Monday, June 20, 2011

Facts and Opinions

The Journal Times yesterday "separated facts from the spin" on school vouchers. This fact checking exercise found that it is indeed true that school vouchers "would cause property taxes to increase by $10 million in the program's third year when enrollment caps cease." Unified officials would lose roughly $10 million in funding because of school vouchers, yet, despite losing 4200 students or roughly 20% of the student body, they would find $0 savings, thus requiring a $10 million tax increase.

This "fact" tells us little to nothing about vouchers and all you need to know about Racine Unified. How is it possible that RUSD could lose twenty percent of their students and be unable to save any money? Consolidate, close a few schools perhaps. Reduce staff maybe. No and no apparently.

Is Unified management incompetent? Well yes, if you believe their goal is to provide the best education for children in the most cost effective manner for taxpayers. But I have long since recognized that educating children is a secondary objective for Racine Unified. The primary objective is to maximize the number of Unified employees and their wage, benefit and retirement haul. Once you realize this fact, you will also realize that Unified is extraordinarily competent in achieving its objectives.

So yes, it is a fact that Unified could lose twenty percent of its students and still demand the same $'s from the taxpayers. And it is my opinion that we should not give billions of $'s to so corrupt an organization.


Anonymous said...

Unified must think we are stupid. How utterly revealing. Take a percentage of work product (students) out of the mix, and you can't find a way to cut costs from having less throughput? Laughing.

Sean Cranley said...

I hope Unified sues the State over this crap on constitutional grounds.

Anonymous said...

Real spending on per pupil education doubled in the past 40 years while tests scores are flat as a pancake despite being repeatedly dumbed down. Like Eisenhower said, beware of the education/industrial complex.

Sean Cranley said...

More Cult of Con BS. Do you folks are quit? No wonder you post anonymously!

From David Frum, Bush's speech writer and a very rare conservative pundit who actually tells the truth:

EXCERPT: "To tackle the matter of finances first. The statistics quoted above compare apples to oranges. The $4956 CNS attributes to 1998 does not cover the total per-pupil spending—only the spending for instruction (and not for support services). The amount spent per pupil on instruction in Wisconsin in 2008 was, according to the Department of Education, $6560, or about exactly what it would be if 1998’s numbers were adjusted for inflation. The total expenditures per pupil in 1998 were $9298. According to the inflation calculator, $9298 in 2008 comes out to $12,281. So total expenditures in Wisconsin for education seem to have gone up slower than the rate of inflation."

EXCERPT2: "But it should be noted that Wisconsin’s average eighth-grader NAEP reading score of 266 is above the national average. 34% of students at or above grade level in reading may sound bad, but the highest-scoring state scored only 43% at or above level. That state happens to be the union bastion of Connecticut, which spent over $14,500 per pupil. Massachusetts and New Jersey round out the top three, both having spent significantly per pupil more than Wisconsin.

What does a low-scoring state look like in terms of scores? States like Louisiana ($10,000 per pupil), Mississippi ($7890 per pupil), California ($9706 per pupil), and Nevada ($8180 per pupil) have NAEP proficiency ratings in the low 20s (Mississippi is in the teens). The lowest-scoring jurisdiction in the USA is Washington DC, with only 13% of 8th-graders at or above level. The District spends over $16,000 per pupil."

Proving once again that it's the poverty stupid.

Sean Cranley said...

Led astray by GOPropaganda! That's what you get when your story comes from something called CNS - The "Right" News, "Right" Now.


BTW those of us engaging in cognition can easily explain why the reduction in pupils won't save RUSD much if any money. But I'll let you puzzle on that yourselves and see if any of you can figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Sean, way ahead of you... we won't save any money from drop in enrollment because da union extended it's contract for another two years. That means we can't just ditch the bad teachers, and improve grades in the process. The young good teachers, if any, will get the ax. And the flood of retirees will suck every buck that they are "entitled" to.

That's little immediate relief for racine, but not the gov's fault. It's RUSD's fault for not embracing the tools that were out there. But we are at least starting to rebuild the dike that is hemoraging taxpayer bucks.

Sean Cranley said...

Union blah blah, bad teachers yadda yadda, good young teachers blather blather, entitled, yammer yammer, tools, gobblety, hemoraging taxpayer Gook. All Cult of Con boilerplate gandabyte nonsense Ano!

