This is another thought that cropped up for me when I read that article about Walker feeling the unions what him dead. Here, in Wisconsin, this isn't a revolution. No, it isn't.
This is a movement done within the confines of existing law, and using methods legally allowed to achieve the end game. It feels good to fight back, and surely we need to, but this has not, and is not, the toppling of a regime in the overthrow a dictator sense. We're not breaking any laws to force his removal from power.
If this were an honest to God revolution, like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Bahrain and other points where the Arab Spring kicked off protests, then, yeah, I could see Walker - were he an actual tyrant - being legitimately worried about his well being.
However, the protests were a bunch of angry people with signs who walked around the capitol for a few laps, bought a pasty, and went home to the internet (or maybe slept inside the building). Honestly, this was not a dangerous situation and it remains a safe situation (unkind flare ups like people getting spit on happen or a beer dumped on them but those are far cries from being fucking shot).
Also, Walker isn't a tyrant. He was elected by a slim margin (in fact, only 25% of the state voted for the guy...50% turnout and he got 52% of the vote, so, viola, about 25% said they liked him, meaning 75% did not vote for this guy, however, this is the election system we have), but he was elected. And if he loses the recall election, I imagine he will step down peacefully.
This situation is pretty extreme by modern American standards, verily, but we're not to the overthrow-the-government stage of things. We're not in the chucking firebombs and out running bullets stage. This is people democratically exercising their rights.
We're all pretty much playing by the rules save for a few asshole outliers who are doing stupid things, not dangerous murder-inspiring things. Claiming to be worried about his life right now is flat out ridiculous.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Shocking! Victim! Shocking!
So, Scott Walker thinks unions want him dead. He doesn't mean politically dead, but buried next to Jimmy Hoffa dead. (I make that reference because modern anti-union sentiment is chained directly to his exploits...never mind he's been dead for 36 years, but I digress.) I was shocked. Shocked, I say, at such a statement. Dead? Really? How can someone say such a thing? Dead? That's what it takes to play the victim these days? Face it, right wingers love to play the victim, hence all the bullshit "liberal media" nonsense*, the war on Christmas nonsense, and all the other ways they create imaginary attacks to vociferously defend themselves against it and decry their own poor pitiful state...
Oh, God, why do I fall for these things. Every time. Ring a bell; salivate.
I feel foolish getting worked up over the death threat stuff for any number of reasons. First, he's definitely alluding to the death threats he and other Republicans received during the height of the protests here in Madison. It caused a lot of fervor for the red team to rally around him (nothing like feeling like you have to protect something to bring out the wallets & claws after all). But, see, the Democrats received them, too. Teachers received them. Shit, a local DJ who was vocal at the protests received one. Death threats, sadly, are common for public figures. I have no proof, but I'm willing to bet that damn near every elected official has received a death threat, or some other veiled threat against their person that could be interpreted as a death threat. I bet a great number of public figures receive threats. Shit, I bet Julia Roberts had a death threat from somebody. And she's America's Sweetheart for Pete's sake.
Anyway, these things are frightening and they're common. Like spiders. They're a reliable source of scare tactic material (like spiders). They are rightfully troubling, but my god, move on. It's a spider. You've seen that before. Be a man and squish it.
Secondly, I shouldn't be upset that this makes him appear cowardly, paranoid and weird. What's he worried about, exactly? A naked and greasy Richard Trumka leaping out from his closet and squish him with a mallet? But Walker does look like a coward here. That's what I want, right? Some sniveling thing that doesn't stand a chance to be elected? Well, yeah, I like that un-elected part, but it really bugs me that this ploy works. Just the idea that him saying this fired up enough people to send him a 10 dollar check to help protect him or some shit truly pisses me off. It's sad to me that there exists buffoons like that and it makes me sad that there are people who work directly for him that know to suggest such a tactic.
Thirdly, how much more divisive can you get. This sets up this recall election as not a question of democracy, or rights or anything, but as honest-to-god life and death. Recalling Walker comes out of a desire to kill, apparently, so recalling him is the equivalent of murder? What? Why would you ever do that? As if it's not bad enough around here with the division between sides, with damn near everybody radicalized to the left and right you frame this situation as life and death, making people want to fight harder to defend their dear leader**. And not fight as in going out making phone calls or knocking on doors, but maybe more underhanded things, more vicious things. That's not what we need. That's not moving the state forward.
Lastly, it continues this line of rhetoric from the right that aggravates me. Ultimately, I want to understand their point of view. It's not mine, but I'm not so cocky as to think that I'm absolutely right, so I want to understand their thinking. But every time I encounter a right wing defense of Walker, it never fails to come off as demeaning or belittling to my side of the argument. Liberals this, or Democrats that. For fuck's sake, man, just present your points without being a dick, or shouting, or being a shouting dick, then I'd at least listen, but I can't sit through the hate because it makes me feel foolish for listening. Like, for example, the latest fashion in Walker defense is to call collective bargaining isn't a right, but it's an "expensive entitlement."^ What exactly does he mean? I have no idea. But "entitlement" is a buzzword people don't like, and nobody likes "expensive" unless someone is giving you something expensive for no additional cost. So, to further explain this line of thought, he worries about unions killing him, or goes off about "union bosses from DC". Right. The line of logic appears to be, "I don't like this. You shouldn't like it. They're pricks and they like it. Therefore, I'm right." No explanation, no definition. My relative prickness has nothing at all with your rightness. Just convince you're right on your own merit, how about that? Is there an argument there that can be presented without bashing what I believe in, or is it integral to your point? I must be diminished so not that you're right, but that you appear less wrong than me. It's gotten to the point where I have a very hard time listening anymore because of it, and that depresses the hell out of me, too. I want to know what they think and understand, but I wind up blanketing myself in my version of the news and the events because, man, at least I'm not being assaulted or made to feel foolish when reading them, though it solidifies my radicalization. And that's a damn shame.^^
And all of that is what he wants, so here I am, salivating over the death threat in precisely the way my side should be as prescribed, and his side is all worked up, carving Bible verses into their concealed weapons, everybody more ready for battle than understanding.
