[A] new statewide school choice program... would allow students throughout Wisconsin to attend the private school of their choice through a state-funded voucher. It will run alongside — and prospectively sunset - the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, (WPCP) which was created in 2013 but limited to only 1,000 students per year. However, the new, as-of-yet-unnamed voucher program would have one major difference from the current statewide system.Erin Richards — Milwaukee Journal Sentinel education columnist — writes:
These new vouchers will only be made available to students who are currently attending public schools — a caveat that allays concerns that the majority of WPCP students had previously attended private schools before accepting state funds. These students must come from families that earn less than 185 percent of the federal poverty limit - $44,122.50 for a family of four last year. Any private school wishing to accept voucher students would also have to consent to the state's school accountability program and receive grades through the Department of Public Instruction's (DPI) School Report Card formula.
Walker's plans to expand and change the funding mechanism of the statewide private voucher school program... would cause major waves in the state's public school systems, which have faced an onslaught of reforms in recent years, both financially and academically....Richards also notes Walker's plan to "make it easier for anyone with a bachelor's degree and real-world experience to get a license to become a middle or high school teacher" and quotes Bob Peterson, president of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, accusing Walker of "gutting licensure requirements."
State Superintendent Tony Evers noted the governor's budget offered no increase in the revenue limit for public schools, which is the total amount districts can raise per pupil in state aid and property taxes.
"That's huge," he said. "Schools are at the breaking point."
Betsy Kippers, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, called unbridled expansion of the statewide private school voucher program "egregious."
We watched Walker's budget address on TV (using the DVR to simultaneously watch the Badgers beat the Hoosiers). I asked Meade what he thought of the budget address, and he said: "I liked it. It was nice and short." I asked him about the basketball game and he said more things than I could transcribe and I can't remember a single one.
Posts
128 comments:
The Proposed Budget should be viewed through the prism of Walker's wish to run for President. In that context it makes sense.
For long-term viability in this state, it doesn't.
I agree with the Journal Sentinel's take on it. The budget benefits only one person: Scott Walker.
Vouchers are like garlic to vampires as far as the union teachers are concerned. They offer hope to poor children trapped in bad schools.
looks like WI is about number 16 among the 50 states and DC in per capita spending on schools.
""That's huge," he said. "Schools are at the breaking point."
In the private sector when a business is at the 'breaking point' there are lay-offs, pay-cuts, and the business might very well go under, meaning no jobs for anyone involved.
Seems like the public sector has a much gentler 'breaking point.'
I am Laslo.
If the public schools lose students that are poor to private schools, weren't those the ones that they were spending more on?
If not, why not?
If they were, then their per capita residual goes up for the remaining students.
The problem lies in the fact that as schools lose students, they aren't willing to cut overhead. e.g. non-teaching jobs.
"Okay so I lied about the 500 million surplus before the election. We're 2 billion in the hole. And we're borrowing a billion more. And because of all our great reforms, we have some tough choices on what to cut. Because it's working so good. Now pee in this cup."
The Drill SGT said...
The problem lies in the fact that as schools lose students, they aren't willing to cut overhead. e.g. non-teaching jobs.
And they sure as hell are not willing to cut teaching jobs either.
Vouchers permit self-sorting, which is the main benefit of private schools. It creates a critical mass of positive peers(relative to the average). It will indeed mean leaving many behind. There just aren't enough positive peers around to have a critical mass available for every child, but no amount of money will manufacture them, they are the scarce resource in K-12 education. Self sorting is the natural mechanism to distil critical masses of positive peer groups out of the public school population. This is what actually is likely to improve overall outcomes. Unevenly, but there is no better way available.
garage-
I see you are using quotation marks. Do you have a link to the text you are quoting? Or are you lying?
Schools will close as school districts lose enrollment. This is normal. It happens all the time as enrollments drop, for any reason. There are school districts that have been constantly shrinking since the 1960s. It does make people unhappy, students and parents as well as laid-off teachers.
It's a clear choice. Some families care about education. Do you want to sacrifice their children's education to save the current system?
School districts spend the most on special ed and remedial education. The worst students, however defined, are by far the most expensive. If the voucher value is greater than the effective average (assume average and not marginal, if large enough numbers go to permit school closures) spend on "good"(easy to deal with) students, then the net available for the remainder may indeed fall, per capita.
"MadisonMan said...
For long-term viability in this state, it doesn't."
What does this even mean?
"The problem lies in the fact that as schools lose students, they aren't willing to cut overhead."
Public school math:
More students => Need more money.
Fewer students => Need same money (well, OK, maybe a little more).
In any case, alternate paths to teacher certification is almost always a win for students (as is anything that lessens the influence of our "rich with talk" schools of education). (Sorry, it's just very difficult to parody edu-talk. At least, it's a win for high-achieving students, those who want actual content (aka knowledge) in coursework, instead of the educators' content-free "learning how to learn how to learn" mush.
Generally, if you are losing customers to the competition, you need to examine the appeal of your product very closely.
Not in public education though.
"buwaya puti said...
School districts spend the most on special ed and remedial education."
Do you have anything that supports this? Because I think it's 100% bullshit.
Do not trust the per capita K-12 spending numbers.
