Real-life effects of WIS GOP on education

Now that the rhetoric has died down regarding Walker's union-busting here in Wisconsin, here's how it has affected me--a teacher--my students, and my school. 

The moment Walker's Act 10 took effect, my school board froze salaries, changed the upcoming school calendar (which had been agreed upon with the union a couple months earlier), canceled already scheduled, out-of-school-day continuing education for its staff, created a grievance procedure that is, in effect, settled by the district superintendent or a district-selected third party, instituted health care changes without real input from the insured, and, as of yet, six weeks into the school year, has not provided a handbook with conditions of employment to its teachers.

Despite Walker's declarations that districts will save money (despite state funding cuts), our district has eliminated some aide positions, sacrificed some curriculum updating, and reduced staff development opportunities.

As a result of district changes, my teaching time has increased, my prep time has decreased, and there are new policies to provide more and daily information on student progress and lessons (the added "transparency" will take me an estimated 30+ minutes per day, with no apparent link to improving student learning).  There are less services for students requiring additional reading help, and no specific plans or staff for students demonstrating severe behavioral problems.

My salary, including new health care deductibles as well as pension and health care payments, is down about 10%, while new state mandates require more actual work in the classroom including more identification, specific work with, and documentation for students who are below level.

Some parents, now that our state government has led the way in calling teachers (or their representatives) greedy, slobs, and thugs, voice similar opinions.  I documented in an earlier post parents cursing and hurling insults at teachers as we walked down the street in our town in a show of non-confrontational solidarity. When the local parent-teacher group's budget revealed a thank you gift for teachers at Christmastime, one parent rolled her eyes and said, "You've got to be kidding me."

And upcoming changes (should we ever be provided a handbook), will very possibly include a "pool of money" for teacher salaries, from which the subjectively determined "better" teachers will score more than their subjectively-judged "lesser" peers.  For all the district initiatives and admonitions to promote collaboration, pitting colleague against colleague for their wages certainly doesn't seem like a very collaborative or efficient or wise thing to do.

Lastly, I have been advised by a third party consultant that continuing a blog reporting my district's policies or providing criticism of state government policies so ardently backed by the locals--and identifying myself with my real name, background, or photo--could actually come back to haunt me in terms of disciplinary action (now that I may no longer have a union).

And all these individual concerns don't even include the low-income families here that are affected by cuts to programs they may utilize, or those that may not be able/willing to vote because of new voter ID laws, or a government that changes laws to suit personal agendas or kowtow to businesses at the expense of those in need, or changes in environmental policies that affect everyone's quality of life, or the deep and abiding breach of trust between a people and its elected government.

I'm unsure whether I will continue this blog.  If so, it will be under an assumed name (as advised by the previously mentioned consultant).  There are many wonderful blogs out there fighting this good fight, and I have yet to determine, with the added responsibilities and scrutiny of my job, if I have the ability to do this justice.  Until then, my state senator Grothman is still (as I have termed him before) a major d-bag, and my governor is still a liar.

Thanks for visiting over the last year.

And recall Walker.

Unbelievable quotes from yet another unbelievable WI day

With Wisconsin's Supreme Court giving the go-ahead for the gutting of collective bargaining, there were plenty of unbelievable things popping out of the mouths of those in Madison on Tuesday.

"We conclude," reads the majority decision of the State Supreme Court's ruling on the collective bargaining bill, "that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used." 
Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said, "The majority of the Supreme Court is essentially saying that the Legislature is above the law."  And Barca's right.  Lower courts (including that which is presided over by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi) were presented with evidence and had already said, "Yeah, you broke the open meetings law."  And for those that purport Sumi was merely advancing her own agenda, why would she have said the same bill could be passed immediately--with no questions--if the Republicans just posted the meeting properly and took another vote?  Or why would she have dismissed other cases against the bill's passage?

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald's kid brother) said, "We didn't violate any rules.  We upheld the Constitution all the way through..." 
Maybe the Supreme Court agrees with you, Representative, but certainly Republicans violated the spirit of the law. Even the Walker-backing Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said in an earlier editorial that the Republican argument to the Supreme Court was "bizarre"--that even locked doors with but one member of the public as witness constituted an open meeting.  As was the meeting decried by the Walker-backing Wisconsin State Journal.

Alberta Darling weighed in with her latest version of "Here's why I should be recalled," by laying the mess in Madison on Sumi and not the Republicans: "(Sumi) stepped all over the people of Wisconsin.  You think of all the chaos and discord that's gone on in this Capitol as the result of her decision...To me, it was despicable."
Um, excuse me, Senator?  The chaos was called by Sumi's action? Not by Republicans stripping collective bargaining? Not by Republicans cutting funding to schools and social programs? Not by Republicans courting business in Wisconsin at the expense of its people?

Perhaps the most remarkable came in the written declaration of Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, pointedly directed at her majority-voting colleagues: (from JS Online):
... the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."  The majority justices "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891."
In other words, she's accusing her colleagues of neglecting the proper execution of their duties--very strong words from the State's Chief Justice.  I'm guessing she wouldn't have uttered those words unless she had sound basis to do so.  For even more of Abrahamson's criticism, visit the Wisconsin State Journal article here.

Unbelievable.  And we're only six months into Walker's regime. Hopefully, it's halfway over.