Recall Walker, Recall Kleefisch, Viva Wisco.
Footnotes:
*Liberal media?, quick, right now, go to your television and find me a "liberal" viewpoint...quick!...bonus points if you can do this on a Sunday morning and no points if you have Current TV. I'll wait. No, Comedy Central does not count. And MSNBC only kind of counts, and especially isn't when Scarborough is on (and they are GE after all, so they're liberal in that we'll never talk too much about the evils of fracking kind of way) Anyway, got one yet? Now, hurry, find the right wing opinion. Much easier wasn't it. To whine about this bias, still, is just so damn silly. I mean, today on the actual and admittedly liberal radio station here in Madison - the tenth circle of liberalism mind you - there was a pro-Scott Walker radio ad. Tell me again about this overt liberal media?
**I mean this honestly. There is an autocratic/dictatorial streak in these "small government" people that worries me.
^You know what else is an expensive entitlement? Voting. It's something we all expect to have and it costs a lot to do. So maybe we should get right of that, too? In fact, aren't all rights expensive entitlements? Right to free speech, assembly, bear arms, all of them result in great expenses and we are entitled to them. I get the feeling that whenever this "collective bargaining" isn't a right thing comes along it's only said by people who don't understand where rights come from.
^^I am fully aware of my name calling and how it plays directly into my complaint about the rhetoric, but considering I'm selling no initiatives, advancing no causes, or really trying to convince anyone of anything with this post, I feel okay about doing it.
Oh, God, why do I fall for these things. Every time. Ring a bell; salivate.
I feel foolish getting worked up over the death threat stuff for any number of reasons. First, he's definitely alluding to the death threats he and other Republicans received during the height of the protests here in Madison. It caused a lot of fervor for the red team to rally around him (nothing like feeling like you have to protect something to bring out the wallets & claws after all). But, see, the Democrats received them, too. Teachers received them. Shit, a local DJ who was vocal at the protests received one. Death threats, sadly, are common for public figures. I have no proof, but I'm willing to bet that damn near every elected official has received a death threat, or some other veiled threat against their person that could be interpreted as a death threat. I bet a great number of public figures receive threats. Shit, I bet Julia Roberts had a death threat from somebody. And she's America's Sweetheart for Pete's sake.
Anyway, these things are frightening and they're common. Like spiders. They're a reliable source of scare tactic material (like spiders). They are rightfully troubling, but my god, move on. It's a spider. You've seen that before. Be a man and squish it.
Secondly, I shouldn't be upset that this makes him appear cowardly, paranoid and weird. What's he worried about, exactly? A naked and greasy Richard Trumka leaping out from his closet and squish him with a mallet? But Walker does look like a coward here. That's what I want, right? Some sniveling thing that doesn't stand a chance to be elected? Well, yeah, I like that un-elected part, but it really bugs me that this ploy works. Just the idea that him saying this fired up enough people to send him a 10 dollar check to help protect him or some shit truly pisses me off. It's sad to me that there exists buffoons like that and it makes me sad that there are people who work directly for him that know to suggest such a tactic.
Thirdly, how much more divisive can you get. This sets up this recall election as not a question of democracy, or rights or anything, but as honest-to-god life and death. Recalling Walker comes out of a desire to kill, apparently, so recalling him is the equivalent of murder? What? Why would you ever do that? As if it's not bad enough around here with the division between sides, with damn near everybody radicalized to the left and right you frame this situation as life and death, making people want to fight harder to defend their dear leader**. And not fight as in going out making phone calls or knocking on doors, but maybe more underhanded things, more vicious things. That's not what we need. That's not moving the state forward.