States and even school districts report these in highly variable ways so comparisons are extremely difficult. Pension costs, for instance, can be left out or included, and it can be very tricky to compensate. Other costs are borne through complex funding mechanism with data unavailable, such as capital spending. And definitions of capital spending vary. Its a mess.
What about a family of four making over $44.200?
To word it better - school districts spend the most per capita on students requiring special ed and remedial education.
Not that I like defending public education, but -
Public education, in places where it is a problem such as big cities, cannot improve its appeal unless it adopts strong tracking. The root of its lack of appeal is the nature of the students, not really anything else, however poorly managed the system is.
School districts always face a political problem closing schools, because this is almost always very unpopular.
Peter@8:50am/
Yes, I'm always amused at the union card mentality that holds that someone with a B.S. in electrical engineering who taught electronics for 20 years in, say, the Navy is somehow incompetent to teach physics at the HS or Jr H level because he doesn't have a "teaching certificate." Same for the PhD Nobel prize winning math instructor at Harvard, MIT or Caltech for whom parents would commit mass murder in order to get their child in his class at the college level, but who is, ipso facto seen as incompetent to teach math at the secondary school level unless he gets "further training."
garage mahal said...
"Okay so I lied about the 500 million surplus before the election. We're 2 billion in the hole. And we're borrowing a billion more. And because of all our great reforms, we have some tough choices on what to cut. Because it's working so good. Now pee in this cup."
So let's review:
1. We did have a surplus in the last budget year. And this is with giving $1 Billion in tax cuts. garage is too fucking stupid to understand state budgets, despite being coached here, so continue to see this idiocy.
2. We are not $2 billion "in the hole." Same causal reason, garage budget stupidity. There is a structural deficit, meaning that current revenues would not pay for current obligations, so something has to change. Keep in mind that this 50% reduction of the deficit that he inherited from Jim Doyle, despite Doyle increasing taxes by $1 Billion plus, and raiding the the transportation fund.
3. Borrowing. Again garage is mistaken. Our borrowing has been reduced by 50% over what was inherited from Jim Doyle.
The rest is just garage trying to be clever but failing as usual. The biggest cut was to the bloated UW system...frankly it's not enough. Why do we need a UW campus within 50 miles of every resident in WI? Most of these are half filled or worse, and no more than "high schools with ashtrays."
"buwaya puti said...
To word it better - school districts spend the most per capita on students requiring special ed and remedial education."
So what?
Do you have anything that supports this?
When I look at my kids' yearbook from High School, what department is far and away the largest, with the most people working in it? Special Ed. (Of course, it's not called that). This is at the best public High School in the state (as far as, for example, National Merit Scholars go -- or cross-country runners ;) ) 50+ workers in the photo.
So I think the original statement may be valid (If the comparative it to private schools).
Assume a funding formula that allocates $10k per head. If the "good" students that are likely to take the vouchers only cost the public school districts $5k while the bad ones cost $15k, the vouchers are likely to reduce the effective funding available for the remainder even if the average per capita budget remains the same, or even if it increases. This is a much more complex calculation than my example given the usual complexity of funding sources and rules.
A lot of money being spent when a sizable percentage of these children will be useless to society as adults, despite whatever educational opportunities they might have.
I am Laslo.
True, it is a paradox that education is cheapest for the best students.
One would think that resource allocation priorities are completely off. However it seems to me that this is natural. The best students of all, after all, are likely to educate themselves at no cost to the public or their parents.
For the rest, its all about bringing the horses to water, but you can't make them drink. We are spending a great deal to make the horses drink.
There is a structural deficit, meaning that current revenues would not pay for current obligations, so something has to change
So, where is that 500 million dollar surplus Walker was bragging about before the election? Walker thinks Wisconsin is full of impossibly stupid voters. And he is right.
"MadisonMan said...
Do you have anything that supports this?
When I look at my kids' yearbook from High School, what department is far and away the largest, with the most people working in it? Special Ed. (Of course, it's not called that). This is at the best public High School in the state (as far as, for example, National Merit Scholars go -- or cross-country runners ;) ) 50+ workers in the photo.
So I think the original statement may be valid (If the comparative it to private schools)."
Not buying it. 50 full time employees in a single high school for Special ED? What kind of employees. What school?
But lets say it's true. How many non special ed? Less than 50?
I understand that special needs kids cost more then non....but there are so many less.
What does this even mean?
As a hint, consider the top 5 Universities in attracting Research Dollars (Federal, State and Private -- exclude Johns Hopkins, for obvious reasons). How has that changed over, say, the past 30 years?
What will the impact of Walker's proposed budget be on the listing?
I didn't say they were full-time employees. These were the people who were in the Special Ed Department (again, not called that, but I don't recall what it actually is called). In contrast, there were 7 in the math department. This is West High in Madison -- I thought my saying it was the best High School in the state would have made that clear. My mistake.
To understand what's going on for special ed + remedial ed you need to examine the budget and practices of your school districts. I can answer for San Francisco and some other California districts, and its likely to be similar for you in Wisconsin. Special ed here has a more or less fixed allication of something like 25% of the general fund budget. This is however insufficient to cover the needs of the legislated services for special needs children, so it effectively sucks up additional funds from the remainder. The effect is that schools with predominantly poor children (and poor test scores) have many more teachers and staff (aides, etc.) assigned per capita than the others.
