The Supreme Court recently released a decision striking down a CA ban on the purchase of violent video games by kids. In his dissent, Thomas said there’s historical evidence that shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over minor children. He said that Puritans thought children were 'innately sinful and that parents’ primary task was to suppress their children’s natural depravity.'”
And by that logic, let’s take away civil rights for women and non-whites; go back to each African-American MAN’s vote counting for only 3/5’s of a white man’s; take away the vote from all women of all colors; take away women's right to own land; take away the right of women to hold any kind of position of authority; and on and on.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Where's the revolt...
In a recent email exchange about Cleveland laying off 466 city workers due to Kasich's "Jobs Budget", a friend asked why people in Ohio aren't revolting. This was my answer.
People aren’t revolting because people don’t pay attention. And there’s also a large number of people who believe what they hear and read and only seek out “mainstream” sources of information. And mainstream sources of information these days are all too often either entertainment (there’s a problem when the news shows are fighting over ratings) or bought and paid for by people and interests with deep pockets. So if the governor says that his budget saves money and creates jobs, then it must be so.
These are the people who think that FoxNews actually reports accurate and honest and actual news. These are also the people who are busy hating Strickland, who blame him for what was a national (international, really) economic crisis, and who didn’t notice that Ohio actually weathered the recession better than most states, including all of our neighbors. The same people who didn't notice that Strickland left office during the tenth or eleventh month of consecutive drops in unemployment and increases in jobs.* The same people who didn't notice that Ohio was ranked somewhere in the top 10 in education. The same people who didn't notice that our unconstitutional school funding formula had been changed so that it was no longer violating our state constitution. The same people who didn't notice that in his last budget, Strickland actually had a larger imbalance to deal with and he did it without raising taxes, without gutting education and local monies, and by cutting overall spending (for those not paying attention, do please note that Kasich’s budget actually increases spending; that’s part of the reason some of the cuts have to be so very deep)… and Strickland did that without his party controlling the Statehouse.
Kasich, on the other hand, is having one b*tch of a time. Votes are all too often completely along party lines (never a good thing). One of his favorite pieces of legislation, something he thought would go flying through with no problem at all, took three or four last minute committee member changes in both chambers just to get it to the Senate and House floors for votes; prompted a number of protests; and is going to be a referendum on the fall ballot. And that’s with Kasich’s party in charge of EVERYTHING in this state.
Meanwhile, thanks to Strickland’s last budget and the strengthening economy, we’re going to end the fiscal year with a surplus (how often do you see that reported on in the mainstream media?!?).
Nope, people don’t pay any attention. They know that they’re hurting and so in November they voted out everyone who was in office without paying attention to who they were voting in and what those they were voting out had actually done. And now they believe the guy they voted for when he says this is a Jobs Budget. And now they’re all about to find out that by “Jobs Budget” he actually means “Jobs KILLING budget.” And they’re not going to know how this happened. Those of us who pay some attention, take what we hear and read with a grain of salt, and seek out other sources of information, on the other hand, are all already braced because we know exactly what’s coming.
* Meaning the unemployment drop was not just due to people leaving the workforce or the state, rather, they were actually going back to work… and yes, some of this is due to the national economy recovering; however, when you start doing state by state comparisons, you have to factor in the policies chosen by the administrations in charge when it comes to doing significantly better or worse than similarly situated states.
People aren’t revolting because people don’t pay attention. And there’s also a large number of people who believe what they hear and read and only seek out “mainstream” sources of information. And mainstream sources of information these days are all too often either entertainment (there’s a problem when the news shows are fighting over ratings) or bought and paid for by people and interests with deep pockets. So if the governor says that his budget saves money and creates jobs, then it must be so.
These are the people who think that FoxNews actually reports accurate and honest and actual news. These are also the people who are busy hating Strickland, who blame him for what was a national (international, really) economic crisis, and who didn’t notice that Ohio actually weathered the recession better than most states, including all of our neighbors. The same people who didn't notice that Strickland left office during the tenth or eleventh month of consecutive drops in unemployment and increases in jobs.* The same people who didn't notice that Ohio was ranked somewhere in the top 10 in education. The same people who didn't notice that our unconstitutional school funding formula had been changed so that it was no longer violating our state constitution. The same people who didn't notice that in his last budget, Strickland actually had a larger imbalance to deal with and he did it without raising taxes, without gutting education and local monies, and by cutting overall spending (for those not paying attention, do please note that Kasich’s budget actually increases spending; that’s part of the reason some of the cuts have to be so very deep)… and Strickland did that without his party controlling the Statehouse.
