From the PG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09324/1015058-100.stm
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuition tax/ Pittsburgh Promise
From another post:
Mark Rauterkus said...
Do you think the Pgh Promise Board should suspend Mayor Ravenstahl from his ceremonial role there (with the Pgh Promise) in light of his new dream / promise to tax college tuition?
November 18, 2009 9:20 AM
Questioner said...
People shouldn't be suspended from or kept off of boards, committees, etc. based on their positions on issues. More problematic is when a board or committee member has a conflict. The mayor ran into this issue himself when he complained that the board evaluating his proposal to tax college students included current and former college administrators.
November 18, 2009 9:37 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
Should I jump to the Nazi counterpoint (famous in internet discussions) now or later?
I just posted about no time like the present on my blog.
Here is the thing. We don't allow those that abuse children to take care of our kids. That is a protective measure, understood. part of conventional wisdom.
The tax on tuition, something that Luke defends and hatched himself, moves one way. That direction is at the polar opposite of where the Pgh Promise is moving. It is counter productive squared.
Help like that, we need to scorn and live without.
November 18, 2009 9:46 AM
Questioner said...
It's a little different from child abuse. Child abuse is not a position on an issue, and it is illegal. In addition, the mayor could argue that a tuition tax will in the long run be best for students by supporting a healthy city; the same could not be said for child abuse.
November 18, 2009 9:51 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
It is different, of course.
But, the tuition tax is illegal as well.
The tax on students goes to support the retired city workers, not a healthy city. We rob from the young and give to the retired.
November 18, 2009 10:21 AM
Questioner said...
But, if new ways are not found to support retired city workers the money will come out of other city services. It would be better to present and debate alternatives than remove the mayor from boards.
November 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
Luke is in the boat and rowing the wrong way.
The sins of yesterday need not be paid off with the dreams of tomorrow.
Rather than cut off the future, just don't pay the past. JUST being the big word there.
That is the discussion not being dealt with. Chapter 1 = patronage. Chapter 2 = money for nothing. Chapter 3 = winning elections and keeping power. Knock yourself out with those debates.
The only way Luke stays where he is and got where he arrived is because of the old guard.
GM had legacy costs too. PAST workers who got paid for nothing makes life impossible unless the gov comes to stimulate.
If I'm on the Pgh Promise board and Luke wants to make the job impossible, in spirt and in terms of real losses to the program, then I'd show him the door.
Luke's talking about $15M per year. The Pgh Promise was to build to $150M forever.
That means in a decade or so, the Pgh Promise is gone. They only churned. That's what I mean as counter productive squared.
November 18, 2009 11:24 AM
lisa said...
if there is going to be a tax on college students, then WHY is it not the same amount for each student? How does a CMU student use so much more in city services than a Pitt student? Making the tax 1 percent of tuition just fosters more anger towards the tax. The 52 dollar emergency services tax is annoying, but at least its the same for everyone.
November 19, 2009 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...
Note to Mark, you're mixing apples and oranges here. I'm no fan of Mr.Ravenstahl and less of a fan of his tax proposal, but this is no time to play politics. It's always about the money.
The issue shouldn't be confused, however. Someone has said that UPMC, its director and leadership should be the ones targeted first and foremost for taxes and I can only concur. One need only look at the monster which is UPMC to understand that health care overhauls are sorely needed.
Yet, 1% of annual tuition is not going to jeopardize the Promise.I abhor the tax idea, but let's be honest.
November 19, 2009 8:41 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...
I am being honest.
What is an apple and what is an organge to you? Prove something in the post.
$15M tax per year = sucked from college spending
Pittsburgh Promise = college spending
In its life, the Pgh Promise = $150M = 10 years of tuition tax.
Apples & apples. $ & tuition. Subtract 1. Add another = Minus wins before you (& Luke) know it.
Bottom line. The tuition tax deflates the Pgh Promise. Tuition tax will wipe the Pgh Promise away.
November 19, 2009 10:00 PM
Post a Comment
Mark Rauterkus said...
Do you think the Pgh Promise Board should suspend Mayor Ravenstahl from his ceremonial role there (with the Pgh Promise) in light of his new dream / promise to tax college tuition?
November 18, 2009 9:20 AM
Questioner said...