Public education, in places where it is a problem such as big cities, cannot improve its appeal unless it adopts strong tracking.
This will not happen because tracking produces unpleasant demographic realities.
"garage mahal said...
So, where is that 500 million dollar surplus Walker was bragging about before the election?"
It's being used in the final year of the current two year budget, corky. June 2014 - June 2015.
"garage mahal said...
Walker thinks Wisconsin is full of impossibly stupid voters. And he is right."
Full of? No. We do we have at leats one. You.
It's being used in the final year of the current two year budget, corky. June 2014 - June 2015.
"Based upon the November report, the administration's general fund condition statement for 2014-15 reflects a gross ending balance (June 30, 2015) of -$132.1 million. Our analysis indicates a gross balance of -$283.4 million for 2014-15. This is $151.3 million below that of the administration's report…." Link
Stupid or lying. I'll go with a little of both.
Bitchtits doesn't like living under Governor Walker. I wonder how he will like 8 years being under President Walker?
Bitchtits is an excellent example that Wisconsin Public Schools need some serious reforms though, I mean look how he turned out.
"MadisonMan said...
I didn't say they were full-time employees. These were the people who were in the Special Ed Department (again, not called that, but I don't recall what it actually is called). In contrast, there were 7 in the math department."
I didn't say you did. But if we are talking costs, then full time/part time is important. I'm guessing many are part time specialists of once sort or another. I would guess the math department is seven full time teachers. In any event, the issue isn't whether the Special Ed is the biggest department, but bigger than ALL other departments. It frightens me that you teach, yet this isn't obvious to you.
"MadisonMan said...
This is West High in Madison -- I thought my saying it was the best High School in the state would have made that clear. My mistake."
LOL Sure. Even by your measure of National Merit scholarships it isn't...it's not even the top HS in Madison, that would then be Memorial (3), Then East (2), then West (1).
Now if you went by 10th Grade
WKCE Reading & WKCE Math, then you would be 83rd.
If you went by a combined stat study like niche, you would be 10th.
What I love about Walker is that he doesn't stop sticking it to his enemies. Bland and low-key, but persistent. We might, finally, have a Republican who understands the playing field.
"MadisonMan said...
What does this even mean?
As a hint, consider the top 5 Universities in attracting Research Dollars (Federal, State and Private -- exclude Johns Hopkins, for obvious reasons). How has that changed over, say, the past 30 years?
What will the impact of Walker's proposed budget be on the listing?"
Again, what does it mean, and how does your question answer mine.
You don't know, do you?
Good move. Pity it does not go further.
Seems line another example (BaaarrrrraaaaaaaK) of taking from the Upper Middle Class and redistributing to the Lower Middle Class (less the cut taken by the Feather Merchants running the program).
I strongly recommend you do something like compare district budgets, Madison vs Milwaukee, or better probably Milwaukee vs some suburban district nearby. And also compare overall staffing (FTE) for high and low test score schools, as district budgets may not always capture funding differentials. What I'm talking about is very easy to see from the inside, so to speak, but requires research from the outside.
As long as the private schools vaccinate the Whole Foods rug rats, then choice sound good.
buwaya puti said...
Schools will close as school districts lose enrollment. This is normal. It happens all the time as enrollments drop, for any reason. There are school districts that have been constantly shrinking since the 1960s. It does make people unhappy, students and parents as well as laid-off teachers.
True. Even in a city with a growing population, the demographics of neighborhoods can change over time. When I graduated high school, we had about 3000 students. The enrollment is down to less than 400 now and they're set to close that school at the end of the current school year. The elementary school and junior high (middle) schools I attended closed long ago. The same modest single family homes in the neighborhood still exist but there aren't many families with children living there any more. The schools close and the students are shifted to other schools. So are most of the teachers and administration.
It frightens me that you teach, yet this isn't obvious to you.
I don't believe you're frightened at all.
"MadisonMan said...
It frightens me that you teach, yet this isn't obvious to you.
I don't believe you're frightened at all."
True. "Frightening" would have been a better choice.
Again, what does it mean, and how does your question answer mine.
I require to work for the answer.
In short, UW alone in the Big 10 - maybe nationwide - has been a top 5 University as far as acquiring Research Grants from Federal, State and Private Sources in each of the past 30 years (Again -- ignore Johns Hopkins). Do you understand what a powerful economic engine this is? (I don't think Walker does, or if he does he's sacrificing it to his own political ambition). How does Walker's Proposed budget support this Excellence?
Oops, require *you*. Ah well. Then I made it easy for you.
How does Walker's Proposed budget support this Excellence?
Here's your answer @ 10:11 "What I love about Walker is that he doesn't stop sticking it to his enemies"
How is it 100 years ago we were teaching kids of all grades in a single room in a schoolhouse across most of the nation yet today we've got a $220-330k per classroom budget and are constantly in crisis blamed on budget?
Forget teachers and schools, how long are we going to let so many students get a crappy education and call it a public right?
"Some families care about education. Do you want to sacrifice their children's education to save the current system?"