Lastly, it continues this line of rhetoric from the right that aggravates me. Ultimately, I want to understand their point of view. It's not mine, but I'm not so cocky as to think that I'm absolutely right, so I want to understand their thinking. But every time I encounter a right wing defense of Walker, it never fails to come off as demeaning or belittling to my side of the argument. Liberals this, or Democrats that. For fuck's sake, man, just present your points without being a dick, or shouting, or being a shouting dick, then I'd at least listen, but I can't sit through the hate because it makes me feel foolish for listening. Like, for example, the latest fashion in Walker defense is to call collective bargaining isn't a right, but it's an "expensive entitlement."^ What exactly does he mean? I have no idea. But "entitlement" is a buzzword people don't like, and nobody likes "expensive" unless someone is giving you something expensive for no additional cost. So, to further explain this line of thought, he worries about unions killing him, or goes off about "union bosses from DC". Right. The line of logic appears to be, "I don't like this. You shouldn't like it. They're pricks and they like it. Therefore, I'm right." No explanation, no definition. My relative prickness has nothing at all with your rightness. Just convince you're right on your own merit, how about that? Is there an argument there that can be presented without bashing what I believe in, or is it integral to your point? I must be diminished so not that you're right, but that you appear less wrong than me. It's gotten to the point where I have a very hard time listening anymore because of it, and that depresses the hell out of me, too. I want to know what they think and understand, but I wind up blanketing myself in my version of the news and the events because, man, at least I'm not being assaulted or made to feel foolish when reading them, though it solidifies my radicalization. And that's a damn shame.^^
And all of that is what he wants, so here I am, salivating over the death threat in precisely the way my side should be as prescribed, and his side is all worked up, carving Bible verses into their concealed weapons, everybody more ready for battle than understanding.
Recall Walker, Recall Kleefisch, Viva Wisco.
Footnotes:
*Liberal media?, quick, right now, go to your television and find me a "liberal" viewpoint...quick!...bonus points if you can do this on a Sunday morning and no points if you have Current TV. I'll wait. No, Comedy Central does not count. And MSNBC only kind of counts, and especially isn't when Scarborough is on (and they are GE after all, so they're liberal in that we'll never talk too much about the evils of fracking kind of way) Anyway, got one yet? Now, hurry, find the right wing opinion. Much easier wasn't it. To whine about this bias, still, is just so damn silly. I mean, today on the actual and admittedly liberal radio station here in Madison - the tenth circle of liberalism mind you - there was a pro-Scott Walker radio ad. Tell me again about this overt liberal media?
**I mean this honestly. There is an autocratic/dictatorial streak in these "small government" people that worries me.
^You know what else is an expensive entitlement? Voting. It's something we all expect to have and it costs a lot to do. So maybe we should get right of that, too? In fact, aren't all rights expensive entitlements? Right to free speech, assembly, bear arms, all of them result in great expenses and we are entitled to them. I get the feeling that whenever this "collective bargaining" isn't a right thing comes along it's only said by people who don't understand where rights come from.
^^I am fully aware of my name calling and how it plays directly into my complaint about the rhetoric, but considering I'm selling no initiatives, advancing no causes, or really trying to convince anyone of anything with this post, I feel okay about doing it.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
236.6
236.6. Four numbers that are just killing me right now. Four numbers that have completely wiped out any confidence or joy I can find in myself. Four measly yet evil goddamn numbers. And really, it's just the last three. It's the 36.6 that's the real motherfucker.
36.6 is 23 pounds more than my lightest and proudest. It was around 213 pounds, which is still 13 pounds heavier than I wanted to be, when I relaxed. That was a huge mistake that's led me to this demoralizing 236.6 pounds.
This article from the NY Times Sunday magazine illustrates it perfectly that this thing, this weight loss thing, is never over. Weight loss, once it is engaged, becomes a never-ending fight because once you get fat your body becomes hard wired to keep it fat.
So right now, my body is trying to undermine years of work, so I must engage in battle and be ever-vigilant...and then continue to be ever-vigilant until I die. And that depresses me to no end. Makes you weary, would be a more descriptive feeling. Just knowing that forever that I can't relax with food due to my own warped relationship to it and my chemistry is kind of a bummer.
Yeah, it's kind of weird to feel depressed about the idea of realizing that I can't enjoy food in the manner in which I find enjoyable. It's a decidedly American problem, for sure. Food should be fuel, I get that, but, man, it's nice to just enjoy something and this is something I cannot enjoy since enjoyment of it leads me to this despair I'm at now. And I feel like an idiot for feeling bummed about that. But I also realize that food is fucking everywhere, and a big part of this household. For Christmas, I got my wife a pasta machine and a dough whisk for crying out loud. Food abounds.
Anyway, I know I shouldn't make promises, especially on this day of breaking promises, so I just need to say I hope I can get back on the weight loss wagon and lose these 23 pounds, and the final 13.6 to get to where I need to be and then never give up so that maybe I can feel good about myself and stay that way and not let four measly stupid numbers just decimate my self esteem to the point where I can't sleep.
Oh, while I'm diarying-out-loud, this weight loss thing is just one part of a concerted effort where I'm trying to do everything I feel I should be doing. Reading, writing and political involvement plus the weight loss, plus keeping up a healthy domestic/social life. I am not making 2012 easy on me, but if the weight loss taught me anything, easy is not what I need to be seeking.
viva wisco
36.6 is 23 pounds more than my lightest and proudest. It was around 213 pounds, which is still 13 pounds heavier than I wanted to be, when I relaxed. That was a huge mistake that's led me to this demoralizing 236.6 pounds.
This article from the NY Times Sunday magazine illustrates it perfectly that this thing, this weight loss thing, is never over. Weight loss, once it is engaged, becomes a never-ending fight because once you get fat your body becomes hard wired to keep it fat.
So right now, my body is trying to undermine years of work, so I must engage in battle and be ever-vigilant...and then continue to be ever-vigilant until I die. And that depresses me to no end. Makes you weary, would be a more descriptive feeling. Just knowing that forever that I can't relax with food due to my own warped relationship to it and my chemistry is kind of a bummer.
