Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why do you hate the children?

Clearly you have children of your own, or the answer to that would be self evident to you (i.e. other people's children suck).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
You do know that principals are uniformly former teachers, right? And not unusually, teacher who were not that succesful?

ET: To fix the very same spelling mistake I mocked Spanky for! Ack! The irony!

then the solution is fire both.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
Clearly you have children of your own, or the answer to that would be self evident to you (i.e. other people's children suck).

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
then the solution is fire both.

Raising that minimum wage is working reeeaaaally well in AZ, so it seems:

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona - Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers
Chad Graham
The Arizona Republic

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

And teens are among the first workers to go.

Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.

Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.

"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' "

Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.

"We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."

For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce.

The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment.

It also cited comments by notedeconomist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.

"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.

Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."

It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit.

Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.

While most of the state's 124,067 workers between the ages of 16 and 19 made well above $5.15 per hour before the change, the new law has created real-life economic opportunities.

Liliana Hernandez brings home noticeably more under the new law. The 18-year-old, who attends Metro Tech High School in Phoenix and works part time at Central High School, is saving the extra money, maybe to put towards buying a used car.

Hernandez said she deserves the raise just like any other Arizona worker even if she still lives with her parents.

"I'm doing the best I can and working hard like everyone else," she said.

In the months leading up to last November's vote, advocates of the new law maintained that it would help Arizona create a "living wage" for some of the poorest workers.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated that 145,000 Arizonans would receive a pay raise. That was how many made $5.15 to $6.74 per hour.

At one press conference, a mother described how she was unable to afford basic school supplies for her son.

Opponents, however, said there was little talk about teenage workers. "Everyone wanted to focus on the other aspects of the minimum-wage campaign," said Michelle Bolton, Arizona state director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

An Employment Policies Institute study determined that 30.1 percent of affected workers in Arizona fell between the ages of 16 and 19.

"Workers affected by the minimum-wage increase are less likely to be supporting a family than the typical Arizona worker," it stated. "For example, 30.4 percent of the workers are living with their parent or parents, while only 7.6 percent of all Arizona workers are in this category."

John Weischedel, a senior at the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa, knows he is lucky to be making $8 per hour at an auto dealership and learning technical skills. So are most of his friends who make $9 or more per hour while still attending high school.

After the minimum-wage law went into effect, "a couple of my friends got laid off - they worked in fast food," he said. "They're going to wait until they're out of high school to find other jobs."

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Raising that minimum wage is working reeeaaaally well in AZ, so it seems:

The public policy goal is to protect jobs for teenagers?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
No. You made assertions. Starting with the assertion that the main problem with schools is teachers unions.

Yes. And I stand by that. I have never waivered from that position and I have come up with hard facts to back it up.

Originally posted by Adder Arguments are more than bare assertions. Arguments include premises, facts, and conclusions. You know, like the one that I laid out for you a few days ago that you are now largely adopting now that you are saying that you believe the problem with schools is bad teachers.

Man you are full of it. I said right from the beginning that the problems with the schools is social promotion, lack of testing and the fact that we don't get rid of bad teachers. I also said that the teachers Unions were preventing reform on all three of those initiatives. I presented a lot of evidence of that (including the CTA's defense of tenure in California).

You first argued with my premise that bad teachers were part of the problem. Are you now saying that you think it is important that we get rid of bad teachers and that was your position and now I am adopting your position?

You have not laid out any rational arguments. You have just thrown unsubstantiated criticism at my assertions and now are claiming I am adopting your positions. How can you claim that I am adopting your position, when your only position has been to criticize (and badly at that) my positions?

Originally posted by Adder
See above. Go back and read this thread again from the beginning. Try to remain calm long enough absorb what others are saying.

You are the one getting upset over "tone". You are the one that needs to remain calm. I have gone back over the thread. The last time a stupid claim like this was made I went through the thread to find evidence to refute your claim. I am very familiar with the thread. You need to do the same because your memory sucks. .

Originally posted by Adder
Because for two days (or so) of discussion, you did nothing but repeat yourself. On the third you cited some op-eds that agreed with you.

Am I repeating myself or am I tempering my argument and adopting your position? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Adder
This is tiresome. What words came after "tempered" in my post above? But you have, in this case, tempered your ridiculous factual assertions.

And that is the last I am going to say as I am now arguing with you about your argument style, which is even worse than arguing with you about substance of your assertions.

This is tiresome because you recreate in your mind what was said. I found quotes of yours in the past to refute your stupid claims. And yet you make absurd claims about what was said but you never back it up with cites. You are the king of the unsubstantiated and apocryphal assertions.

[Spanky]

By the way, at the convention this weekend I ran into one of the guys I sit with on the board, Bill Evers. He has just been appointed Undersecretary of Education by the President. We had a nice chat about education that would have gone way over Adder's head.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Not wanting to read the transcript in front of me, here are some examples:

Post 5: "The truth is, school systems that are controlled by Republicans do more with less money. So true equality of opportunity would mean everyone would go to a school system run by Republicans."

Post 51: "And if you look at at school districts their performance and their income is not related at all."

Post 110: "Yes there are other elements that might make urban schools more expensive, but they are not that significant."

"They have the dance of the Lemons where it is impossible to fire a teacher or a Principle..." (emphasis added)

"The Teacher's Union .... have made it impossible to fire anyone." (emphasis added)

Post 116: "In LA they write their own contracts."


Post 177: "It is unthinkable at any time that anyone thought social promotion is any good. Only a liberal could come up with such a stupid idea."