Exactly. Why are there long lines and long waits for poor parents who want their kids in charter schools and for vouchers ?
Too bad we don't have reform schools any longer.
"Assume a funding formula that allocates $10k per head. If the "good" students that are likely to take the vouchers only cost the public school districts $5k while the bad ones cost $15k, the vouchers are likely to reduce the effective funding available for the remainder even if the average per capita budget remains the same, or even if it increases."
Why do we spend more money on bad students? If we want our civilization to develop faster, to find treatment for cancer, fly to Mars, discover new energy sources - wouldn't it make sense to spend more money on good students?
Being how this welfare expansion is mostly going to his own people, is it safe to assume Walker won't require anybody to pee in a cup in order to receive this handout from the state?
"MadisonMan said...
How does Walker's Proposed budget support this Excellence?"
LOL How does it hurt? The UW budget cut represents 2.5% of overall funding. You don't think the UW system has 2.5% waste?
I am not sure how to evaluate UW versus the University of California system, but here at least, not all UC campuses are created equal. The system as a whole is a huge economic asset, but that does not mean all its parts and subsystems are themselves useful assets. Entrance standards vary greatly among them, as do their ability to attract grants, etc. Programs also vary greatly in grant funding.
Whole campuses of the UC system could be deleted with little overall impact on the California economy, and most certainly whole departments.
And there is no reason to assume that the universities are making good use of their funding given the high administrative overhead, and I will go out on a limb to doubt that this admin spending helps much to attract grants.
How does it hurt?
Oh yes, let's experiment with this high-performance engine. A little tinkering -- how does that hurt?
(Insert video of cash to clunker car)
If the school system is close to breaking, then allowing a lot of people to take vouchers (which will probably be far less than the current per-pupil cost of the public schools) will help fix that problem, no?
Of course, they'll have to start firing teachers and administrators to make up for the loss of students, but since our concern is for the children getting educated, not the adults getting paid to do it, that's not a problem.
Right?
"MadisonMan said...
How does it hurt?
Oh yes, let's experiment with this high-performance engine. A little tinkering -- how does that hurt?
(Insert video of cash to clunker car)"
again you can't support your assertions. And this weaksauce is not only stupid but also not factual.
Walker is not "experimenting." He is cutting funding and giving the UW full and complete authority to determine how to spend the money they get.
So again, connect the dots. Don't worry. We know you can't.
One of the big issues that no one mentions is the fixed costs of buses in rural districts.
We staggered all the schools to handle the 15% drop in state aid this year for our district.
A lot of those northern counties are also struggling just to keep going. Those voucher kids are going to mean academics lose out to busing costs.
And lest you think they can raise their county levy limit or ask voters to pay - Walker removed that ability four years ago.
Good luck attracting industry and jobs to places with schools in turmoil.
Not a joke. Walker alters the UW Mission Statement striking "the search for truth".
Heckuva job Walker voters. Heckuva job.
"Why do we spend more money on bad students? "
Politics, the long march though the institutions, public choice economics, and the plain fact that good students are cheap to educate.
"One of the big issues that no one mentions is the fixed costs of buses in rural districts. "
I call bs on this. Running a few buses per school is a main spending item? Come on? How much are you paying the drivers?
"the plain fact that good students are cheap to educate. "
Depends on the standards. If you want them to be very well educated, you need to hire professors from universities to teach them physics, math, literature and the like. Build labs for them, so they can experiment.
it's only cheap to educate them, if you expect little of them.
The effect is that schools with predominantly poor children (and poor test scores) have many more teachers and staff (aides, etc.) assigned per capita than the others."
This appears to be a case of pouring more money over badly spent money. With all of the extra resources why hasn't the downward spiral halted? Perhaps they need a real incentive such as NO entitlement benefits for drop outs until age 35 and having to pass a basic literacy test thereafter.
"Mark said...
And lest you think they can raise their county levy limit or ask voters to pay - Walker removed that ability four years ago."
Bullshit. He did no such thing.
Just for fun and to make our rah-rah boy Garage do a bit of thinking (in a hypothetical way) why doesn't our hostess list out all of the UW course offerings and lets see which ones Garage would cut if he were tasked to make a spending cut for the UW system. Then offer him the number of administrators and the ratio of administrators to teaching staff and students with an eye on what he could safely cut if he were tasked to find savings. I suspect that any dispassionate person who isn't a government union hack could easily find 10% to cut without any real effect.
Since the schools are at a breaking point, what Walker and Rauner should do to loosen up funding is tell everyone they're going to look at all the rules previous legislatures imposed and see if they can be loosened or removed. They will look at all the federal rules imposed and ask for waivers.
Those rule changes should allow more flexibility.
For example, in Illinois, if there is a school with 26 kids or more who speak a different language, it's required to hire an ESL teacher.
Loosen it, especially since California found kids learn English faster if they're in English-taught classes.
Good (and I don't mean gifted or brilliant) students can make the best of even mediocre professors.
High school teachers with sufficient education to teach any subject appropriate to a fair to intelligent high school student are not very expensive.
Lowell High in San Francisco, for instance, does not employ expensive teachers, yet they run the students ragged, the students that were selected by competitive examination.
