2011-8
8

Vote for Sheila Harsdorf – Tuesday, August 9

Category: Sheila Harsdorf | 2 Comments

While voting on August 9, consider this:  Sheila Harsdorf is the only candidate on the ballot who represents everyone…not just the unions.

 

It’s been said that unions are “Wisconsin’s Mafia” and it appears to be true.  Reducing public union collective bargaining to only negotiating for wages and benefits diminishes the ability of the unions to “bully” the rest of us.

 

For all the time and money our schools invest into “anti-bullying” campaigns, why would parents and/or concerned citizens vote for the biggest bully of all, Shelly Moore?

 

We’ve all seen the video clip where Shelly snarls while screaming, “WE  BREATHE  UNION!”  Voting for Shelly Moore would only encourage the bully tactics of the unions whom she supports.

 

Unions notoriously bully school administrators into keeping bad teachers, intimidate politicians who support school reform, and block efforts to reward exceptional teachers with merit pay.

 

Shelly Moore is but a puppet for the union, she has nothing substantive to say about how to improve our schools, nor does she have the qualifications needed to be our state senate representative.

 

Unions work very hard to disillusion the public into believing they are “fair.” 

 

Was it “fair” when the new teacher recently named “Outstanding First Year Teacher” found herself unjustly laid off less than a week later because she lacked union-imposed seniority status to keep her job?

 

Is it fair that principals can’t hire the best qualified person for the job, but are required by union collective-bargaining contracts to hire seniority over merit?

 

The tactics and rhetoric unions employ to block any meaningful reform is staggering and frightening. Their motivation is simple: maintain the status quo — and keep those mega-dollar forced union dues flowing in.

 

Some school districts are finding that they are saving more money than was “cut” by Walker’s bill because they are now allowed to negotiate for better insurance rates for employees, along with having more freedom to decide how to run their schools.

 

Freedom from union control equals innovation and cost savings!

 

Sheila’s opponent (Shelly Moore) is quoted as saying, “And they will respect us because we demand it, and, my friends, most importantly, because we deserve it.”

 

Respect is not gained by demanding it; respect is earned through thoughtful, responsible actions.

 

Vote for Sheila Harsdorf on August 9.  She’s earned our respect.  We want a state representative who supports everyone, not just the unions.

2011-4
28

President Obama, Why are Gas Prices Going Up, Why?

Category: Gas Prices | 26 Comments

When I think back to the Carter years during the 1970′s “gas shortages” I still cringe a bit. During that time I was an impressionable youth, wondering what would become of the world as the “brighter minds” cautioned the little people that fuel was in short supply.

Waiting in line to buy gas at the “filling stations” became a common occurrence. I have very clear memories of sitting in the family station wagon, wondering what would be next.

Then President Reagan was elected and mysteriously the gas shortages, high gas prices, and inflation just seemed to go away. By the time I graduated college and had my own car, I was filling up the tank for $ .99 a gallon.

But now under Obama the cycle seems to be occurring all over again, except this time the high price of gas isn’t necessarily caused by a “gas shortage.”

For all you Fox News critics out there, please ignore this suggestion! The rest of you who have curious, open, objective minds, consider at least watching the video on the following link. (It takes a few seconds to pop up.)

One of the best (and easy to understand) analysis of why gas prices are going up is presented by Glenn Beck at:

www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/transcript/beck-why-are-gas-prices-so-high

Basically, along with the obvious supply and demand argument, Glenn explains how the Fed printing money causes gas and commodity prices to skyrocket.

However, Barack Obama, in his never-ending attempt to blame someone else, is now convincing the “little people” (that would be you and me, regardless of whether you voted for him or not) that it is the evil oil companies’ and speculators’ fault that prices are going up. Obama fails to acknowledge any connection to how his energy or economic policies affect the price of oil.

So while President Obama talks a convincing talk — very much like he did on the campaign trial — his candy coated speech reminds me too much of the story “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” when the Grinch describes why he’s taking Cindy Lou Who’s Christmas tree.

And it’s easy to fool people into believing anything you want them to. Data, graphs, estimates, analysis…you can find almost anything you want that will support any argument you want to present. Just surfing around the web, I ran across an analysis with this paragraph:

“Campbell’s 1991 book is more illuminating, and damning, since he provides detailed production tables for most countries, including 32 non-Middle East, non-FSU producing countries which account for 36.8 mb/d in 1996. The aggregate error by 1996 is 7.9 mb/d, or 21.5% of production in those countries, as Table 1 shows. Twenty-four of the forecasts are too low, and eight are too high. An examination of the particular countries’ errors is instructive about their nature.”

