to decide how they should handle those cuts .. Who would know better the needs .. of a particular school .. that district .. or the government that could be located 100s of miles away ???

IMO it was the right thing to do to have the districts handle the cuts .. they are more involved in their community and should know their needs better.

What to me it shows .. is that some districts choose to abide by the cuts .. and do the best they could with them .. while others used it as a political tool .. to get back at Walker .. by disregarding the kids and teachers and going straight to lay offs. Of course in your opinion .. it's better to lay teacher off then look at all other options .. to make sure that you and other libs can continue the assault on Walker

Thank you for the post on Detroit's handling of the cuts .. It seems that they managed their budget cuts with laying off teachers … perhaps it would have been wise of Milwaukee to do something similar ..or even call Detroit for help with their budgeting before going to lay offs of teachers .. but then again .. if the budget cuts went without lay offs .. it would be harder to continue the bashing of Walker which is your and other liberals primary concern
 
were they lost ... . or given up to continue the assault on Walker .. after all if no teachers would have lost their jobs .. how could this continue to be a big issue .

How were they lost? Please, explain.
 
You might want to read my answer to Buck. I would expect a plan not to leave it up to districts to decide, as that is not a plan but passing the buck. If it leaves us with any district cutting teachers and thus increasing class size, we have failed to have a proper plan.

The individual School districts are responsible for the budgeting of the schools. The governor can not (and I am glad for it) make those decisions. The governor can only provide money to school districts to do what they want with it.

In this case, some districts decided they wanted to give it to unions/teachers and the unions decided they wouldn't make any concessions for the benefit of all. In other cases, the districts(rightly) decided to use the new tools made available from the governor (teacher contribute to pensions, moving away from the vastly overpriced WEA insurance, etc).

I know why some districts decided to do what they did. Now, students will be disadvantaged due to their decisions (for two years in the case of milwaukee).
 
Last edited:
So in your opinion . When spending cuts are involved .. it's a bad plan to allow the districts … to decide how they should handle those cuts .. Who would know better the needs .. of a particular school .. that district .. or the government that could be located 100s of miles away ???

IMO it was the right thing to do to have the districts handle the cuts .. they are more involved in their community and should know their needs better.

What to me it shows .. is that some districts choose to abide by the cuts .. and do the best they could with them .. while others used it as a political tool .. to get back at Walker .. by disregarding the kids and teachers and going straight to lay offs. Of course in your opinion .. it's better to lay teacher off then look at all other options .. to make sure that you and other libs can continue the assault on Walker

Thank you for the post on Detroit's handling of the cuts .. It seems that they managed their budget cuts with laying off teachers … perhaps it would have been wise of Milwaukee to do something similar ..or even call Detroit for help with their budgeting before going to lay offs of teachers .. but then again .. if the budget cuts went without lay offs .. it would be harder to continue the bashing of Walker which is your and other liberals primary concern

It's a bad plan to cut teachers and increase class size. We facing cuts here, and we argued that it was important to get feedback, to involve everyone in the decisions, but that those charged with making sure the mission was met, you know, making sure students got the best possible education, had to have final say.

Here you seem to be arguing that if a district wants to harm children, good for them. I say, no, any plan at budget cuts must assure that children are not the ones paying the price.

Now, a hammer tends to see everythign as a nail, so a political partisan tends to see everything as policial, so it doesn't surprise me that you see this as a political tool to get back at Walker. You overlook that Walker did not present a play that would assure teachers stayed working. I seriously doubt those who got pink slips said please fire me.

Yes, I personally prefer Detroit's choice over Milwaukee's. Still, I suspect we could have done a better job in both places.
 
The individual School districts are responsible for the budgeting of the schools. The governor can not (and I am glad for it) make those decisions. The governor can only provide money to school districts to do what they want with it.

In this case, some districts decided they wanted to give it to unions/teachers and the unions decided they wouldn't make any concessions for the benefit of all. In other cases, the districts(rightly) decided to use the new tools made available from the governor (teacher contribute to pensions, moving away from the vastly overpriced WEA insurance, etc).

I know why some districts decided to do what they did. Now, students will be disadvantaged due to their decisions (for two years in the case of milwaukee).

As long as that is true, the effort will never be well managed, it will be ad hoc, and children will face the brunt of it in some areas. the complant has been that the top needs to be cut, but when you do it this way, the likelihood is slim that the cuts will occur in the right places.
 
Boo Radley;1059623670]It's a bad plan to cut teachers and increase class size. We facing cuts here, and we argued that it was important to get feedback, to involve everyone in the decisions, but that those charged with making sure the mission was met, you know, making sure students got the best possible education, had to have final say.