Special Ed and Remedial Ed teachers are more expensive.
If Milwaukee is desperate for money, maybe they shouldn't have locked in their contract during Act 10.
"Being how this welfare expansion is mostly going to his own people"
So, Inga, your theory is that blacks vote for Walker ?
Good to know.,
buwaya said...
I am not sure how to evaluate UW versus the University of California system, but here at least, not all UC campuses are created equal. The system as a whole is a huge economic asset
The definition of an asset is an any entity or process that is instituted to create a profit.
The "PhD Nobel prize winning math instructor at Harvard, MIT or Caltech for whom parents would commit mass murder in order to get their child in his class at the college level" might make a good teacher for bright, motivated high schoolers. And might well be terrible for the rest.
That Nobel Prize winner will probably be incredibly frustrated by how hard it is for students to understand what comes easily to him--and by how few make the effort to understand. You can lead a horse to water ...
"garage mahal said...
Not a joke. Walker alters the UW Mission Statement striking "the search for truth".
Alternative Headline: Walker eliminates "feel good" language from UW Mission Statement that they use to justify any program and expense.
"The UW budget cut represents 2.5% of overall funding. You don't think the UW system has 2.5% waste?"
The cut is 13% of state funding. The UW does not have the ability to rebudget grands and awards away from the research programs they were awarded to.
The cut is 13% of state funding. The UW does not have the ability to rebudget grands and awards away from the research programs they were awarded to.
Oh well!
So, obviously, those programs without funding through grants should be reduced.
This is not difficult conceptually. Any business has to prioritize and get rid of underperforming products or wasteful processes.
"Original Mike said...
"The UW budget cut represents 2.5% of overall funding. You don't think the UW system has 2.5% waste?"
The cut is 13% of state funding. The UW does not have the ability to rebudget grands and awards away from the research programs they were awarded to."
So what is your point?
I think Walker is fomenting protest from higher ed to secure the predictable knuckledraggers that are so drawn to him.
"hey! I'm attacking smart people!"
""The UW budget cut represents 2.5% of overall funding. You don't think the UW system has 2.5% waste?"
The cut is 13% of state funding"
No contradiction there. Still, the UW cut is only 2.5% of the entire budget. I wonder how many liberals understand that something could be 2.5% of total funding, and yet 13% of state funding at the same time.
Really, CG? I'll explain my point if I have to, but I don't think I do.
Good (and I don't mean gifted or brilliant) students can make the best of even mediocre professors."
Will they get more from good professors, good labs, good computers, more diverse and fine tuned classes?
"High school teachers with sufficient education to teach any subject appropriate to a fair to intelligent high school student are not very expensive."
Good teachers, good labs are expensive. This is why Obama does not send his kids to government schools.
"Lowell High in San Francisco, for instance, does not employ expensive teachers, yet they run the students ragged, the students that were selected by competitive examination. "
So?
"Special Ed and Remedial Ed teachers are more expensive. "
Who said they are expensive? Who said a normal teacher cannot adequately teach kids who need special ed? Yes, the government wants to pay them more, but it does not have to. Even the most "special kid" can learn sufficiently well from an average teacher. Granted, they won't discover quantum mechanics, but they were not expected to do so anyways.
"So, obviously, those programs without funding through grants should be reduced"
Yes, but when characterizing the task, it's a "13% task", not a "2.5% task". I'd close one or more small campuses to do it. They are not an efficient way to achieve the UW mission. But that would require the legislature to have some balls.
"I think Walker is fomenting protest from higher ed to secure the predictable knuckledraggers that are so drawn to him. "
Surprisingly, people who earn more than 30k vote Republican. Without the folks who cannot even support themselves, DNC would never win elections. But apparently, it's the self-proclaimed party of smart people.
garage mahal said...
Not a joke. Walker alters the UW Mission Statement striking "the search for truth".
The joke, garage, was the pretense that the left wing thugs running the UW system give a damn about the truth, or about finding it.
"Yes, but when characterizing the task, it's a "13% task", not a "2.5% task". "
2.5% is cut versus total university budget, while 13% is versus the state contribution.
Why the 13% number important? Imagine this situation. I earn $200k a year, plus the government gives me $10 a year. If the government stops giving me $10, it's a cut of 100% of federal funding for me. The sky is falling, right?
garage mahal said...
I think Walker is fomenting protest from higher ed to secure the predictable knuckledraggers that are so drawn to him.
"hey! I'm attacking smart people!"
Ah, yes, the fantasy of the left. That their credentials mark them as being smart.
"I earn $200k a year, plus the government gives me $10 a year. If the government stops giving me $10, it's a cut of 100% of federal funding for me. The sky is falling, right?"
You can rebudget across your entire $200k salary. The UW can not.
"You can rebudget across your entire $200k salary. The UW can not."
Why? If they cut spending by 2.5%, that would solve the issue, right?
But more to the point - what exactly is being cut? Is the 13% cut versus 2014 budget? 2013 budget? What's the reference budget that this money is cut?
Point I was making is that even "normal" teachers can keep gifted kids, similar to those who qualify for Boston Latin and the like, pretty busy.