Ya…so the “brighter minds” definitely have an advantage on this subject. Depending on who’s in charge, they can pretty much get us to believe almost anything they want us to believe.

So enter in Obama and an excerpt of his recent speech:

“The goal is simple. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. Through these and other steps, by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one third. And by doing so, we’re going to make our economy less vulnerable to wild swings in oil prices. We’re going to use cleaner sources of energy that don’t imperil our climate. And we’re going to spark new products and businesses all over the country by tapping America’s greatest renewable resource: our ingenuity.”
You are getting very sleepy now…. (O.k…I just added that.)

Thank you for explaining that to us Mr. President. “The goal is simple” little Cindy Lou Who!

Who doesn’t want more fuel efficient cars and trucks and clean, energy efficient alternative fuels?

I’m just not convinced that this administration is going about it in a manner that doesn’t leave us “little people” carrying the bulk of the financial load for an inefficient and potentially nonexistent payback.

Did anyone notice that in his speech President Obama claims that, “by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that (the 11 million barrels of oil a day) by one third.”

Did you catch that? “CUT BY 1/3 !!!!”

Here, I’ll interpret that sentence for you: Cancel that gas-guzzling car trip to Mount Rushmore, or to the Grand Canyon, or to Yellowstone Park, or to the cabin up north, or anywhere else that you were planning on taking the kids this summer.

Obama is indeed “fundamentally changing” America. Try explaining that to your kids this summer!

So, in conclusion, I’ll leave you with this excerpt from the April 2011 “The Limbaugh Letter.”

SWEATING TO THE OBAMAS

Just call him the “Fitness Czar.”

That would be Cornell McClellan, trainer to the Obamas, who commutes from Chicago to perfect Barry’s biceps.

According to the New York Times, McClellan flies to Washington to work out with the first couple for at least an hour each day, two to four times a week. (As for Moochedlle, one word: refund.)

According to The Washington Examiner, the trips translate to 50,000 pounds of carbon emissions. To pamper the guy who recently told us all to reduce co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent by 2010.

Whether vacationing in Rio, eating ribs, while preaching the virtues of tofu, or flying a personal trainer, it’s just more evidence that cutbacks are for the little people.

2011-4
14

Common Sense: The Referendum and Saving the Planet with Toxic Lightbulbs

Category: RF School Referendum | 17 Comments

There’s no doubt about it…I’m a common sense kind of gal. While dating my husband, I told him that if he bought me an engagement ring, it would be the last piece of jewelry he would have to give me. That statement must have clinched the deal, because shortly afterwards I had my ring. We must be made for each other…as he’s definitely a common sense kind of a guy!

So with what I see as common sense coursing through my veins, I’m slowly recovering from the shock that almost half of the voters last week thought the River Falls $39-million referendum was a good idea in its current form. Thankfully, a slight 181 majority had the common sense that we, as a society, need to get off the spending bandwagon and voted this draft of the referendum down.

The school administration blames the havoc in Madison as the primary reason people voted “no”. However, I think that responsible tax paying citizens realize that needlessly adding to our debt for “wants” rather than “needs” isn’t a good idea for our school district any more than it is for our country right now.

But moving onto a lighter, “can you believe it” note, I opened up my electric bill this week. Does anyone read the insert that Pierce Pepin sends out with their bills? I usually try to, although when struggling with sorting the daily mail, sometimes it gets cast aside.

Anyway, this month the Pierce Pepin Highlighter included a guide on how to clean-up a broken CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) or one of those pig tail looking, energy efficient, poisonous, mercury-containing light bulbs.

Now don’t panic! Apparently these bulbs only contain 4 milligrams of mercury as opposed to a classic thermometer which contains 500 milligrams. However, there are several procedural steps one is encouraged to take if a CFL happens to break.

If you’re really bored sometime, you can check out a 30 page fluorescent lamp recycling guide at www.epa.gov/cfl

Coincidentally, with the Pierce Pepin “CFL clean-up guide” fresh in my mind, later that afternoon I had a chance to catch-up on a back issue of National Review Magazine (March 7, 2011 edition) and ran across James Lileks’ column “Athwart” with a comic perspective on CFLs.

Here’s an excerpt:

In January, H.R. 91 was introduced: the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. Yes: the BULB act.

What a coincidence! This bill would repeal the imminent ban on incandescent, or “good,” light bulbs, so you wouldn’t have to buy CFLs, which are loaded with so many nasty substances that al-Qaeda could shut down an entire small town just by sending someone to Home Depot to take a baseball bat to the CFL racks.