Yeah, it's kind of weird to feel depressed about the idea of realizing that I can't enjoy food in the manner in which I find enjoyable. It's a decidedly American problem, for sure. Food should be fuel, I get that, but, man, it's nice to just enjoy something and this is something I cannot enjoy since enjoyment of it leads me to this despair I'm at now. And I feel like an idiot for feeling bummed about that. But I also realize that food is fucking everywhere, and a big part of this household. For Christmas, I got my wife a pasta machine and a dough whisk for crying out loud. Food abounds.
Anyway, I know I shouldn't make promises, especially on this day of breaking promises, so I just need to say I hope I can get back on the weight loss wagon and lose these 23 pounds, and the final 13.6 to get to where I need to be and then never give up so that maybe I can feel good about myself and stay that way and not let four measly stupid numbers just decimate my self esteem to the point where I can't sleep.
Oh, while I'm diarying-out-loud, this weight loss thing is just one part of a concerted effort where I'm trying to do everything I feel I should be doing. Reading, writing and political involvement plus the weight loss, plus keeping up a healthy domestic/social life. I am not making 2012 easy on me, but if the weight loss taught me anything, easy is not what I need to be seeking.
viva wisco
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Here's What's Bad About School Choice
In his wrong-headed and wrongly defended piece promoting school choice, economic consultant Larry Kaufman asks what’s wrong with school choice. Well, Larry, here’s your answer. School choice shows a fundamental lack of understanding to the purpose of public education by ignoring the effects of the privatized-style system of school choice. And, being a former educator, I believe I have a slight touch more insight into the perils of school choice than, say, a professional economist who never taught fifth grade as far as I can tell.
First, we have to acknowledge school choice is by definition a private school model, which Larry doesn't do. He says that school choice isn't privatization. Now, parents are given a check by the state and then schools, all schools - private, public, religious, online, doens't matter - presumably compete for those dollars. Competing for dollars is a private, business style model. It's pretty simple.
Now, how exactly they will they compete is never outlined by school choice advocates. The simple belief is that they compete by being better than their competitors by touting achievement, test scores, and success rates. If that were the case and we actually responded to our sensible angels like that, we'd all drive Volvos for their safety and everyone would eat vegetables instead of soda and wads of fried meat.
So how schools compete will be with famous graduates or maybe tailoring education tracts to specific audiences to lure them in, such a strong football school or focusing on teaching a particular political bent to history and science. Promising more "family time," things like that. The goal of the education shifts then from simply educating the students the best you can to manipulating a slice of the public into believing your school is the best school for their children in order to financially survive and crush the competition, while providing an education suited to the brand sold. To suggest this is anything other than a privatized model is ridiculous. To suggest that the concept of education does not suffer when we stop trying to create the education we need and focus instead on creating the education we want to buy is foolish. We'll wind up with the fried meat wad version of education that makes us feel good and that we agree with and that's all. (Assuming math doesn't get real sexy in the future.) It'll provide the critical thinking opportunities available in your average comments section of a news story because schools will be afraid to challenge anyone from their customer pools. Yes, some schools will be brave, and they may be rewarded, but how many parents would really be willing to send their kids to schools that will challenge their beliefs...and how many administrators would be willing to take a chance on that bravery, or will they give up and chase the dollars?
Now, how exactly they will they compete is never outlined by school choice advocates. The simple belief is that they compete by being better than their competitors by touting achievement, test scores, and success rates. If that were the case and we actually responded to our sensible angels like that, we'd all drive Volvos for their safety and everyone would eat vegetables instead of soda and wads of fried meat.
So how schools compete will be with famous graduates or maybe tailoring education tracts to specific audiences to lure them in, such a strong football school or focusing on teaching a particular political bent to history and science. Promising more "family time," things like that. The goal of the education shifts then from simply educating the students the best you can to manipulating a slice of the public into believing your school is the best school for their children in order to financially survive and crush the competition, while providing an education suited to the brand sold. To suggest this is anything other than a privatized model is ridiculous. To suggest that the concept of education does not suffer when we stop trying to create the education we need and focus instead on creating the education we want to buy is foolish. We'll wind up with the fried meat wad version of education that makes us feel good and that we agree with and that's all. (Assuming math doesn't get real sexy in the future.) It'll provide the critical thinking opportunities available in your average comments section of a news story because schools will be afraid to challenge anyone from their customer pools. Yes, some schools will be brave, and they may be rewarded, but how many parents would really be willing to send their kids to schools that will challenge their beliefs...and how many administrators would be willing to take a chance on that bravery, or will they give up and chase the dollars?
Here is where school choice unravels as a statewide model for public schools further, while ignoring the drastic shift in focus away from actual education to a commodized education detailed above for the time being. Let’s start small and seemingly inconsequential with a worry of a statewide school-choice model. Schools would be forced to advertise in a variety of media to get the customers/students in the doors.