" If you think you can fire a bad teacher in California you are either unbelievably misinformed or a liar. In California to fire a teacher, after tenure, they have to commit some sort of "bad" act. Not teaching anything is not grounds for dismissal." (emphasis added)

Post 205: "Once the student is behind in a social promotion system they can never catch up."

Post 207: "In what case a teacher had been transferred ten times in twelve years because of parent complaints yet they couldn’t fire her."

"This is not Republican dogma.' (okay, so this one is a cheap shot)

Post 209: "The administrators keep shuffling them around because they can't fire them." (emphasis added)

Post 272: "Specifically, the idea that teachers that don't teach can't be fired."

Post 318: "There is no question that schools with affluent students do better. But that is because the bad teachers are taken from those schools (because the parents complain) and put in bad schools where parents don't complain (the poorer districts)."

"One of the major factors that encourage students in poorer schools is the shame of being held back."

"Everyone else agrees they [the unholy troika] are bad."

ETA: This is leaving aside the absurdity of your insistence that you main three prescriptions will solve all school's ills.

What are you trying to argue with these quotes? Which one of these are you arguing is wrong and why is it wrong?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
You first argued with my premise that bad teachers were part of the problem.

No, I did not. I said thta bad teachers are not THE problem.

Are you now saying that you think it is important that we get rid of bad teachers and that was your position and now I am adopting your position?

No, I did not say it was my position. I said that you failed to make an argument until after I helpfully sketched one for you. The fact that I sketched it does not mean I agree with it. Seriously dude. Read.

You are the one getting upset over "tone".

Again, you should not assume that I am upset.

Am I repeating myself or am I tempering my argument and adopting your position? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

You repeated yourself for days. Today, you are tempering the stridency of your factual assertions, and actually filling out the step in an argument.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
What are you trying to argue with these quotes? Which one of these are you arguing is wrong and why is it wrong?

All of them. And for the reasons that were discussed at length.

Especially the ones that you said today that you never said.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
By the way, at the convention this weekend I ran into one of the guys I sit with on the board, Bill Evers. He has just been appointed Undersecretary of Education by the President. We had a nice chat about education that would have gone way over Adder's head.

Yes, strangely I did not get the memo from the RNC that would have enlightened me.

[SlaveNoMore]

"I've been in politics over 20 years, and for over 20 years I've had Barbra Streisand trying to do my job. So I decided to try my hand at her job."

- Senator John McCain

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would like to see work suggesting that giving administrators the power to fire teachers more easily will be used wisely. If the problem with public schools is with the administrators rather than the teachers, it won't do any good.

Why give the administrators the power? Why not let the tests do the talking? Without the annual tests how will the administrators know what teachers are not doing their job? And once they have the tests you don't need the administrators to make subjective decisions. You can use objective standards.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well, when I implied it was difficult to get rid of bad teachers here are some of the responses:


Adder: When you said it was hard to get rid of teachers at LA unified: I read this and surmise that (a) they aren't trying, or (b) they initiate dismissal proceedings and that teachers have some reason to quite before the proceedings are concluded.

GGG: How many cases were brought? How many teachers resigned rather than fight a case? Maybe the problem is with administrators rather than the union?

GGG: Spanky, you were citing articles by paid conservative hacks that give no sources but lots of opinion, of course we're going to look at their credentials!Those weren't arguments, they were conclusions - you have one citation that you are very excited about - one teacher fired through the process in 10 years. Can you find me an original source, not an op-ed without footnotes or an editorial, but an actual verifiable sources, that gives that fact?

GGG: Dissent. There are generally two protections teachers get: one under their union contract, one under civil service. True "Tenure" is relatively uncommon in K-12; what exists instead is a seniority based system (last hired, first fired) to deal with downsizing that generally comes out of the union contracts and a civil service system that provides a required process for terminating an employee. It's civil service that is the issue in a hiring for failure to do one's job. The union might send a lawyer to represent the teacher, but the union contract is unlikely to be at issue.

(For example, the Mass statute at issue provides "A teacher with professional teacher status [what Spanky thinks of as tenure], pursuant to section forty-one, shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards developed pursuant to section thirty-eight of this chapter or other just cause. " And there's an arbitration process to figure out these things. You see - they can be fired for most of the things Spanky says they can't be fired for, provided the superintendent can prove them.

Adder after I said it was hard to fire teachers: quote:
________________________________________
I have heard about the problems with firing a Los Angeles School Teacher.
________________________________________

I have heard the exact same complaints, from the exact set of republican talking points, in many other jurisdictions. Why do you think California is different?


Adder: But I am not sure that reduce job protections for teachers is necessary to do it. In part because I don't think the problem is as widespread as you think it is.

Adder: 1. Tenure. This is an ancient tradition originally intended to protect academic freedom (you know, the idea that you can explore and express ideas that aren't politically popular at the moment). It does seem a bit anachronistic for K-12 educators today given that we don't expect them to research and publish, but you are full of shit when you suggest that teachers with tenure can't be fired.

Again, you can fire them if you actually take the time to document their failures. Personally, I know of at least one tenured teacher who was forced into retirement for an inability to control her class.

Adder: 3. They have always been able to fire bad teachers. To extent that bad teachers are even a statistically relevant problem (they likely are not), there is no union system in the world that provides a bar to firing people who are demonstrably incompetent.

This might prove an illustrative example. You posted this in response to Ty asking you who said it was easy to fire teachers. Please highlight for me where in any of the materials that you quoted from me or G3 where either of us said it was "easy" to fire teachers.

(hint: the "find" function works great for this)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are the one that needs to remain calm.

Adder is the last person on this board who needs to remain calm.