Everyone’s read the warnings: If you break a bulb, open up all the windows, go outside, pound a FOR SALE sign in your yard, live in a tent in the park, and mail the bulb shards to NASA for eventual dispersal in the sun’s corona.

The laws covering the disposal of a lawfully eliminated fetus are probably less stringent than the laws about getting rid of a CFL.

Most people will just throw them (the broken light bulbs) away, adding tons of toxins to the waste stream. Domestic garbage: now enriched with mercury, for extra goodness!

Anti-bulb-choice advocates say that won’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen. Why, it’s against the law.

So, while my husband continues to stockpile the old-fashioned, SAFE, inexpensive, non-mercury, “yaaaa!….the light actually comes on when you flip the switch” light bulbs, maybe there’s hope that we won’t be forced into buying only CFLs in the future. Maybe we’ll have a choice!

You never know: sometimes common sense does prevail!

2011-4
4

Remember the important PPPPP’s on April 5

Category: Education, RF School Referendum | No Comments

To put a little twist on the River Falls, WI’s Referendum slogan, “It’s Just not that Sexy”, please consider the “sexy” alternative and vote “No” on April 5 …and remember the importand P’s!

What are the important P’s? Peterson and Prosser.

Consider Kevin Peterson for School Board and Incumbent Judge Dave Prosser for State Supreme Court

KEVIN PETERSON: Stands apart from the other 2 school board candidates as he believes the current referendum still needs to be debated.

You don’t hear much about the Supreme Court Judges, but the swing vote on the court – Judge DAVE PROSSER – is up for re-election in Wisconsin. If he loses, the Walker reforms on collective bargaining and education reform might die with him.

Also,

Yes, a lot of work went into generating the first draft of this referendum, but only a few people were involved in the initial preparation. Now is your chance to vote “No” and send the school board back (with input from you) to reform the referendum.

Some of the items that should still be debated are:

1. Whether or not we want to destroy the historic section of the Academy.
2. Whether or not we should demolish one of our gyms without replacing it.
***Did you know that the school district estimates there will be another referendum in 10 years, but it’s likely it will be within a year or two (even if the current referendum passes) so we can construct additional gymnasiums?
3. Whether or not we should add 3 cafeterias and duplicate kitchen/serving areas to each of the three (3) elementary schools.
4. If we should add 9 extra classrooms to Greenwood, which will essentially be a new school for approx. 100 Montessori students.
***Did you know that those 9 classrooms and the updates to Greenwood will cost almost $12 million dollars? Compare that to the state-of-the-art elementary school that Hudson just built for $15 million dollars.
***Did you know that a few years ago the school board promised that the Montessori School wouldn’t cost the taxpayers any additional money because we had the Academy space?
***Did you know that the school’s demography report indicates that future student enrollment probably will not increase over the next few years, so we don’t need to build additions onto our schools right NOW?
5. Whether or not we should invest $4.1 million dollars for an addition to the Academy for only 45 Renaissance students.
6. Whether or not we should turn the six (6) empty classrooms at Meyer Middle School into “flexible learning areas” for over ½ million dollars.

2011-3
31

Kevin Peterson for School Board!

Category: Education, RF School Referendum | 6 Comments

Kevin Peterson is the perfect candidate for the River Falls school board.

Ever since Kevin and his family moved to River Falls over 12 years ago, he’s been one of the few people in town who has consistently participated in attending school board meetings.

Over the years he has been committed to putting our children’s education first by actively discussing issues, and by giving input to the school board from a parent’s and taxpayer’s perspective.

There’s no doubt that all three of the school board candidates running for the two empty school board seats have a high degree of experience and integrity.

But what sets Kevin Peterson apart, is that while the other two candidates publicly endorse the referendum in its current form, Kevin believes there are still many items that need to be scrutinized.

Kevin agrees that the current proposed referendum includes several much-needed items for our schools. Yes, there are some good things in this referendum, but the current draft of the referendum could be further debated by the members of this community.

Taxes are already too high in our district. This referendum can easily be pared down to include only the school district’s true “needs” with many of the “frills” taken out.

Owning and operating his own business gives Kevin Peterson experience and knowledge into how a cost/benefit analysis works, and how it would apply to a proposed referendum.

Kevin’s knowledge and experience working in the construction industry over the years gives him a valuable perspective into building maintenance issues and proposed construction projects.