Honestly, how else will a public know which are the “good” schools and which are the” bad” schools? And what choice will a school have but to advertise especially if another school can afford to advertise? And would attack ads be allowed, like some kind of daisy-and-the-mushroom-cloud-
Honestly, how else will a public know which are the “good” schools and which are the” bad” schools? And what choice will a school have but to advertise especially if another school can afford to advertise? And would attack ads be allowed, like some kind of daisy-and-the-mushroom-cloud-
The checks will undoubtedly cover “tuition” for the student and end there. The amount of this tuition check will surely be a political tool, going up and down at the whims and vagaries of whichever party is in charge, but it won’t cover the actual cost of the education that can be guaranteed due to our irrational phobia of taxes, but apparent acquiescence to fees. While I'm thinking of this, you also know that eventually the voucher would be a government entitlement sought to be cut entirely by Republicans. There is no explicit guarantee of an education in the Bill of Rights, so clearly The Founders wouldn't have wanted us to educate anyone. You can hear that just as clearly as me, right? Sean Hannity. He'll say it. He may have already said it for all I know.
Public schools already charge ancillary fees to cover expenses for things like books, but if they are competing for state dollars, the cost of that competition will surely be passed on to the parents through a variety of fees to pay for that advertising or any number of cleverly worded levies to pay for programs meant to lure students into the schools. I bet they’ll be called “enrichment fees.” Regardless of how the amount is packaged, the cost of a marketed “good” education will surely be higher than what is paid now by parents just so the schools can try to compete. And I bet right now at the best private schools the price for tuition per pupil is higher than public school students. I may be wrong on this, I have no numbers to back me up, but even if you gave the vouchers to everyone, to cover the costs of one of these dream schools we picture in our minds when we think "private school" (like something with ivy on brick walls and smart future-y furniture inside) would far exceed the voucher amount, so what struggling economic family could afford the overage for tuition beyond the voucher. Those who can't afford that extra bit of money go where, exactly? Cheap schools? You really want to make the creation of "cheap schools" a goal because undoubtedly "cheap schools" would need to be created since not everyone could afford the extra tuition for the good schools.
Public schools already charge ancillary fees to cover expenses for things like books, but if they are competing for state dollars, the cost of that competition will surely be passed on to the parents through a variety of fees to pay for that advertising or any number of cleverly worded levies to pay for programs meant to lure students into the schools. I bet they’ll be called “enrichment fees.” Regardless of how the amount is packaged, the cost of a marketed “good” education will surely be higher than what is paid now by parents just so the schools can try to compete. And I bet right now at the best private schools the price for tuition per pupil is higher than public school students. I may be wrong on this, I have no numbers to back me up, but even if you gave the vouchers to everyone, to cover the costs of one of these dream schools we picture in our minds when we think "private school" (like something with ivy on brick walls and smart future-y furniture inside) would far exceed the voucher amount, so what struggling economic family could afford the overage for tuition beyond the voucher. Those who can't afford that extra bit of money go where, exactly? Cheap schools? You really want to make the creation of "cheap schools" a goal because undoubtedly "cheap schools" would need to be created since not everyone could afford the extra tuition for the good schools.
Cost of education does not get at the heart of the issue yet either, but we’re circling down to it, and we can see how a school choice movement ripples out to effect more than just being allowed to be a good school for your child. Let’s think of the students. Presumably, school choice would let parents send their kids to whichever school they want and equally presumably they would choose the best school. It does stand to reason that a good majority would choose the best school to send their kids. However, that “best school” simply will not take all of those who applied. It can’t. It’s bad business.
Their reputation and revenue stream is at stake with every child admitted. Enrollments at the best schools would be capped artificially. The best schools will have admittance tests surely to control their brand and image. So, ultimately, “school choice” will shift the power to these select schools to choose which students get the premium education sought by everyone. I get that this is a bit of doomsday prediction and I don’t think that it would happen overnight, but down the road, as competition stiffens and schools struggle to stay afloat, why would they take a risk on the kid with poor reading skills, or a diagnosed learning disability, or parents who may not have the money to pay the enrichment fees or maybe the one kid who could change their student/pupil ratio.
Also this cost to bring school to market greatly benefits private schools with endowments and private education firms already in the business. Your local school will fail simply because they won't have the financial stability to stay afloat, or the pot of money to design, advertise and implement the programs needed to attract people. It will be bought by Kaplan or a private university type venture, they'll slap the logo over the front of the school - erasing a small bit of local history that comes with public school names , unless they go with the "brought to you by" route of naming rights, like "Samuel Gompers Elementary: A Division of EduDyne" or some crud like that. Assuming that the school won't be dissolved in favor of online education, which would be substantially cheaper to run, though far, far less useful. (Hard to teach things like sharing online & teamwork online to grade schoolers since they won't have that concrete experience of it.)
Their reputation and revenue stream is at stake with every child admitted. Enrollments at the best schools would be capped artificially. The best schools will have admittance tests surely to control their brand and image. So, ultimately, “school choice” will shift the power to these select schools to choose which students get the premium education sought by everyone. I get that this is a bit of doomsday prediction and I don’t think that it would happen overnight, but down the road, as competition stiffens and schools struggle to stay afloat, why would they take a risk on the kid with poor reading skills, or a diagnosed learning disability, or parents who may not have the money to pay the enrichment fees or maybe the one kid who could change their student/pupil ratio.