Kasich, on the other hand, is having one b*tch of a time. Votes are all too often completely along party lines (never a good thing). One of his favorite pieces of legislation, something he thought would go flying through with no problem at all, took three or four last minute committee member changes in both chambers just to get it to the Senate and House floors for votes; prompted a number of protests; and is going to be a referendum on the fall ballot. And that’s with Kasich’s party in charge of EVERYTHING in this state.
Meanwhile, thanks to Strickland’s last budget and the strengthening economy, we’re going to end the fiscal year with a surplus (how often do you see that reported on in the mainstream media?!?).
Nope, people don’t pay any attention. They know that they’re hurting and so in November they voted out everyone who was in office without paying attention to who they were voting in and what those they were voting out had actually done. And now they believe the guy they voted for when he says this is a Jobs Budget. And now they’re all about to find out that by “Jobs Budget” he actually means “Jobs KILLING budget.” And they’re not going to know how this happened. Those of us who pay some attention, take what we hear and read with a grain of salt, and seek out other sources of information, on the other hand, are all already braced because we know exactly what’s coming.
* Meaning the unemployment drop was not just due to people leaving the workforce or the state, rather, they were actually going back to work… and yes, some of this is due to the national economy recovering; however, when you start doing state by state comparisons, you have to factor in the policies chosen by the administrations in charge when it comes to doing significantly better or worse than similarly situated states.
Do they ever think before they speak...
From The Columbus Dispatch, in response to the Senate’s inclusion in the budget bill of a pay cut for lawmakers:
And this from the same group that thinks that public workers (public workers who aren’t lawmakers, that is) are a bunch of leaches, sucking the state dry of all of its money through high salaries and ridiculously attractive benefits packages. Mind you, lawmakers, who are not exactly full-time workers, make more money and have better benefits than your average state worker (and let's not forget all those sweet extras they get from friendly lobbyists). And yet, per Batchelder, lawmakers are paid too little and the rest of us lowly public-sector workers are all paid too much.
Nice ego there, you jackwagon.
"I know a lot of people in my caucus who are frankly underpaid," House Speaker William G. Batchelder said yesterday.
Under the budget passed by the Senate this week, pay for the 99 state representatives and half the state senators would be cut 5 percent starting in 2013. Cuts for the other half of the Senate would start in 2015. Base salary for a lawmaker is $60,584 a year. Most earn more through stipends paid to caucus and committee leaders.Yeah, and I know a lot of teachers who are frankly underpaid. Yet your other big gripe is that the Senate took the merit pay measures out of the budget bill. Mind you, those same provisions are in SB5 and it is, frankly, dishonest to also include them in the budget. Of course, Batchelder et al. know that SB5 has a really good chance of being overturned by the voters so having it in the budget bill is really an end run around the will of the people.
And this from the same group that thinks that public workers (public workers who aren’t lawmakers, that is) are a bunch of leaches, sucking the state dry of all of its money through high salaries and ridiculously attractive benefits packages. Mind you, lawmakers, who are not exactly full-time workers, make more money and have better benefits than your average state worker (and let's not forget all those sweet extras they get from friendly lobbyists). And yet, per Batchelder, lawmakers are paid too little and the rest of us lowly public-sector workers are all paid too much.
Nice ego there, you jackwagon.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Zero tolerance policies...
From a somewhat interesting article from The Washington Post about zero tolerance policies in schools:
What reasonably intelligent, rational adult (or child, for that matter) thinks that suspension for stupid things like having Advil in your backpack is actually a good idea that helps kids? This should have been one of those things that was so blatantly obvious from the get go that it never got going! That we did implement these policies and are now saying “gee golly gosh this isn’t working” is pathetic.
That we suspend kids for tardiness and absenteeism is also ludicrous. Clearly they’re not coming to school anyway. Please tell me how a suspension is going to help this? Also, can we pretty please keep in mind that tardiness and absenteeism is not always the child’s fault? When we have parents who just could not care less, how exactly does a suspension help the child?
Now, “it’s become evident that simply suspending students and putting them on the street comes back and bites you,” said Bob Wise, a former governor of West Virginia and president of the Alliance for Excellent Education.No kidding? Gee, I’m shocked. Shocked, I say.
What reasonably intelligent, rational adult (or child, for that matter) thinks that suspension for stupid things like having Advil in your backpack is actually a good idea that helps kids? This should have been one of those things that was so blatantly obvious from the get go that it never got going! That we did implement these policies and are now saying “gee golly gosh this isn’t working” is pathetic.
That we suspend kids for tardiness and absenteeism is also ludicrous. Clearly they’re not coming to school anyway. Please tell me how a suspension is going to help this? Also, can we pretty please keep in mind that tardiness and absenteeism is not always the child’s fault? When we have parents who just could not care less, how exactly does a suspension help the child?