-chuckles- you keep with the same junk over and over ... so in your opinion .. the next time there is an increase in the budget for schools, the state government should tell each district exactly where they can spend that extra money on ... and you will be in agreement .. right ? Even if they say .. no to an increase in teachers salaries .. or benefits

Here you seem to be arguing that if a district wants to harm children, good for them. I say, no, any plan at budget cuts must assure that children are not the ones paying the price.

I'm saying no such things .. and it's immature of you to even hint that I am .. I'm saying that it appears that perhaps that is the "choice" a district took ... because most other districts didn't seem to lay off teachers ... those districts were and are ignored by you and other liberals .. and by the press .. The only district being talked about is the one that laid off teachers .. . here is a list of school districts in Wisconsin.... List of school districts in Wisconsin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there are hundreds of them .. yet all you and liberals choose to talk about is the ONE district that laid off teachers ..... tell me boo if thats not politically motivated ... what is it ?

Now, a hammer tends to see everythign as a nail, so a political partisan tends to see everything as policial, so it doesn't surprise me that you see this as a political tool to get back at Walker. You overlook that Walker did not present a play that would assure teachers stayed working. I seriously doubt those who got pink slips said please fire me.

Again . with the hundreds of districts that didn't lay off anyone . it's "you" that keeps talking about the "one" that did .. seems to me that it is you that sees everything as the nail .

Yes, I personally prefer Detroit's choice over Milwaukee's. Still, I suspect we could have done a better job in both places.

Of course you do .. see what you do is question everyone on their plan to cut .. and then sit back in your high chair and say it could have been better .. . but the one common thread in all your posts .. is never any suggestions by you .. just that it could be better .. and asking everyone else to give you their ideas .. so you can disagree with them ..
 
How were they lost? Please, explain.

Busted up doesn't mean gone. They took a beating. They were busted up. Teacher jobs have been lost.

the same you you meant .. when you said teachers jobs were lost ..
 
As long as that is true, the effort will never be well managed, it will be ad hoc, and children will face the brunt of it in some areas. the complant has been that the top needs to be cut, but when you do it this way, the likelihood is slim that the cuts will occur in the right places.

It's how it should be. The governor or a statewide panel, etc should not be making budget decision for individual districts. Milwaukee is a democrat stronghold so I doubt they will, but hopefully the citizens of Milwaukee will correctly place the blame on the school board (and union) for the MPS teacher cuts.
 
I actually believe this is a misinterpretation on your part.
In what way Boo?

And anyone who uses the term Marxist to describe Obama is so far in delusional land that one has to question whether rational discussion is even possible.
What part do you think I have wrong? Do you disagree that the central organizing principal of Marxism is in fact, centrally organizing society? Isn't the point to increase the size of government, to have a dictatorship of the proletariat to lead the unwashed masses to their utopia?

However, I try.
Thanks for trying.

First off, the wealthy are not being deprived of their wealth. They are doing fine. Paying a few more percentage points of taxes is not depriving them of their wealth. It is not only dishonest to say it is, but more than a little silly.

So is your plan to take wealth from them without depriving the of it? That is one fine trick. How do you propose to take that wealth which someone has created without actually taking it? If they are not deprived of that which is taken from them then what word or phrase should we use to describe it?

What we have is a budget problem all around that will require both spending cuts and tax increases.

You have provided one solution, your solution, without first defining what the problem is. If the problem is spending 5 billion dollars more than the state has another way to view the problem is that the state is spending too much. It must cut its spending to match or be lower than the revenue it expects to collect. If the desire is to increase the revenues to the state then another option is to review the myriad rules and regulations that hamper business. By making business easier to conduct the economic activity will increase withing the state thus increasing revenues collected.

This is not marxist, or socialist, or any other ism. This is partical problem solving.

It lacks practicality to the degree that the problem itself was not identified and agreed upon before moving to one of many possible solutions. It is Marxist or socialist or statist because your preferred solution, perhaps you only solution is always the same. Tax the rich and spend, spend spend on more government.

Now, I suggest you step back from your excessive ideological delusion and try to see things more clearly. No one of any siginficance or seriousness is threatening what you claim.

Thank you for your suggestion. However, I am fine. And I stand by my assessment.
 
Of course you do. Stevie Wonder could see that coming. A far right wing plan to weaken and possible destroy the working class in America gets support from far right extremists who share those far right goals.