Also this cost to bring school to market greatly benefits private schools with endowments and private education firms already in the business. Your local school will fail simply because they won't have the financial stability to stay afloat, or the pot of money to design, advertise and implement the programs needed to attract people. It will be bought by Kaplan or a private university type venture, they'll slap the logo over the front of the school - erasing a small bit of local history that comes with public school names , unless they go with the "brought to you by" route of naming rights, like "Samuel Gompers Elementary: A Division of EduDyne" or some crud like that. Assuming that the school won't be dissolved in favor of online education, which would be substantially cheaper to run, though far, far less useful. (Hard to teach things like sharing online & teamwork online to grade schoolers since they won't have that concrete experience of it.)
The end game of school choice limits the access to the quality public education even more than the current system by its cost via additional fees and enrollment caps used to help keep the schools economically viable.
In that lies the true devil of school choice. Public education is about providing every child that walks into that door. It doesn't matter about race, religion, parental political affiliation, or anything. Every child deserves the best education. And the best education isn't necessarily the education that they - or their parents - want. For example, very, very few people want geometry. The critical thinking, problem solving and math skills that result from geometry, they want, but how many people realize that? How many more people will go, "Pthh! I don't use geometry and I'm just fine! I want my son to be an engineer or a doctor, not a geometer!" How many literature, history, social studies programs would be excised in favor hunting classes since that's what will bring students and therefore dollars? How many passions will remain unstirred because some school was picked by a parent to not challenge or expose the student to a variety of views?
By the way, school choice does not ensure the things that plague schools will go away. School choice does not address how to fix low test scores. School choice does not address how to fix achievement inequality. School choice does not address violence/drugs/gangs in schools. It does nothing but swirls the money around into different hands. How does that help? It will, if anything, perpetuate all the bad parts of the current education system where some schools seem destined to succeed due to community & monetary support not available in other areas and those in bad areas economically and socially will continue to fail. The poors will get the Wal-Mart schools, the riches get the William Sonoma schools. Same as it ever was.
Schools are a product of the community around them. No more, no less. Fixing schools means fixing communities. You cannot fix schools in a vacuum, or dealing only with them. It's treating a symptom not the cause. And school choice isn't even an appropriate medicine to take to even sort of fix education if you're going to treat it without going after trying to establish larger societal issues like community stability.
By the way, school choice does not ensure the things that plague schools will go away. School choice does not address how to fix low test scores. School choice does not address how to fix achievement inequality. School choice does not address violence/drugs/gangs in schools. It does nothing but swirls the money around into different hands. How does that help? It will, if anything, perpetuate all the bad parts of the current education system where some schools seem destined to succeed due to community & monetary support not available in other areas and those in bad areas economically and socially will continue to fail. The poors will get the Wal-Mart schools, the riches get the William Sonoma schools. Same as it ever was.
Schools are a product of the community around them. No more, no less. Fixing schools means fixing communities. You cannot fix schools in a vacuum, or dealing only with them. It's treating a symptom not the cause. And school choice isn't even an appropriate medicine to take to even sort of fix education if you're going to treat it without going after trying to establish larger societal issues like community stability.
If you want to fix schools, the solution is to is to mimic what some charter schools have done that actually addresses education. Lengthen the school year. Lengthen the school day. Keep the kids in there longer, that's the goal. Higher standards, more pressure and all that doesn't make sense. If you want better education, you have to teach them more. It's impossibly simple and it actually addresses education itself. There's the benefits of the students not losing stuff to long pointless summer breaks. Also the school days aren't blown up by the leakages and sucks on time that happens every single day so there's more time for subjects. It gives teachers a chance to be a bit more innovative and cover more ground. It would also probably allow for less homework for the kids because they could maybe get more out of the classroom time (if used wisely).
Lookit, I know all the pitfalls of the longer day & year arguments in terms of cost. If you want good schools, you have to pay for it one way or the other. We can't hop up and down demanding the best for the price we want to spend. If that was the case, I would have a somehow American-made BMW that cost me a nickel, but that doesn't make sense. The best costs. It always does, it always will. Lengthen the school year & day and pay for it with higher taxes. Either we want the best or we don't. If we don't, we got to be honest about the reason.
There's also the issue the bad teacher issue. We treat this problem entirely wrong. Pay teachers more and there would be fewer bad teachers. We get pissy because a small section of the teachers are bad and we react by cutting all of their salaries or just making it hard on all teachers because we don't like that one cruddy biology teacher we had in 7th grade, so by god, all teachers everywhere must suffer. Because of that behavior, the talented don't go in to teacher. And you wind up with the talent pool we have, which is still full with a great many effective, kind, patient and compassionate teachers, but more would be drawn to it for higher pay. Again, yes, it will cost you in taxes, but good. You want the best? Right? Gotta pay for it. A nickel won't buy you a Beamer, no matter how much you whine.
We got to talk about school accountability as well, and with that the answer is value-added testing. If there must be a test, then that's the only test that makes sense for teachers. Teachers help raise and shape students and provided much more lasting impacts on a student's life than just whether or not they did well on a single test. This is like testing a parent for effective parenting and basing that parenting skill off one test toward the end of some select years of their life. But you're going to test them about math to decide if they're a good parent.
Now, I understand the need for accountability because we have a hard time trusting the better angels of our nature when it comes to success in our jobs. However we seem to be perfectly cool with trusting people with loaded weapons wherever the hell they want to go...but we won't trust a teacher to the their job....isn't that interesting. But, it just makes too much sense to gauge a teacher's value on the growth made over a year rather that one moment in time. This kind of test would probably need to be yearly, and to properly asses things like the growth and impact of teachers so each district is able to fully understand the data, it will cost more. But again, nickels and Beamers.