Please consider voting for Kevin Peterson on April 5.

Peterson’s knowledge, experience, fiscal responsibility, and desire to maintain and improve our schools will be a much welcomed asset to the River Falls school board.

2011-3
25

Looking at River Falls, WI Students as “Revenue”

Category: Education, RF School Referendum | 12 Comments

At a school board meeting to discuss the River Falls referendum, Superintendent Westerhaus referred to students as “revenue”. It might sound brass, but in a school administrator’s world, students are indeed revenue.

Let’s not kid ourselves—along with the administration caring deeply about education—schools need to be run like a business. Administrators have budgets to balance, people to please, and their own job approval/performance to worry about.

As our fellow blogger James P. noted on a different post, “Superintendents are judged more by the amount of bricks and mortar they added to the school district than the amount of money they saved.”

Even though River Falls is only the 67th largest school district in Wisconsin, we have the 7th highest paid administrator (Dr. Westerhaus). I’m assuming Dr. Westerhaus came highly recommended during the hiring process based on his previous successes getting referendums passed?

So if the school administration is successful here in River Falls at selling this referendum, how do they also increase revenue? By adding students, of course!

Hmmm…how are they going to add students?

Well, the administration claims that our kindergarten classes are increasing. However, based on recent births in this area, our district’s demography report estimates that after the 2010/11 school year, kindergarten enrollment will likely start declining.

It’s difficult to say if many families will be moving into the River Falls area in the near future. There are very few jobs here, due in part to a pervasive anti-corporation sentiment, and gas prices discourage people who might commute to the cities for employment from buying a house in this school district.

When I recently discussed housing sales with a prominent building contractor in River Falls, he mentioned that when interested buyers from Minnesota find out how high our property taxes ALREADY are, they get discouraged and stop considering a possible move to Wisconsin.

O.K…so our last option for gaining more students (or revenue) is to entice students from other school districts to open enroll into the River Falls school district. The down side of typical open enrollment is that only 2/3 of the cost of educating those open enrolled students is paid for by the state when they transfer in from another school district. However, I guess 2/3 revenue is better than nothing, especially when we’ll end up with more class space than we need for our own students if this referendum passes.

But how about this…if the referendum passes, we’ll have a huge renovated Renaissance School (The Academy) that currently only has 45 students in it. What a great revenue generator it would be to have all the surrounding school districts send their “at-risk” behaviorally and/or academically challenged students to be educated in River Falls.

The UPSIDE for the school district’s balance sheet, if I understand it correctly, is that the open enrolled Renaissance student revenue is reimbursed at 100% of the education costs (not the 2/3 reimbursement rate like typical students).

The DOWNSIDE is that the River Falls taxpayers would have to pay for the school building, heat, maintenance, etc. to provide space for additional students from our neighboring school districts. River Falls will also be losing its historical school building.

If it’s not the school administration’s plan to turn the Renaissance School at the Academy into an open enrollment revenue generator, I believe the school board owes it to the taxpayers to explain why the school district is willing to invest $4.1 million to tear down the historical section of the Academy and to build an addition for only 45 Renaissance students.

Please consider voting “No” to the referendum on April 5 to send the school board back to come up with a better plan!

2011-3
18

*** A Memorable Walk Around the River Falls, WI Academy Building

Category: RF School Referendum | No Comments

Do you ever have one of those experiences that you know you’ll remember for the rest of your life?

The experience doesn’t have to be outrageously extravagant or complex, sometimes unforgettable events arise from simple deviations from a daily routine, and it’s nice if you can experience them with someone you love.

I had one of those indelible “I’ll always remember this night” experiences this winter with my youngest son and husband.

It was on one of those warmer winter nights when it was lightly snowing, you know those huge snowflakes that float down slowly, and wouldn’t you know it, the moon was shining too.

My son wanted to shoot a few baskets in town, and since we found the Knowles Center closed for some event, we decided that since we were already in town, we would scout around at a few of the schools to see if there was an open gym available.

It was a Friday night, so when we stopped at the Academy building all of the entry doors were locked. On this night, however, being locked out of the building was the best part.

Over the years, we’ve typically approached the Academy building from one side when dropping off or picking up our children from some event or practice session. But on this night, we decided to walk around the building and REALLY study the architecture…the artisan brickwork, the stately balcony, the cornerstone bearing the construction date. My son, my husband and I were all struck by the subtle magnificence of this a grand historic structure.

I don’t know if the pull on the heartstrings this night was likened to having a loved one in the critical care unit of the hospital, where you don’t know if or how they might survive, but you’re hoping for the best.

