• 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

No one suggests we should never worry about paying for things. Nor do I see what is being done as grown up. When you do things without seeking to find the best answers, to protect what matters most, whioe still be fiscally responsible, you are not being the grown up.



Not asking that they fix communities. I'm asking of you can expect the same results. No one suggests they shouldn't know their subject matter or not try to pass that knowledge on. Wouodln't it be better to address what I actually asked?

Addressing the issues of our poorer communities would cost much more money then they are willing to spend. Way to many people do not see how everything is all connected. If we can raise up the lower half of our society, we can raise up all of society.

And teachers are expected to be superhuman- they are held accountable for problems they can't fix- a student that has a toothache, isn't going to learn any better because of what a teacher does- but the teacher is expected to deal with this anyway. There is a big picture and it has to stop being ignored.
 
Do you have a study that shows that children of engaged parents do better in school then parents not so engaged?

It is common sense that parents that are engaged will tend to have kids that do better in school. It is also common sense that parents that are engaged are much more likely then unengaged parents to take the time and effort to sign their kids up for a charter school. Common sense can lead you wrong at times, but i'd be interested in seeing the study that you have.

It's not easy to do that. My son was diagnosed with a speech disorder and I spent two years working with him to get him into regular classes- but it can be done. The SE teachers told me not to expect fast results then they were amazed that he improved so quickly. It is possible but it takes a lot of sacrifices on the parents. If two parents have to work all the time- it is a lot harder than one would think, especially if they are just working to pay the bills and can't afford special services above and beyond what the schools offer.

We have to take a lot into consideration before judging anyone.
 
in my district, northern california, east bay, we high school teachers get exactly ONE HUNDRED MINUTES of prep per day

if we were to return to the fifty minutes every other teacher in our district gets, we would NOT be laying off so many outstanding young teachers like mrs c***** and ms r*****, two of my best friends, two exciting young educators whom, both of them, i have come to depend on

the block schedules we use see hi school teachers either starting our classroom day at 10:49, ending at 1:12, or having a fat two hour break in the middle of our day

look into it---block scheduling

i gently told our union last year that we should go back to a prep every other day---y'know, to save the mrs c's and ms r's around us

you can imagine the reaction of the order

as it is, mrs c will probably return but ms r probably won't

who's gonna enter my test scores into datawise?

oh well, ms j****, our local rep, NEVER enters hers

i could always just go that route, what can they do to me

stay up, students
 
FEW cliches permeate our culture more thoroughly than that of the underpaid schoolteacher. In fact, many people would say that if they know anything about public schools it is that teachers deserve far more money than they actually get.

But the idea that teachers are underpaid is a myth. When we discard our presuppositions and look at the evidence, it turns out that teachers actually are better paid than many people realize.

As of 2002, the average salary for teachers nationwide was about $44,600. That does seem modest. But we need account for the relatively few hours that teachers actually spend working compared to other professionals.

That is, a teacher who earns $45,000 to work for nine months is clearly better paid than a nurse who gets the same salary for working 12 months.

Since teachers' work schedule distorts direct salary comparisons with other jobs, we need to look at hourly pay.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average public elementary school teacher in the United States earns about $30.75 an hour. The average hourly pay of other public-service employees - such as firefighters ($17.91) or police officers ($22.64) - pales in comparison.

Indeed, teachers' hourly rate exceeds even those in professions that require far more training and expertise. Compare the schoolteacher's $30.75 to the average biologist's $28.07 an hour - or the mechanical engineer's $29.76 or the chemist's $30.68.

Whose hourly pay is competitive with that of teachers? Computer scientists ($32.86), dentists ($35.51) and even nuclear engineers ($36.16).

Note, too, that these hourly figures exclude benefits, such as health coverage and retirement accounts, which are typically more generous for government employeas teachers, than for private-sector workers.

But don't teachers spend a great deal of time grading papers and creating lesson plans while away from school? Some do - but the comparisons here are still fair - because other professionals do work away from the office, too. Engineers and computer scientists are certainly no strangers to long nights working at home.

Nor do teachers spend all of their time at school in the classroom. In fact, teachers spend fewer hours actually instructing students than many recognize. Stanford's Terry Moe worked with data straight from the nation's largest teacher union's own data - and found that the average teacher in a department setting (that is, where students have different teachers for different subjects) was in the classroom for fewer than 3.9 hours out of the 7.3 hours at school each day.

The myth that teachers are underpaid is a significant hurdle to educational reform because it helps prop up the falsehood that schools in general are underfunded. In fact, taxpayers spend more money on public K-12 schools than they do on national defense, even more than the Gross Domestic Product of Russia.

Yet, despite this generous investment, student outcomes as measured by standardized tests and graduation rates have been stagnant since the Ford administration.

Just a few more facts for the left to dispute .. and try an reason away ..

Ok, I found it. this was written by Jay P. Greene as an op-ed for the New York Post in 2005. I tried to find if he cited any good sources for his information, but I really couldn't. I think he draws erroneous conclusions from limited data. I also didn't see any background in education.