I took all this time to say that school choice is a bogus and a false choice. It does nothing. It fixes nothing. It addresses no problems of education. What's the flipping use?
Lookit, I know all the pitfalls of the longer day & year arguments in terms of cost. If you want good schools, you have to pay for it one way or the other. We can't hop up and down demanding the best for the price we want to spend. If that was the case, I would have a somehow American-made BMW that cost me a nickel, but that doesn't make sense. The best costs. It always does, it always will. Lengthen the school year & day and pay for it with higher taxes. Either we want the best or we don't. If we don't, we got to be honest about the reason.
There's also the issue the bad teacher issue. We treat this problem entirely wrong. Pay teachers more and there would be fewer bad teachers. We get pissy because a small section of the teachers are bad and we react by cutting all of their salaries or just making it hard on all teachers because we don't like that one cruddy biology teacher we had in 7th grade, so by god, all teachers everywhere must suffer. Because of that behavior, the talented don't go in to teacher. And you wind up with the talent pool we have, which is still full with a great many effective, kind, patient and compassionate teachers, but more would be drawn to it for higher pay. Again, yes, it will cost you in taxes, but good. You want the best? Right? Gotta pay for it. A nickel won't buy you a Beamer, no matter how much you whine.
We got to talk about school accountability as well, and with that the answer is value-added testing. If there must be a test, then that's the only test that makes sense for teachers. Teachers help raise and shape students and provided much more lasting impacts on a student's life than just whether or not they did well on a single test. This is like testing a parent for effective parenting and basing that parenting skill off one test toward the end of some select years of their life. But you're going to test them about math to decide if they're a good parent.
Now, I understand the need for accountability because we have a hard time trusting the better angels of our nature when it comes to success in our jobs. However we seem to be perfectly cool with trusting people with loaded weapons wherever the hell they want to go...but we won't trust a teacher to the their job....isn't that interesting. But, it just makes too much sense to gauge a teacher's value on the growth made over a year rather that one moment in time. This kind of test would probably need to be yearly, and to properly asses things like the growth and impact of teachers so each district is able to fully understand the data, it will cost more. But again, nickels and Beamers.
I took all this time to say that school choice is a bogus and a false choice. It does nothing. It fixes nothing. It addresses no problems of education. What's the flipping use?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Retaking
This was taken the night of March 9 after the union busting was sliced from the Budget Repair Bill in a cover-of-night procedural maneuver.
Of all the nights I wish I had stayed in the capitol, this was the one where I felt most compelled and still feel guilty for leaving that night.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Reasons, Excuses, Rationalizing, Disappointment in Mankind and the Continuing Spirit
(photo by me of The Ed Show stage prior to the recall election results on August 9)
I'm sure you're aware that Democrats failed to pick up the required seats to flip control of the Wisconsin State Senate. They won only two of the six races yesterday, meaning Republicans hold the Senate with a 17 to 16 margin. Oh, sigh.
It's a slender majority, but when political parties don't listen to one another, where issues are legislated with a brand-loyalty hivemind instead of attempting to find a consensus, any majority will suffice.
I keep waffling between utter despondence and a kind of spunky silver-lining I-will-continue-to-fight mood now. It's something I'm going to struggle with all day today, and for a good long while probably.
The silver-lining to me is that these six districts were Republican held and on Republican turf (except for LaCrosse). All of these senators withstood the Democrat wave in 2008, so their districts were, for the most part, solidly Republican. In fact, Walker won these six districts in 2010 by an average of 13 points. So the waters we were fishing in for progressive change were shallow already. Many of these Repubs didn't even face challengers in their last election, so the chance of pulling this off was always slight. It never felt like they were slight here; no one ever uttered those words that maybe, just maybe, going after these six seats would be excruciatingly difficult and a little bit like tilting at windmills. No one ever admitted that and saying so now sure looks like rationalizing away a bad outcome, but what else can you do? The facts are the facts and Republican districts vote Republican which is why they are Republican districts after all. (Thank you, gerrymandering.) And why would you ever say, right from the start on this recall fervor, that, hey, this more than likely will just be a lost cause in these districts? Hard to motivate people if you're looking concrete hard odds right in the face, hard to make people feel the nearly impossible is possible talking like that.
And strides were made in these districts. And the fact that the Pasch/Darling race was close is good news. The Clark/Olsen race sure turned out disappointing, but Olsen's been running unopposed, and this underlines why that was happening. And two seats were taken for God's sake. No small feat. In one night, the the number of people successfully recalled in Wisconsin history doubled. And, if anything, this stands as a call for moderation in our state politics instead of the far right wing agenda that has less to do with benefiting Wisconsin than a vision of a complete profit-based, light caste system, corporatized society.
Also, this was not a statewide election, which everyone should note who is calling this a kind of failure or thinking that the recall Walker campaign will fail. The recall will happen, bank on it. The actual election will be tough though, which leads me to my greater disappointments here.
First, is the money in this election. Around $35 million or so was spent in this election. Alberta Darling, Repub from the billionaires club of northern Milwaukee & parts of Waukesha, had something like $9 million all to herself (counting outside spending & her own campaign dollars combined).