Just like your spending claim that was a flat out LIE from one of your GOPropaganda outlets, which when demonstrated by me you chose to ignore. Because the rest of the BS info you base your opinons and values on is of similar "quality". Junk & BS.

Way ahead? Ha! You're out of your element.

Cognate now and perhaps you'll be able to fathom the real reasons vouchers won't save RUSD any real money. Give it the old college try.

Nemo said...

Anon, you are exactly correct. You are so correct that you should be "bknighted", an ancient internet blog honor bestowed on those who have proved their logical skill and insightful bravery on the field of comments. So arise Sir Anon, and enjoy a shank of McMutton and horn of Dew! Denis, call for the court jester to come and entertain Sir Anon with his buffoonery. Oh, wait, I see the harlequin has already commented. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

What ho varlet, I hath caught thee crimson fisted. Thou art with question, out of thine element.

Dispite my proving Ano to be wrong, Nemo comes traipsing in blithely declaring Ano to be exactly correct without offering even a shed of supporting argument or evidence. Me not surprized, Cult of Con say it true, Tickle-Me Nemo know it true, Tickle-Me Nemo repeat it and make it even more true!

But seriously, I'm betting one or more of you know the real reason why vouchers won't save costs in RUSD or any other public school, but you dare not speak it. Why it would be heresy, blasphemy even and counter to strict Cult of Con orthodox dogma!

Either that or the Cult of Con discourages cognition that may lead to inconvenient truths with respect to the Gospel of Con.

Anonymous said...

Funny, coming from the masters of boilerplate BS. "It's for the children." Hogwash. It's for the union, always has been.

Notice how Kaukana is cutting costs, hiring more teachers, and reducing class sizes by utilizing the same tools RUSD passed on? That's because they get to ditch their horrendous teacher contracts. They might not even need vouchers because they are committed to education, instead of sucking up to teacher unions. Milwaukee and Racine will probably have to cut teachers. But then, they are pretty bloated, being they are losing students, and not to vouchers. Peeps are voting with their feet.

Anonymous said...

And thanks Nemo! Your complement is appreciated! Any good microbrew will work for me. Most of which are non-union brewed.

Sean Cranley said...

Dear Nemonymous,

A fundamentalist congratulating another fundamentalist for unreasoned adherance to fundamentaist dogma? WORTHLESS.

Me a "master of boilerplate"? Hardly. If you can find where I said "It's for the children", I'll send Denis $50 so he can pass it to your anonymass. What I write are my original thoughts, informed from reading and listening and observing. The terms I use; "Cult of Con", Judicial Hacktivist", "GOPropaganda", "Republicon", Etc are of my own derivation having studied the insideous purposes, practices and policies of radical right in America today.

As for the Kaukauna thing, it's just more GOPropaganda and spin. Their deficite was CAUSED by Walker's budget and then balanced on the backs of those filthy rich school teachers, janitors and aids with a few accounting triucks thrown in for good measure:

Republicon "values", disgusting

Nemo said...

Harlequin! Good job. I am sure that Sir Anon is mightily amused at your assorted foolishness. Citing an obscure blog that's known for it's "brilliant beverages"? Serf or bknight, all will find that funny! Heh.

Anonymous said...

Harlequin? Is Seany quoting cheap novels? That's funny!

Sean Cranley said...

Well you can make fun of the blog, but he sourced his information to DOCUMENT his claim, if you two can follow those sort of logical procedures. Excerpt from the Kaukauna Area School District's own Presentation of their general operating budget:

•2010-11 total operating revenue$45,281,470
•2011-12 revenue decrease $2,161,688–Revenue decrease for 2011-12 is based on the following:
•Tax levy set to the maximum allowable by state law
•18 additional students (FTE’s) added to the rolling average count –4,238 students counted for revenue limit purposes in 2011-12–4,220 students counted for revenue limit purposes in 2010-11–4,176 students counted for revenue limit purposes in 2009-10
•$527 decrease in per pupil allocation over 2011-12 figure–$9,594 per student for KASD in 2010-11–Dropped from $200 increase in 2010-11 to a $527 decrease for 2011-12
•2011-12 maximum operating revenue$43,119,782–4.77% decrease from maximum 2010-11 revenue

Who are the fools now? Wanker's give away to the rich budget caused the deficit then balanced it on the back of middle class workers. That effect will ripple through that community and others across the state and is projected to cost 9k to 21k private sector jobs:

Wanker is diggin himself a jobs hole. Silly boys!