I couldn't get to the original posting of the column since it is so old, but it has been re-posted at the Manhattan Institute which is a conservative think tank.

Frankly, I'm not impressed.
 
in my district, northern california, east bay, we high school teachers get exactly ONE HUNDRED MINUTES of prep per day

if we were to return to the fifty minutes every other teacher in our district gets, we would NOT be laying off so many outstanding young teachers like mrs c***** and ms r*****, two of my best friends, two exciting young educators whom, both of them, i have come to depend on

the block schedules we use see hi school teachers either starting our classroom day at 10:49, ending at 1:12, or having a fat two hour break in the middle of our day

look into it---block scheduling

i gently told our union last year that we should go back to a prep every other day---y'know, to save the mrs c's and ms r's around us

you can imagine the reaction of the order

as it is, mrs c will probably return but ms r probably won't

who's gonna enter my test scores into datawise?

oh well, ms j****, our local rep, NEVER enters hers

i could always just go that route, what can they do to me

stay up, students

Wow, 100 minutes is a lot. It would be nice, but it seems like an unnecessary luxury. We get 50. I really don't like block scheduling. It doesn't work well for my subject but I can see how it would be good for some. It was the big thing around here several years ago but now every school has switched back to the traditional 50 minute class.
 
Ok, I found it. this was written by Jay P. Greene as an op-ed for the New York Post in 2005. I tried to find if he cited any good sources for his information, but I really couldn't. I think he draws erroneous conclusions from limited data. I also didn't see any background in education.

I couldn't get to the original posting of the column since it is so old, but it has been re-posted at the Manhattan Institute which is a conservative think tank.

Frankly, I'm not impressed.

I'm not here to impress you .. but for those folks that would like to read up on Jay P. Greene ... I think you will find he is well versed in this subject .. Jay P. Greene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It's not easy to do that. My son was diagnosed with a speech disorder and I spent two years working with him to get him into regular classes- but it can be done. The SE teachers told me not to expect fast results then they were amazed that he improved so quickly. It is possible but it takes a lot of sacrifices on the parents. If two parents have to work all the time- it is a lot harder than one would think, especially if they are just working to pay the bills and can't afford special services above and beyond what the schools offer.

We have to take a lot into consideration before judging anyone.

I'm trying to figure out who I judged? I simply asked a question. It seems that Boo will ask for studies of common sense opininos that disagree with his views. So, I am simply asking if he has any studies of the common sense opinion that supports his view.
 
Last edited:
...and is causing the inevitable demise of freedom in our nation today. Those three things represent the roots of our destruction. They are weeds in Liberty's Garden. They should be pulled and tossed on the ash heap of history.

If by destruction you mean the strongest middle class in the history of our country. Our real debt problems didn't begin until the progressive tax system was slashed. Every senior is happy with Medicare, and SS helped fund the federal government in lieu of revenues that were cut for the rich folks.

So it is your contention that our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Marxists for supporting these programs huh! You are funny Misterveritis! :sun
 
Our real debt problems didn't begin until the progressive tax system was slashed

LOL!

so much dogma

so ordinarily squished by msm karma

ie, there's not enough money in the galaxy

june 13:

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com
 
Do you have a study that shows that children of engaged parents do better in school then parents not so engaged?

It is common sense that parents that are engaged will tend to have kids that do better in school. It is also common sense that parents that are engaged are much more likely then unengaged parents to take the time and effort to sign their kids up for a charter school. Common sense can lead you wrong at times, but i'd be interested in seeing the study that you have.

For the first one:

Teens Who Feel Responsible to Their Parents Are More Engaged in School

ScienceDaily (May 12, 2011) — Researchers surveying 835 youths in suburban Chicago and Beijing have found that youths who feel more responsible to their parents stay engaged in school and perform better. The study was conducted over two years and began when the youths were in 7th grade.

Teens who feel responsible to their parents are more engaged in school

Press Release from Comptroller Justin Wilson; July 8, 2010:
Report Highlights Importance of Family Engagement in Education

Students perform better in the classroom when their families and their schools forge strong partnerships, according to a new report released today by the Comptroller’s Offices of Research and Education Accountability.

Study: Students of Involved Parents Perform Better in School | Tennessee Report

That's just a couple. Any search would show you more.

As for your second point, we would still need to see that those parents were actually engaged and not, say, just hoping the school change would fix their problem. Without actually looking at it closer, we can't really know.

Also, if there were engaged, that would be the difference and not the school. Again, population matters more than whether the school is public, charter, or private. Overall, all three use muchn the same methods. Seems to me that your side would be better served to show exactly what methods are being used in public schools that cause the problem. I also suspect your side doesn't do that because you don't know of any and simply take large statisitical data at face value without being concerned enough to look at it closer. This is common. But not the way we should approach any data.
 
well, we know how mr bobb approaches data---he unilaterally voids collective bargaining agreements

which is why so many in the know prefer his methods to milwaukee's

LOL!

poorly behaved public school kids are too often returned to class

they can take over entire schools, ask arne duncan

even charter schools and academies would drum out such brazen malcontents

hello
 

Not with the trillions we have given away in tax cuts to the wealthy over the last 30 years that was supposed to improve the economy -

"The hard reality of what we confront is simply this: This chart shows the spending and revenues of the United States going back to 1950 -- more than 60 years of the revenue and expenditure history of the United States. The red line is the spending line. The green line is the revenue line. What jumps out at you is, spending as a share of our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. On the other hand, revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 years as a share of national income. So that is the reason we have record deficits.