I know this had national attention and so on. I get that, but nine fucking million dollars? There's all kinds of things that money could be better spent on, like, say, a start up business that would employ some people.
The ads throughout the state were constant. The phone calls were constant. The door knocking was constant. On that note, there was record turn out, but it probably also tested the saturation/irritation level of the entire state of Wisconsin all because this unchecked money just flowed in from all over.
When I talked to people on the phone during my phone banking shifts, if they were pissy about the dozen phone calls, visitors & ads, I was quick to remind them that thanks to Citizens United, this is the world in which we live. Money, gobs of it, will be spent constantly and each time an important election happens, it will be like this. This total saturation will be the new normal so long as Citizen's United stands.
And if you think it is bad now, just wait until 2012 here in Wisconsin. Presidential election, Paul Ryan campaign, an open US Senate seat, state Assembly seats, state Senate seats (including people who just survived & won recall tonight) and a Walker recall. Are you kidding me? Political spending in Wisconsin next year will, undoubtedly, top $100 million easy. Very easy. It seems silly to suggest it will be under $100 million. We won't see a regular television ad all year. The blitz will drive people insane, dull people & the turnout, or some grand unplugging rebellion against all media sources.
My second disappointment is the idea that these are Republican districts in the first place. Yes, I don't understand Republicans in general with their fealty to wealth over country & state, and their manipulation of people with strong Christian beliefs into buying their trust-and-obey totalitarian aspirations for government, but the idea that there are districts that traditionally vote one way is downright absurd to me.
For example, Robert Cowles is a Republican in a Republican district that has been Democratic for 12 out of the last 100 plus years. There might be a reasonable explanation for this kind of brand loyalty, but over time party philosophies shift. Nixon era Republicans are probably closer to your modern era Democrat than the Republicans running around cheering the decline of the United States. The Republicans who cheered along with Reagan for workers rights are the same ones cheering their demise now. How is that possible?
So have the people of Cowles district changed so the party changed, or has the party changed and they changed with it? Which is the tail and which is the dog here? My inclination is to believe that the party announces a position, or takes up a particular view on an issue and the people follow because they identify themselves as a Republican. And in order to keep that self-identification, they vote with their party, or their being. And it's a loyalty that's disturbing. How can so many people, consistently, decide they'd rather vote party than their best interest?
For example, who can honestly be against clean water? How can anyone in their right mind be okay with wanting to loosen clean water regulations to make certain companies don't (further) poison our drinking water? How can a person stand up and say, "Sure, I trust you, Monsanto. There's no way gross negligence on your part would result in poisoning my water. Why would you ever allow gross negligence to happen? Safeguards. bah. Who needs them!" Actually, that's exactly what they would say, which defies all logic to me. They could say that while complaining loudly that they need concealed guns to protect themselves from danger. Well, dipshit, you can't shoot the cancer out of your water, so fat lotta good that gun's gonna do from actual danger. And you can't avoid cancer water, especially if you do things like shower or shave, but if you have even a little bit of sense, you can avoid situations where a gun is necessary. Regulations is the equivalent of concealed carry legislation. It's about protection, but it's protection that actually fucking works and no one needs to get murdered.
Whew, sorry about that digression, anyway, stand a Republican up and have him rail against clean water regulations and Republicans will vote for him like Pavlov's dog because he is a Republican and they're a Republican, so there you go, he's right. Logic & self-preservation be damned, they're Republican through and through. I know I'm underselling the point of political messaging and how you could spin revoking something like clean water protections a thousand ways to make it seem not that bad or even perhaps better for you & the ECONOMY* but when it comes down to it, agreeing with this political party is agreeing with poisoning water.
Why is that we get so attached to political parties & political figures like this that we're willing to make that kind of sacrifice? Makes you feel sad for humanity in that sense that we're essentially willing to poison ourselves for the sake of a shred of consistent personal identity.
But, with all that said, after all that bitching, I'm still hopeful that there is a dawn after all this night. There must be. Better angels of our natures must exist, somewhere, dormant under all this mess, confusion, and divisiveness. Even if there isn't a dawn or our better selves, even if all this is a fool's errand and we're caste system bound due to this slow motion totalitarian coup we're suffering through, what better fight is there than the good fight.
I have two phone bank shifts scheduled this weekend, and I might trade one for a road trip to a district to knock on doors. And I know my contribution is small. Minuscule even, so I shouldn't flatter myself or try to make what I'm doing to amount to anything special. But, this fight will go on. This fight goes on. As Fighting Bob LaFollette said, "We are slow to realize that democracy is a life, and involves continual struggle." Damn right, Bob. And I'm not stopping now.
viva wisco!
*yes, all caps, like how God gets a capital letter, but the ECONOMY is that much more more important, so that bitch is all caps.
Monday, August 1, 2011
It Begins for Me. (February 16)
(click picture to enlarge)
I do plan on doing a bit of commentary, a bit of remembrance about each picture. But this one, I'm just going to let sit.
This is from the from the February 16, two days after the protests really began. I was down there the previous two days, but I forgot my camera, so there's no evidence of it. I really wish I could have taken a picture of the students on February 14 with their signs and everything waiting for the walk light to cross the street. I can't imagine they would do that now. This is the mark of when the numbers really started to get big. Click on the picture and enjoy.
viva wisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)