It is awesome in its simplicity and power. Not that I would ever try to dissuade you from using the phrase but the leisure class, meaning union members and union leaders, is far more apt than working class. Since I think the class-full society is a useful Marxist tool. I prefer to think of the two groups as the productive, meaning the wealth producers, the taxpayers, and the unproductive, meaning the wealth consumers, the public sector government workers, the union leaders and members.
 
Last edited:
(CNN) -- In a budget-cutting move likely to be echoed around the country, Milwaukee Public Schools said Wednesday it will lay off 519 staff members -- including 354 teachers -- because of $84 million in state cuts and the system's efforts to control costs.

Milwaukee schools to lay off 354 teachers - CNN.com


Cuts have consequences.


Whichever state willing to have the stupidest kids win, right?
 
It is awesome in its simplicity and power. Dot that I would ever try to dissuade you from using the phrase but the leisure class, meaning union members and union leaders, is far more apt than working class. Since I think the class-full society is a useful Marxist tool I prefer to think of the two groups as the productive, meaning the wealth producers, the taxpayers, and the unproductive, meaning the wealth consumers, the public sector government workers, the union leaders and members.

I have little doubt you PREFER to think of it that way.

I am only thankful that most of the rest of the nation does not.
 
I would expect a plan not to leave it up to districts to decide, as that is not a plan but passing the buck.

you want to leave the CUTS up to the cuomos and moonbeams of this milieu?

LOL!

you don't know what you're arguing about

at the DISTRICT level wisconsin is witnessing MIRACLES:

The Kaukauna School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes -- from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the much-maligned changes in collective bargaining.

link above
 
The public sector worker pays taxes also.
Granted. Wealth is taken from the wealth producers. The state takes a very large amount. Much of that wealth is then given to public sector union members. Government workers. And they in turn pay some in taxes. But they do not create wealth. They do not create things of value. They consume wealth.

This is not all bad. But too much for too long is. And we have seen public sector unions joined in an unholy alliance with democrats. They make deals with one another to the detriment of the taxpayer. One cannot change the politician. One cannot change the Union leader. So one must take away their power to make mischief by outlawing public sector unions.
 
I personally prefer Detroit's choice over Milwaukee's.

LOL!

you prefer BOBB?

in april mr bobb sent layoff notices to EVERY teacher in detroit, all five thousand four hundred and sixty six of em

bobb "voids union contracts," "sidelines elected board members," "closes schools..."

he makes "unilateral changes to collective bargaining"

up to 1/3 of detroit's public schools mr bobb will either CLOSE or "turn over to private charter operators"

why, mr bobb is the very face of michigan's fiscal MARTIAL LAW

ask ms maddow

look to detroit for a plan that's not ad hoc...

LOL!

what an idiot
 
(CNN) -- In a budget-cutting move likely to be echoed around the country, Milwaukee Public Schools said Wednesday it will lay off 519 staff members -- including 354 teachers -- because of $84 million in state cuts and the system's efforts to control costs.

Milwaukee schools to lay off 354 teachers - CNN.com


Cuts have consequences.

From what I'm hearing from the GOP these days, education is way over rated. Of what benefit is having smart children? How could that possibly help us in the future?
 
From what I'm hearing from the GOP these days, education is way over rated. Of what benefit is having smart children? How could that possibly help us in the future?

really ?? I've heard of no such things .. do you have links to back up your nonsense .. or are you just giving us more of your dribble ?
 
Last edited:
Of what benefit is having smart children? How could that possibly help us in the future?

they could help balance our budget when they reach their maturity

they could insist that the teachers of their time contribute to their pensions and health insurance sufficient to protect the solvencies of their states' entire budgets and stop burdening their posterities with impossible promises which can never be kept

because our states, unless something is done now to restructure their obligations, are simply not going to be able to sustain perks like pensions and health care for the next generation

just like our big 3 federal social programs---if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally reform our budgets, then social security and medicare and medicaid will simply cease to exist, as we now know them, for our kids

cutting just to cut, anyone?

all ad hoc?

LOL!

the MAN with the PLAN:

Andrew Cuomo approval sky-high, new poll suggests - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
 
really ?? I've heard of no such things .. do you have links to back up your nonsense .. or are you just giving us more of your dribble ?

Did you miss the OP??? Are under the impression that a higher student to teacher ratio improves education?
 
Last edited:
In what way Boo?

I don't know anyone of siginificance who believes and "behave as if all property belongs to the state and the rich should not be allowed to keep so much of their property." We have aprogressive tax system, no more and no less, and there has only been suggestions of a small percentage increase, nothing more.