I hear all the time the other side of the aisle: It is a spending problem. When you have a deficit, that is the result of the difference between revenue and spending. We have a spending problem, yes, indeed -- the highest spending as a share of national income in 60 years. We also have a revenue problem -- the lowest revenue we have had as a share of national income in 60 years."

Speeches & Remarks - Press Room - Senate Budget Committee

Both cutting revenue and increased spending created our debt. When we decide to finally address our debt we will have to address both causes, revenue and spending.
 
Any serious approach to our financial problems would include both spending cuts and tax increases. And both should be targeted, wisely done, planned to get the most bang for the buck, so to speak.
 
THREE POINT TWO TRILLION dollars ADDED debt, EXTRA debt--social security and medicare alone---2010 ALONE

ie, you better start taxing FAST

LOL!

BIG and FAST

HURRY!

dogmatics don't do math well

but the usa today does
 
Last edited:
Any serious approach to our financial problems would include both spending cuts and tax increases.

but that's NOT what mister bobb is doing

you simply don't know what you're talking about
 
Any serious approach to our financial problems would include both spending cuts and tax increases. And both should be targeted, wisely done, planned to get the most bang for the buck, so to speak.

When our debt problem gets big enough that is what will be done. Americans are just not proactive as a whole. All you have to do is look at AGW and the approaching world peak oil to see evidence of that.
 
vote obama, 2012!

americans aren't proactive!

as a whole...

LOL!

tax away, trotsky, 61.6 trillion and doubling every ten years...
 
Last edited:
So it is your contention that our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Marxists for supporting these programs huh! You are funny Misterveritis! :sun
They were useful idiots. The real criminals were the politicians who sold our grandchildren into a life of slavery, or serfdom to the state, if you prefer, in order to buy the votes to keep themselves in office. Marxism has always had enormous appeal. Who wouldn't want to get something for noting (or very little)?
 
the topic is the tragically upside down fiscal status of many of our school districts, coast to coast

and the way out, which has been pretty well established

Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district | Washington Examiner

keep up the good work in the classroom

And has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the reason for this has very little to do with teacher pay and has everything to do with redundant cost.

I assume that parents that take the time to sign their kids up for charter schools would be more engaged then parents that don't. So, using your previous logic (and what I would have thought too), shouldn't charter school kids be doing better? Do they give a reason for the discrepancy?

Poor people typically do not have the resources to be as involved in their lives as the middle class or rich. They don't always work a 9-5, they sometimes work 12hr+ days with a 3 hr nus commute. The only thing these parents can do, under a voucher or charter school system, is sign up their kids for the school they THINK will do better. As I pointed out eariler, when everything else is equal (demographically), charter schools do not preform better than their public school counter parts, at least academically. There can, and often is, the other benefit of the charter schools having the ability to enforce zero-tolerance polices and kicking out all the bad kids, making the school safer.

FEW cliches permeate our culture more thoroughly than that of the underpaid schoolteacher. In fact, many people would say that if they know anything about public schools it is that teachers deserve far more money than they actually get.

Teachers are underpaid. The avg is skewed by the fact that seniority is the basis for pay and most teachers don't make it past 4years. Teacher's starting pay is typically below 30k/year. How do we as a society expect to get the best teachers if we start them off on barely above poverty pay?

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com
 
Last edited:
Teachers are underpaid. The avg is skewed by the fact that seniority is the basis for pay and most teachers don't make it past 4years. Teacher's starting pay is typically below 30k/year. How do we as a society expect to get the best teachers if we start them off on barely above poverty pay?

Teacher Salaries By State | Average Salaries For Teachers | Beginning Salaries For Teachers | Teacher Raises | TeacherPortal.com

Amazing that retention is so low for such a cush job, as some think. However, I will state that I don't believe pay is the major reason for the low retention rate. Respect I think ranks higher.
 
Amazing that retention is so low for such a cush job, as some think. However, I will state that I don't believe pay is the major reason for the low retention rate. Respect I think ranks higher.

Pay is a sign of respect. But low retention rates are also caused by rules and the inability for teachers to actually do their job.
 
Pay is a sign of respect. But low retention rates are also caused by rules and the inability for teachers to actually do their job.

I don't disagree, but I do want to emphsize that calssroom conditions, how teachers are treated by students and administration have a greater impact than pay alone.
 
Amazing that retention is so low for such a cush job, as some think. However, I will state that I don't believe pay is the major reason for the low retention rate. Respect I think ranks higher.

I agree. I knew what salary to expect when I started teaching. What I didn't expect was to be cussed at by parents. I also didn't expect the number of parents who didn't care what their kids did at school or blamed the teacher when their child got in trouble or failed.
 
Back
Top Bottom