People shouldn't be suspended from or kept off of boards, committees, etc. based on their positions on issues. More problematic is when a board or committee member has a conflict. The mayor ran into this issue himself when he complained that the board evaluating his proposal to tax college students included current and former college administrators.
November 18, 2009 9:37 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
Should I jump to the Nazi counterpoint (famous in internet discussions) now or later?
I just posted about no time like the present on my blog.
Here is the thing. We don't allow those that abuse children to take care of our kids. That is a protective measure, understood. part of conventional wisdom.
The tax on tuition, something that Luke defends and hatched himself, moves one way. That direction is at the polar opposite of where the Pgh Promise is moving. It is counter productive squared.
Help like that, we need to scorn and live without.
November 18, 2009 9:46 AM
Questioner said...
It's a little different from child abuse. Child abuse is not a position on an issue, and it is illegal. In addition, the mayor could argue that a tuition tax will in the long run be best for students by supporting a healthy city; the same could not be said for child abuse.
November 18, 2009 9:51 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
It is different, of course.
But, the tuition tax is illegal as well.
The tax on students goes to support the retired city workers, not a healthy city. We rob from the young and give to the retired.
November 18, 2009 10:21 AM
Questioner said...
But, if new ways are not found to support retired city workers the money will come out of other city services. It would be better to present and debate alternatives than remove the mayor from boards.
November 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Mark Rauterkus said...
Luke is in the boat and rowing the wrong way.
The sins of yesterday need not be paid off with the dreams of tomorrow.
Rather than cut off the future, just don't pay the past. JUST being the big word there.
That is the discussion not being dealt with. Chapter 1 = patronage. Chapter 2 = money for nothing. Chapter 3 = winning elections and keeping power. Knock yourself out with those debates.
The only way Luke stays where he is and got where he arrived is because of the old guard.
GM had legacy costs too. PAST workers who got paid for nothing makes life impossible unless the gov comes to stimulate.
If I'm on the Pgh Promise board and Luke wants to make the job impossible, in spirt and in terms of real losses to the program, then I'd show him the door.
Luke's talking about $15M per year. The Pgh Promise was to build to $150M forever.
That means in a decade or so, the Pgh Promise is gone. They only churned. That's what I mean as counter productive squared.
November 18, 2009 11:24 AM
lisa said...
if there is going to be a tax on college students, then WHY is it not the same amount for each student? How does a CMU student use so much more in city services than a Pitt student? Making the tax 1 percent of tuition just fosters more anger towards the tax. The 52 dollar emergency services tax is annoying, but at least its the same for everyone.
November 19, 2009 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...
Note to Mark, you're mixing apples and oranges here. I'm no fan of Mr.Ravenstahl and less of a fan of his tax proposal, but this is no time to play politics. It's always about the money.
The issue shouldn't be confused, however. Someone has said that UPMC, its director and leadership should be the ones targeted first and foremost for taxes and I can only concur. One need only look at the monster which is UPMC to understand that health care overhauls are sorely needed.
Yet, 1% of annual tuition is not going to jeopardize the Promise.I abhor the tax idea, but let's be honest.
November 19, 2009 8:41 PM
Mark Rauterkus said...
I am being honest.
What is an apple and what is an organge to you? Prove something in the post.
$15M tax per year = sucked from college spending
Pittsburgh Promise = college spending
In its life, the Pgh Promise = $150M = 10 years of tuition tax.
Apples & apples. $ & tuition. Subtract 1. Add another = Minus wins before you (& Luke) know it.
Bottom line. The tuition tax deflates the Pgh Promise. Tuition tax will wipe the Pgh Promise away.
November 19, 2009 10:00 PM
Post a Comment
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Gates Foundation Grant for teacher effectiveness
From the PG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09322/1014314-298.stm
The amount offered is $40M but the district feels it needs $85M; it is not clear who will contribute the balance. A goal outlined in the proposal is to increase the percentage of teachers who produce gains significantly above the state average from 28% to 41%. (More information is needed on what a "significant" gain would be, given that the district has called gains of a few percentage points or less "significant"- do they mean gains that are measurable or "statistically significant"?). Another goal is to increase the HS graduation rate from 65% to 76% (since current graduation rates greater than 85% are often mentioned in district materials, the 76% must be under the "RAND method" which was used a few years back but never (publicly) updated).