Nemo said...

Court jester, please no more! To imply that jobs only come from government while I or Sir Anon are drinking a flagon of ale would cause beverage to spew forth from mouth and nose. You are an excellent court entertainer, your lord Denis should be pleased, but please, pull up your variegated tights, put away your wooden sword and take leave of us 'till we catch our breath and wipe away tears of laughter. Jobs flow from government, Ha!

Sean Cranley said...

Dear Nemo-the-Clown, I never suggested anything like "jobs come only from government". Those are your words and you're making shtuff up again, as usual. You should either learn to read, get a little honesty to apply to discourse, or both.

Nemo said...

Variegated tighted one, never suggested anything like "jobs come only from government"? Do you ever explore your own links?

From the IWF (first link in your "Biz Beat" link),"The severe cuts in the budget will destroy the equivalent of 18,000 jobs in the first year and 22,000 in its second year, through direct layoffs of public employees".

Not knowing what is in your own links, funny stuff! You're indeed a tribute to the comedy guild. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Nice Nemoistic selective editing to create a false impression in the mind of the reader, also known as LYING, GOP standard operating procedure (GOPSOP). From the first link in the Biz Beat article that I referenced, here is the ENTIRE SENTENCE:

"The severe cuts in the budget will destroy the equivalent of 18,000 jobs in the first year and 22,000 in its second year, through direct layoffs of public employees and the ripple effects of reduced government spending."

Notice the term "ripple effects" which you deceptively deleted. If you read the articles I linked it is clear that job losses of 9,000 to 21,000 PRIVATE SECTOR jobs are predicted to be lost as a result of the decreased spending power of public workers.

And how you got from there to the absurd claim that I implied that jobs come only from government is mindboggling in it's stupidity and mental contorsions. It's this lack of integrity and pattern of dishonorable tactics on your part that got you booted from Kay's Blue Racine.

Thank you for proving once again that the Cult of Con cannot win an honest argument. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest fool and easily exposed as such.

So long sucker.

Anonymous said...

Sean, your budget numbers don't mean squat as far as your claim of "balancing the budget on the backs of middle class workers." What, middle class workers who before now have never had to suck it up to the real world, and contribute to their own health care? Not to mention contribute to their pension, which the rest of us still don't get. Cry me a river!

Counties, municipalities, and school districts can finally begin to control their own destiny, without being held hostage to obstinate unions. That is a good thing for any of us in Wisconsin, and thank goodness Gov. WALKER is showing the rest of the country the way out of their own budget problems. Because even Democrate states realize their stupid benefits are not sustainable.

As for your thoughts being original, yeah, I'm sure "Wanker" comes out of your own fertile mind. I'm impressed with you too, but for a whole 'nother reason.

Nemo said...

jester, do you comprehend the "entire sentence"? Put in it's simplest terms, in deference to you simple one, the line is implying that private jobs are dependent on public employment. I actually did have a short internal debate with myself (about 78 nano-seconds) to include the rest of the sentence, but felt it was redundant. I forgot that I was addressing a Liberal and did not remember to respect the Liberal's need for redundancy (chanting, applying the same failed solutions over and over, ...), sorry. I'll pile on more thoroughly next time. Unless omitting a redundancy can be funny. Or entertaining. Did I ever tell you how entertaining it is to yank a Liberals chain and cause them to perform the "dance of hysteria". Good stuff (occurred to me during nano-second 77 (dance for me puppet boy!)). Heh.

I was banished from kay's three times. If you review the logs, the first time it was for questioning Liberals commitment to free speech. The irony makes me laugh to this day (thanks kay!). The second time was for quoting Thomas Mann. I'm not sure what the reason was the third time. I think it may have been a hearts and minds thingy.

Anon, right on! The only disagreement we may have is on sean's originality. Denis's court fool is known not just for his "special" reasoning ability but also for his "special" spelling skills. "Wanker" could just be a creative spelling adventure.