Surprise! UPDATE:Supreme Court doesn't care whether open meetings were violated; budget repair is law

Fox 6 Milwaukee read from the statement of the Court (I guess that's what it was) that Republicans did NOT violate the open meetings law (Please see FINAL UPDATE below) --so I guess the collective bargaining bill is law.  Gosh, who'dathunk the WI Supreme Court (aka David Prosser and the Conservatives) would have ruled that way?

FINAL UPDATE: I'm not changing all the subsequent "Updates" here (to keep the integrity of what I've already posted, such as it is), but there obviously was some confusion about the Court's actions among a lot of sources.  As it stands right now, it appears that the Courts did say the committee of legislators was NOT subject to open meetings laws, making Sumi's actions (and those of any lower court) void. (JS Online)

UPDATE 1: The law was upheld because the Court said Sumi did not have authority to void it, so it will go into effect.  However, it still seems pretty evident that the Republicans likely violated the open meetings law, but, unfortunately, the Court didn't even consider that. 

Since the process of the bill's passage into law still is still sullied because of the undecided open meetings question (which actually Sumi said there was a violation), it makes it all the more laughable to read the hot air of Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald: "We've been saying since day one that Republicans passed the budget repair bill correctly, so frankly this isn't much of a surprise. We followed the law when the bill was passed, simple as that." (Wisconsin State Journal). 

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Fitzgerald.


UPDATE, PART 2: It seems even the Court has trouble making a clear decision. 

From the Wisconsin State Journal:  The court, however, declined to step into the dispute over whether the March 9 conference committee meeting violated the state's open meetings law, leaving it to the Legislature to set its own rules.
"In the posting of notice that was done, the Legislature relied on its interpretation of its own rules of proceeding," the court wrote. "The court declines to review the validity of the procedure used to give notice of the joint committee on conference."

From WisPolitics: A brief description on the court's site said the court concluded the Legislature did not violate a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution that the doors of each house shall be open except when public welfare requires secrecy.

From JS Online: The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up.

I'm sure it will be all sorted out, but it still smells.  There are numerous challenges outstanding against the collective bargaining law, including "bad faith" negotiating claims (which Walker knows something about  from his days as Milwaukee County Exec).  It's a long way from over.

WI Supreme Court: If I were a betting man...

Well, the WI Supreme Court started hearing arguments as to whether or not it should take on the collective bargaining atrocity of Walker and his pals.  And, if they do, hmmmm, which way would they rule?

Not surprisingly,the four conservatives on the bench banded together during the hearing (to be fair, as did the other three justices).  But, surprisingly to me, it doesn't appear they were challenging how the bill was advanced in an illegal meeting, but rather they were challenging Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's order blocking implementation of the bill as law. Conservative Justice Michael Gableman asked, during what the Journal Sentinel called "aggressive" questioning, if a judge can stop a law from being published, could a judge stop a senator from even introducing a bill?

That just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?  Wasn't this about the legality of the bill's creation and passage in a violation of the open meetings law?  If the meeting wasn't legal, would anything else matter?

Walker's Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John actually did address the issue of the open meetings law by basically saying the open meetings law doesn't apply to the Legislature, which was echoed by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's comments. St. John went on to mention that the Legislature has the right to lock doors, and that even letting in one member of the public would satisfy open meetings requirements.

Either way this falls, it's a scary thing--the Court agreeing with this, or the Legislators in power actually believing what they say about open meetings.  Attorney Lester Pines, who is representing State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Madison) says, “I don’t hold the view that the court makes its decisions solely based on ideology.”

I wouldn't bet on it. 

And, at this juncture, I'm not sure it would even matter.

WISGOP says Do You Like Me Now?

Like a big brother that beats you up and then bribes you so he won't get in trouble, Wisconsin's fine Republican legislators are offering crumbs, really, now that their recall butts are on the line.  After the merciless pounding the Walker-run legislature gave worker rights in this state (rights, Walker finally admitted under oath , had no direct fiscal bearing on the budget, but rather were union-busting), Republican legislators are saying--all of the sudden now that recall papers have been served up-- "Hey, you know what?  Um, maybe this part of the budget could be changed, after all."

If the Democrats had not delayed the quorum for the budget-repair bill, and got people thinking about and actually reading things, for goodness sakes, the Republicans would have passed the 2011-2013 budget, no questions asked  (Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester gushed about it), as they would have budget-repair.

So now GOP legislators, even those that are--surprise--up for recall, are "breaking" with Walker and making nice with Wisconsinites through lip-service against budget items including Walker's removing income limits for school voucher families, splitting UW from the UW system, removing recycling, and using general funds for transportation.  

But really it's just b.s. window-dressing.  The non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau says there are still "more than 40 non-fiscal policy items in the governor's budget...proposals that aren’t absolutely essential to balancing the books,"  something that Walker campaigned against doing (Superior Telegram, 4/27).  And there are still numerous, equally-vile budget items remaining (drastic cuts to education and communities, for instance).  Oh, yeah, and Republicans may insert the court-stalled, anti-collective bargaining bill into the budget, as well.

Make sure your friends and neighbors don't fall for these little bribes to win back public favor.

The damages the Republican legislature has inflicted, and will inflict, on this state are far too serious to let them buy us off.