Heck, a reasonably OK Latin teacher is not expensive. Neither are good Math, Comp Sci, etc. teachers, more than good enough to find complex enough things to occupy the waking hours of not-quite genius 14-18 year olds.
Nobel laureates or extensive computer equipment are not necessary.
For a vanishingly small subset there are special accomodations like accelerated programs, early entry to Community College classes, etc. There are very few like this.
The gifted just aren't very expensive. Knowledge is cheap. Forcing knowledge on people is expensive.
"Original Mike said...
Really, CG? I'll explain my point if I have to, but I don't think I do."
Yes, you do...It's unclear.
There is a shortage of special ed teachers because relatively few want to be special ed teachers. It is to a degree supply and demand. For most people special ed is not a very appealing job. Teachers tend to find intelligent kids more rewarding to teach and more pleasant to deal with, thats why the better schools in most districts are reserved for seniority transfers.
"Point I was making is that even "normal" teachers can keep gifted kids, similar to those who qualify for Boston Latin and the like, pretty busy. "
I was not talking about keeping them busy. I was talking about educating them. See the difference? Plus, you ignored spending on computers, science labs, and providing plethora of classes to choose from.
"Heck, a reasonably OK Latin teacher is not expensive. Neither are good Math, Comp Sci, etc. teachers, more than good enough to find complex enough things to occupy the waking hours of not-quite genius 14-18 year olds. "
You still want to keep them occupied, not taught. And no discussion about the class size, lab equipment, class choice. Right? It's like I am talking to a wall.
"The gifted just aren't very expensive. Knowledge is cheap. "
Teaching knowledge, giving enough choice of knowledge is not easy.
"Forcing knowledge on people is expensive. "
Forcing knowledge is useless. It's a waste of money in many cases. Lets prioritize good kids, and not waste money on the future bums.
"There is a shortage of special ed teachers because relatively few want to be special ed teachers. It is to a degree supply and demand."
No problem then. Let's double the size of the special ad classes, and increase salaries. The money we save lets use smartly - invest in good kids.
"Hyphenated American said...
But more to the point - what exactly is being cut? Is the 13% cut versus 2014 budget? 2013 budget? What's the reference budget that this money is cut?"
WI has two year budgets, and versus the current budget which ends June 2015.
"WI has two year budgets, and versus the current budget which ends June 2015. "
So, lets put some numbers here...
By cutting the budget for universites by 13%, Walker's spending will be identical to the spending in which year? 2013? 2010?
Run Scott, Run!
@CG: I was responding to your statement: "The UW budget cut represents 2.5% of overall funding. You don't think the UW system has 2.5% waste?"
This is not a good characterization of the task because most of the UW budget is not available for cutting. If I bring in $1,000,000 in grants for a given year, the UW includes my grant in the total dollars "they" brought in and spent that year (i.e. their "budget") but they cannot come to me and have me cut 2.5% in spending. If they did, the granting agency would be very upset.
The state provides only 17% of the UW budget. Their proposed 13% cut has to come out of that pie. Most programs can't be touched. Those that can will have to find a lot more "waste" than 2.5%
Mark said...
One of the big issues that no one mentions is the fixed costs of buses in rural districts.
We staggered all the schools to handle the 15% drop in state aid this year for our district.
A lot of those northern counties are also struggling just to keep going. Those voucher kids are going to mean academics lose out to busing costs.
So your argument is to keep the current system because of ...............bus drivers?
So Curious George was utterly wrong on the state budget and UW Budget. Shocka.
If I bring in $1,000,000 in grants for a given year, the UW includes my grant in the total dollars "they" brought in and spent that year (i.e. their "budget") but they cannot come to me and have me cut 2.5% in spending. If they did, the granting agency would be very upset."
A big chunk of any grant money is taken by the university, and spent on something else. This is like a tax.
"Most programs can't be touched. "
Let's look at the numbers. Which programs cannot be touched, and how much money the university spends on them?
"Those that can will have to find a lot more "waste" than 2.5%"
What's the actual number? 5%?
BTW, in terms of year-by-year budget, what year will this cut take us? 2013? 2010?
"So Curious George was utterly wrong on the state budget and UW Budget. Shocka. "
Garage, don't be so fast. I've been in the university long enough to know that Curious George is probably much closer to the truth than his opponents.
So, exactly what "waste" did Walker eliminate?
"Let's look at the numbers. Which programs cannot be touched, and how much money the university spends on them?"
The quick-and-dirty estimate is 83% is not available for cutting because it does not come from the state.
They have choice. Lowell in SF (for instance) has 8 languages available.
Math is through AP Calculus A+B
Its a very rare HS of any kind, private or public, that goes beyond that.
Its a rare kid that would go on to Dif Eq or something from there, but if so they can be accommodated, SF City College has the next step up.
Etc. You will not find much difference in such offerings between elite public high schools like this and private high schools of any sort. At the level of the top 5% its tough to fit in more than they are doing. These kids are busy. These are the far right of the Bell Curve, being busy IS education, thats what they are doing, at this level its not busywork.
Lab equipment beyond the basics, which they have, is not particularly important IMHO, even for technical subjects. And its not expensive. Computers are commodities now. A lot of spending on equipment is fluff as well.