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09322/1014314-298.stm
The amount offered is $40M but the district feels it needs $85M; it is not clear who will contribute the balance. A goal outlined in the proposal is to increase the percentage of teachers who produce gains significantly above the state average from 28% to 41%. (More information is needed on what a "significant" gain would be, given that the district has called gains of a few percentage points or less "significant"- do they mean gains that are measurable or "statistically significant"?). Another goal is to increase the HS graduation rate from 65% to 76% (since current graduation rates greater than 85% are often mentioned in district materials, the 76% must be under the "RAND method" which was used a few years back but never (publicly) updated).
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Public hearing/ protests re: treatment of black students
From the PG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09321/1014047-53.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09321/1014047-53.stm
Monday, November 16, 2009
Community meeting w/ District 2 Director
On the November "Start a New Post," Kathy Fine wrote:
"I attended a community meeting at Dilworth School hosted by Dara Ware Allen, new school board director from District 2. There were four parents there as well as Ms. Ware Allen's family and School Board Director Bill Isler.
After a brief introduction of her background, Ms. Ware Allen asked for concerns/questions.
One parent said that she was impressed with the district's communication regarding the new magnet process, but expressed concern that if a student is applying to CAPA as their first choice and another magnet as their second, if they do not get into CAPA, they are not entered into the lottery for another magnet (I think because the admission processes are different for CAPA than the other magnets, students in the past would apply to CAPA and get in while taking a slot at one of the other magnets from someone else).
Two parents expressed concerns over the facilities study's recommendation to close Fulton, citing increasing enrollment and test scores.
I asked three questions/concerns:
Will she advocate for the reconstitution of the Peabody and IB site selection committees in light of the recommendations of the facilities report? Will she advocate for the formation of the Schenley committee and ensure that the membership is open to stakeholder's with diverse viewpoints?
The facilities reports was somewhat misleading by putting renovation costs in "like new" dollars. Estimating costs to make a building usable for 30 or so years would have been more relevant.
Will she advocate for more transparency/openness from the administration? I related how the district deflected my request for information regarding Excellence for All goals to the districts lawyers. Bill Isler stated that the information that I was requesting was in the A+ report, however review of that document revealed that some of the information was in the report, but most was not.
Ms. Ware Allen Wrote everything down on a large pad without comment except to clarify what the parents were asking."
"I attended a community meeting at Dilworth School hosted by Dara Ware Allen, new school board director from District 2. There were four parents there as well as Ms. Ware Allen's family and School Board Director Bill Isler.
After a brief introduction of her background, Ms. Ware Allen asked for concerns/questions.
One parent said that she was impressed with the district's communication regarding the new magnet process, but expressed concern that if a student is applying to CAPA as their first choice and another magnet as their second, if they do not get into CAPA, they are not entered into the lottery for another magnet (I think because the admission processes are different for CAPA than the other magnets, students in the past would apply to CAPA and get in while taking a slot at one of the other magnets from someone else).
Two parents expressed concerns over the facilities study's recommendation to close Fulton, citing increasing enrollment and test scores.
I asked three questions/concerns:
Will she advocate for the reconstitution of the Peabody and IB site selection committees in light of the recommendations of the facilities report? Will she advocate for the formation of the Schenley committee and ensure that the membership is open to stakeholder's with diverse viewpoints?
The facilities reports was somewhat misleading by putting renovation costs in "like new" dollars. Estimating costs to make a building usable for 30 or so years would have been more relevant.
Will she advocate for more transparency/openness from the administration? I related how the district deflected my request for information regarding Excellence for All goals to the districts lawyers. Bill Isler stated that the information that I was requesting was in the A+ report, however review of that document revealed that some of the information was in the report, but most was not.
Ms. Ware Allen Wrote everything down on a large pad without comment except to clarify what the parents were asking."
Plan for city schools
From the PG "Plan for city schools could shuffle students again":
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09320/1013789-53.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09320/1013789-53.stm
Monday, November 9, 2009
A+ troubled by PPS racial achievement gap
The PG notes that according to the PG, the PPS achievement gap in reading has widened since 2005 even while statewide the racial achievement gap in reading has decreased.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09313/1012041-100.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09313/1012041-100.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)