What part do you think I have wrong? Do you disagree that the central organizing principal of Marxism is in fact, centrally organizing society? Isn't the point to increase the size of government, to have a dictatorship of the proletariat to lead the unwashed masses to their utopia?

If you can't read that nonsense and see the problem, i'm not sure anyonhe can reach you. Nothing going on today equal marxist or Socialism or cCommunism. It is pure silliness to use that tired old unoriginal nonsense. It's bad to spew nonsense, but to be unoriginal to boot?



So is your plan to take wealth from them without depriving the of it? That is one fine trick. How do you propose to take that wealth which someone has created without actually taking it? If they are not deprived of that which is taken from them then what word or phrase should we use to describe it?

No, tax increases and spending cuts. Not depriving anyone of anything. your leaping over the edge.

You have provided one solution, your solution, without first defining what the problem is. If the problem is spending 5 billion dollars more than the state has another way to view the problem is that the state is spending too much. It must cut its spending to match or be lower than the revenue it expects to collect. If the desire is to increase the revenues to the state then another option is to review the myriad rules and regulations that hamper business. By making business easier to conduct the economic activity will increase withing the state thus increasing revenues collected.

That's only part of the problem. The state still ahs obligations, we the people have obligations. We have public schools and must have a proper plan to effectively educate our children. You want to spend wisely? So do I. But as I keep saying just cutting to cut is not better than just spending to spend.

It lacks practicality to the degree that the problem itself was not identified and agreed upon before moving to one of many possible solutions. It is Marxist or socialist or statist because your preferred solution, perhaps you only solution is always the same. Tax the rich and spend, spend spend on more government.

Do you even read what I type? Shoudl I type slower? I said CUT SPENDING and raise taxes. Read it slowly.


Thank you for your suggestion. However, I am fine. And I stand by my assessment.

More's the pity.
 
Did you miss the OP??? Are under the impression that a higher student to teacher ratio improves education?

To be fair, student to teacher ratio is a poor predictor of educational success.

For instance, Utah has the highest student-to-teacher ration but has above average SAT scores.

While Maine, the lowest, scores among the bottom.

That's not to say it isn't a useful component in judging future educational success, but it is definitely a smaller part. It should not be considered some sort of 'Holy Grail' that we must make payroll decisions around.

[Link] | [Link]
 
Nonsense. I have voted local tickets for some thirty years now, and never once have I seen any initiative on any ballot that reads in terms of bloating the administration of a school system with $100K plus a year jobs, and golden parachute retirements.

These positions are ones created for teachers that move up the ranks toward retirement by connected union hacks that are draining our municipalities.

j-mac

You and I aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about removing entire school districts because they in and of themselves are overlap and therefore useless and inefficient. The school districts themselves are established by law, the pay is negotiated. You can argue that the pay needs to be adjusted, but that doesn't tackle the root issue witch is redundancy.


Why should that district even exist? 4200 student for 1 district? That number should be around 10-11k. These redundancies that are making education budgets bloated.

So in your opinion . When spending cuts are involved .. it's a bad plan to allow the districts … to decide how they should handle those cuts .. Who would know better the needs .. of a particular school .. that district .. or the government that could be located 100s of miles away ???

As I said, the problem is that some school districts have less than 2000 students. In IN, there are school districts that have less than 1k students. This leads to having more superindents and other admin redundancies which eats up most the money spent on education over all.
Have you ever read the Communist Manefesto? Me thinks not, otherwise you'd never make these foolish statements.

j-mac

Reading and understanding are two different things. I think you read it and misunderstood it. Have you read Das Capital? Anyways, it doesn't matter because Obama is anything but a socialist. Hes a corporatist, much like Bush W with a different stripe.



Heck, why not just graduate these kids at the 8th grade, and do away with high school all together....Everyone knows that this is what collages are for....heh, heh....

j-mac

I personally believe that highschool should only be 2 years of school, and 2 years of extra help for those who need it, and community service and other programs for those that don't. Going to school for 16years before starting life has caused a lot of problems in the country, one is debt the other is the immaturity of my generation.
 
you want to leave the CUTS up to the cuomos and moonbeams of this milieu?

LOL!

you don't know what you're arguing about

at the DISTRICT level wisconsin is witnessing MIRACLES:



link above

MPS was trying to get the unions to agree to pension contributions from their members. This alone, not even asking for health insurance contributions or a change from WEA to a private insurance) would save over 200 teacher jobs. Add in the contributions to health insurance premium and a change from WEA, and I would bet they wouldn't have to lay any teachers off.
 
Back
Top Bottom