For this kind of kid, learning is easy and the vast majority of what they will do they do on their own. And this is the normal process anywhere in the world. There really isn't a dial one can turn to 11.
Around the world people teach gifted children in cheap programs.
What high school did you go to and how can you compare ?
The expensive problem is at the other end. In other countries they don't waste their money on them, not insisting on an academic track for everyone, or their Bell Curve is not as broad, or it is shifted right. In the US there is this Quixotic idea of attempting the impossible.
"I think Walker is fomenting protest from higher ed to secure the predictable knuckledraggers that are so drawn to him. "
No. What he is banking on though is the same overreaction the left had with Act 10, of which w whole bunch was the credentialing class.
What he is banking on though is the same overreaction the left had with Act 10, of which w whole bunch was the credentialing class.
Ive said it before. Walker is a troll.
Interesting timing, given this article by economist Walter Williams.
@garage, and I've said it before. Any person you hate that much must have numerous redeeming qualities.
"Original Mike said...
The quick-and-dirty estimate is 83% is not available for cutting because it does not come from the state."
Where did you get that from LOL Here are approximate numbers from https://www.wisconsin.edu/about-the-uw-system/
About 25% of the UW budget is paid for from gifts and grants...some dedicated some not.
About 19% is state funded. A little less with Walker's budget now...a 13% reduction is less that 3%. So lets say 17%
The rest is from Federal Aid and other sources but the primary one is TUITION! The closer truth is that >75% is flexible, and like has been said, not all gifts and grants are dedicated. So even higher.
Let me guess, are you a barista?
"garage mahal said...
So Curious George was utterly wrong on the state budget and UW Budget. Shocka."
Nope, I'm right. Remember the story of the hunter and the bear. Google it. You are the hunter, metaphorically.
CG--
You agreed Wisconsin had a 500 million dollar surplus. I proved that you were off by 800 million. The numbers from the LFB do not lie. You ought to be embarrassed but of course you're only interested in pushing Walker's lies.
OK, 83% is an overestimate.
"but the primary [funding source] is TUITION!"
Which Walker would freeze, so your 2.5% number is an underestimate.
"Let me guess, are you a barista?"
Why are you compelled to insult people?
"The cut is 13% of state funding. The UW does not have the ability to rebudget grands and awards away from the research programs they were awarded to."
There are probably 5,000 diversity assistant deans and various bureaucrats than can be let go. I just don't see a problem., I finally met the diversity person at my medical school last year and she would do well in the private sector.
"Do you want fries with that, sir?"
"you're only interested in pushing Walker's lies."
Well, I guess it's a standoff. Walker's "lies" versus the lefty lies.
Got it.
" In the US there is this Quixotic idea of attempting the impossible."
A friend of mine in the late 70s was probably the best pediatric heart surgeon in the world. He gave a talk in India about a new operation for the "Blue Baby" condition of Complete transposition of the great vessels. He had the best results in the world in hundreds of cases.
After his talk, an Indian heart surgeon came up to him and said "Why do you spend all this effort on these defective babies? We have thousands of babies dying of diarrhea ."
"There are probably 5,000 diversity assistant deans and various bureaucrats than can be let go. I just don't see a problem."
I didn't say there was a problem. I was responding to CG's statement.
Personally, I'd close some campuses.
"Original Mike said...
OK, 83% is an overestimate.
"but the primary [funding source] is TUITION!"
Which Walker would freeze, so your 2.5% number is an underestimate.
"Let me guess, are you a barista?"
Why are you compelled to insult people?"
To answer your last question, because you insist on posting shit that you have no clue about, as fact, and when proven wrong, double down. Your latest response is another example of it. You were of by a factor of 6. And you keep thinking that the task of the university is to change revenue...it's to change cost. They have to find $300 million in savings on a multi-billion dollar budget. Their website states $6 billion, but it must now be about $7.5 B, if the 2.5% figure published is correct. But even at just 6 billion, it 5%. Do you really think that the UW system doesn't have that in waste? Really? Really. College costs rise much much much faster then inflation. It's the biggest scam in the world.
No make that double skinny latte for the nice customer.
"garage mahal said...
CG--
You agreed Wisconsin had a 500 million dollar surplus. I proved that you were off by 800 million. The numbers from the LFB do not lie. You ought to be embarrassed but of course you're only interested in pushing Walker's lies."
Dude, you have no clue about budgets, what the surplus was, the current structural deficit, or state borrowing. Zero. Despite being told over and over and over again. You just aren't that bright. By that I mean you are moron.
Look up the bear hunter joke. I'll help you with the metaphor...you are the hunter, this blog is the forest, and I am the bear.
" You were of by a factor of 6."
Nope. Not that much. And your initial 2.5% number is equally bad. I know more about the UW budget, having had to deal with it over 30 years, than you will ever know. I'd provide a more substantive response, but I don't enjoy abusive conversations. You really should do something about your anger problems.
The LFB laid it out. I linked to it directly. You're just another lying Walker toadie who would lick the taint off his balls if he told you to do so. Like I said, it should be embarrassing.
but the primary [funding source] is TUITION!"
Which Walker would freeze, so your 2.5% number is an underestimate.
Mkay... So back to my example...