Suspensions do not improve the behavior of students in trouble or their peers, said Dewey Cornell, a University of Virginia education professor who studies school safety. Many people assume that suspensions help students change, he said, “but they don’t.”Many people assume that suspensions change kids? Many people? Who are these people? I’d like to meet them. Actually, I probably really really don’t want to meet them because they’re clearly beyond ignorant.
The American Psychological Association reported in a 2008 journal article that research has found no evidence that zero-tolerance policies have a deterrent effect or keep schools safer.And the shockers keep on coming….
Another bad idea...
From... I think The Dispatch... about a provision that the Senate added to the budget bill:
Urban and rural districts are often the districts that are not doing so well and that don’t have any money. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that money solves the world’s problems and I don’t think that money equals a good education. Look at Ross: not a rich district, but always highly rated. That, actually, is a district that could do even more with a bit more money, so this is good for them. But when you consider districts like Upper Arlington – rich and highly rated – giving them a cash boost for continuing their good scores is just gilding the lily.
If you want to tie the money to performance, wouldn’t it be better spent by giving it to districts that actually improve their rating? Isn’t that what we do with kids themselves? The kids who are struggling along, who have to really work to improve, don’t we give them more stickers and head pats and attention and rewards when they do get a C instead a D? When the A student gets an A… whereas these kids do also deserve a pat on the head, how many stickers do we bother with? A students don’t need our praise to get As. Highly ranked districts don’t need more money to get high rankings.
How about a hybrid approach: those who increase their rating from the prior year as well as those already rated excellent or excellent with distinction that continue that rating and have funding levels per pupil that are, say, at the state average or below. So then we’re rewarding districts that are, in theory, increasing student achievement and helping out some already good districts that are a bit cash poor.
I know that the wealthy districts took the biggest hits in the original budget bill. I also know they have the most to lose and they're more able to raise what the State takes away. Yes, I've looked at the numbers. Yes, I know there are wealthy districts that lost nearly all of their state funding. I also know that a 25% hit to the poorest district in the state would likely be more devastating to that poor district than a 75% hit would be to the state's wealthiest district.
My assumption is that those in the Statehouse heard a whole lot of complaining from some wealthy and influential constituents and this is the way they chose to return some of that money. The cuts did seem to be fairly arbitrary (to my knowledge, the Administration still hasn't released the formula used to arrive at these cuts, so all we can really do is look at the numbers and scratch our heads). But I don't think this is the way to do it. If they want to restore some of the money, then restore some of the money. But don't hide it in a poorly structured "performance bonus."
The state's highest-performing schools - those rated excellent or excellent with distinction - would get a $17-per-student performance bonus at the end of next school year. The provision would cost the state $30 million over two years.So rewarding “success”. Okay, I get that. But, let’s think about what this actually means: pretty much across the board, wealthy districts are the ones doing well. So if they continue to do well, we’ll give them more money. To the tune of $30 million. So we’re going to give rich districts more money for doing what they are already doing…. ooookay.
Urban and rural districts are often the districts that are not doing so well and that don’t have any money. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that money solves the world’s problems and I don’t think that money equals a good education. Look at Ross: not a rich district, but always highly rated. That, actually, is a district that could do even more with a bit more money, so this is good for them. But when you consider districts like Upper Arlington – rich and highly rated – giving them a cash boost for continuing their good scores is just gilding the lily.
If you want to tie the money to performance, wouldn’t it be better spent by giving it to districts that actually improve their rating? Isn’t that what we do with kids themselves? The kids who are struggling along, who have to really work to improve, don’t we give them more stickers and head pats and attention and rewards when they do get a C instead a D? When the A student gets an A… whereas these kids do also deserve a pat on the head, how many stickers do we bother with? A students don’t need our praise to get As. Highly ranked districts don’t need more money to get high rankings.
How about a hybrid approach: those who increase their rating from the prior year as well as those already rated excellent or excellent with distinction that continue that rating and have funding levels per pupil that are, say, at the state average or below. So then we’re rewarding districts that are, in theory, increasing student achievement and helping out some already good districts that are a bit cash poor.
I know that the wealthy districts took the biggest hits in the original budget bill. I also know they have the most to lose and they're more able to raise what the State takes away. Yes, I've looked at the numbers. Yes, I know there are wealthy districts that lost nearly all of their state funding. I also know that a 25% hit to the poorest district in the state would likely be more devastating to that poor district than a 75% hit would be to the state's wealthiest district.
My assumption is that those in the Statehouse heard a whole lot of complaining from some wealthy and influential constituents and this is the way they chose to return some of that money. The cuts did seem to be fairly arbitrary (to my knowledge, the Administration still hasn't released the formula used to arrive at these cuts, so all we can really do is look at the numbers and scratch our heads). But I don't think this is the way to do it. If they want to restore some of the money, then restore some of the money. But don't hide it in a poorly structured "performance bonus."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)