Imagine this situation. I earn $200k a year, plus the government gives me $10 a year. If the government stops giving me $10, it's a cut of 100% of federal funding for me. The sky is falling, right? According to you, it is the case, if my salary is still 200k next year.
And I like this: "The quick-and-dirty estimate is 83% is not available for cutting because it does not come from the state."
Mike, this is hilarious. In other words, all the money coming from tuition, endowment, donations, university tax on grants must be spent in 2015 exactly same way as in 2014. This is your claim, right?
" If I bring in $1,000,000 in grants for a given year, the UW includes my grant in the total dollars "they" brought in and spent that year (i.e. their "budget") but they cannot come to me and have me cut 2.5% in spending. If they did, the granting agency would be very upset."
You claim to know a lot about UW financials. Mkay, tell me, what percentage of grant money is spent on administrators, siphoned to other programs, etc? Just in case you are wondering, in VT, university took about 60% of the grant money and used it for its own purposes. What is the number for UW? I bet it's not far from 60%.
Hyphenated American: "Just in case you are wondering, in VT, university took about 60% of the grant money and used it for its own purposes. What is the number for UW? I bet it's not far from 60%."
Quick question: are any grants structured in such a way that the university guarantees that 100% (or some designated percentage) of the grant monies must be spent for the stated purpose of the grant?
Do grants generally/usually/sometimes allow for a % of the grant funds to be siphoned off for administrative and/or other purposes?
"Do grants generally/usually/sometimes allow for a % of the grant funds to be siphoned off for administrative and/or other purposes?"
I am pretty sure that a substantial percentage of the grant money is officially taken for "administrative needs". I doubt UW publicizes this number.
Moreover, there are possibly different grants. You've got a lot of money that comes from private companies and the government for technical projects in the graduate school. This money is heavily taxed by the university. There are also some grants for, say, women students and the like. I am not sure if these are taxed by the university, but I would guess the amount of money in this grants is relatively small.
Moreover, it would be fun to find out what percentage of UW money comes from grants, and what percentage is paid through tuition and student fees. I bet grants are only a small portion.
Virgil @ 9:06 AM,
With all due respect, you're wrong. You hypo is a little unfair, because someone who taught in the service is different from a practitioner, which is where this question usually arises.
Just because a person knows a subject material, it doesn't mean they know how to convey that information to others, particularly to beginners. This is not, NOT, NOT to defend the typical ed-school b*llsh*t, mind you! Just to point out that some people who know it all have no inborn capacity to pass it on to others, and might need some help in that regard. How to claw that training task away from the educrats... now that's a different question, alas.
Hey, all you who think special ed is cheap, I suggest you go try working there for a while first.
One thing that's not always recognized by outsiders is that people with learning problems also frequently have significant behavioral problems too. There's no way a single Special Ed teacher can handle, solo, a classroom of 20 special ed kids the same way an English or Math teacher handles a class of 20 non-disabled kids.
Any state money should come with a requirement that the administration: research/teaching ratio be 1 ≤ 10. Right now most institutions are closer to 1:1.
"There's no way a single Special Ed teacher can handle, solo, a classroom of 20 special ed kids the same way an English or Math teacher handles a class of 20 non-disabled kids."
But no one expects you to get same results either. The problem today is simple - with limited resources, who do we prioritize in spending - talented kids, middle kids or the mediocre/disturbed/disabled? If we want society to be more successful, then the priorities are obvious.
"Original Mike said...
" You were of by a factor of 6."
Nope. Not that much."
My bad...more like a factor of 5. I was off by 20%. You were off by 500%. Feel better?
"Original Mike said...
And your initial 2.5% number is equally bad."
Not my number, I got that from the Milwaukee JS....and it's a pretty close approximation. Because I went to the UW website and sure enough the $150 million cut (half of the two year budget cut of $300 mil) on a $6 billion annual UW budget is 2.5%. Still want to refute the number? Tell us why. Show your work.
"Original Mike said...
I know more about the UW budget, having had to deal with it over 30 years, than you will ever know. I'd provide a more substantive response, but I don't enjoy abusive conversations. You really should do something about your anger problems."
LOL. Sure you do. You were off by factor of five, and couldn't even identify tuition as a funding source. Yeah, you're a fucking expert.
By the way, again, what I know about the UW budget came from the UW website. You should try looking up facts because you clearly aren't ready to solo. You could avoid embarrassing smoking holes in the ground like the one that you created for yourself here.
"garage mahal said...
The LFB laid it out. I linked to it directly. You're just another lying Walker toadie who would lick the taint off his balls if he told you to do so. Like I said, it should be embarrassing."
Dude, you are too stupid to see that what you linked and what I said do not contradict each other.
One last time. At the end of the last budget year, June 2014, which is the first year of the two year budget, the state had a surplus of almost $500 million. THE LFB predicts a shortage come the end of year two, June 2015. Well, see, mbut it of course that can't actually happen, cuts will be made in the next four months if necessary because a balanced budget is required by law.
How did we get to the potential deficit in year two? Walker and the GOP legislature gave a BILLION dollars in tax cuts to Wisconsin taxpayers. The horror! Hell you even got a tax break on the old double wide.
Post a Comment