I do know that my son, who’s only 12, won’t have that youthful innocence and his chubby cheeks for much longer, and that night studying the Academy made me both sad and thankful at the same time for things that are, and for things that we should try to hang onto.

Memories are a funny thing, and it’s nice to have those we cherish indelibly etched in our minds.

But it’s also nice to preserve our past and our beloved ‘bricks and mortar” if at all possible. There will be much sadness in River Falls if the wrecking ball starts destroying the Academy building. Historic buildings are irreplaceable…once they’re gone….they’re gone forever!

They [buildings of past times] are not ours. They belong, partly to those who built them, and partly to all the generations of mankind who are to follow us. The dead have still their right in them: that which they labored for, the praise of achievement or the expression of religious feeling, or whatsoever else it might be which in those buildings they intended to be permanent, we have no right to obliterate. What we have ourselves built, we are at liberty to throw down; but what other men gave their strength and wealth and life to accomplish, their right over does not pass away with their death; still less is the right to the use of what they have left vested in us only. It belongs to all their successors.
John Ruskin
The Seven Lamps of Architecture [1890]

***Check out my previous blog post to find out what the River Falls School Board has proposed for this historic school building.****

2011-3
16

*** River Falls, WI School Board Decides to Sacrifice Town’s Historic Building to Accommodate Only 45 Students

Category: Education, RF School Referendum | 6 Comments

As ridiculous and as “not sexy” as the 2011 River Falls referendum is, one of the most egregious decisions the school board made was to propose tearing down the historic section of the Academy building, and to build a $4.1 million addition to accommodate only the 45 students from the Renaissance Program.

The referendum plan also relocates the RF public Montessori Charter School program from the Academy building, along with several others who rent space there. The relocation cost to move the Montessori School is around $12,000,000.

The Renaissance Program, however, is slated to stay at the Academy. The Renaissance Program currently consists of 45 high school students that are circulated in and out of the program, depending on their individual behavior and/or school performance challenges.

The RF school administration has decided that certain children who are dealing with challenges in their lives, which prevent them from fitting into the mainstream school program, should be separated from their peers.

I’ll personally concede to the school administration’s philosophy that it’s best to temporarily separate some students. However, I vehemently disagree that the historic part of the Academy should be torn down, along with the taxpayers being asked to foot the bill for a $4.1 million dollar renovation to accommodate this small student population, when these students could easily be accommodated with existing facilities.

The River Falls School District boasts that it has a 98.9% graduation rate. That’s a great statistic! However, part of that high graduation rate is due to the fact that our administration is willing to spend extravagant amounts of money to provide special accommodations for a very small percentage of students, such that they are persuaded to stay in the public school system and graduate.

It is obvious that if you are willing to go to great lengths to make attending school more fun than dropping out, you will get a higher graduation rate.

To expound on the RF school administration’s theory that “we can never spend too much money if it means we can get one more child to graduate,” let’s consider the benefit that might be gained if we used that $4.1 million dollars to build a recreation center in town with a pool, tennis courts, big-screen TVs and movie theaters, along with the 3 or four classrooms needed to accommodate approximately 45 students. Now we’d really have something to entice children to stay in school….the graduation rate may even go up a whopping percentage point to 99.9%!

The River Falls school district has no problem justifying reasons to spend money! But, at some point we need to stop throwing money at problems and start considering simple principles of human behavior modification. In cases where problematic behavior exists, what’s the BEST way to modify that behavior? Normally it involves making the consequences of continuing the undesirable behavior less pleasant than changing to a new behavior.

If we send these children, some of which are dealing with undesirable, individual challenging behaviors, to a beautiful, newly renovated $4.1 million school (that will be too large for only 45 students), what are we teaching them? Shouldn’t a public school education help prepare students for life in the real world? Sure, some of these students need extra attention, but that can be accomplished in a more fiscally responsible manner.

Currently the Meyer Middle School has six (6) empty classrooms that could be used to educate the Renaissance students. Or, if the school district deems if necessary to further separate these students from others, there are other more fiscally responsible options available.

We don’t need to sacrifice our historic building to accommodate only a small student population in the Renaissance Program!

The engineering firm (ATS&R) that worked on the referendum (both preparing it and selling it to the public) has admitted that the Academy’s structure and foundation are strong.

Yes, the building does need work: a new roof, new bathrooms, etc. (Check out Dan Geister’s Pierce County History blog on the Riverfallsjournal.com website for more details.) But the school district’s estimate of $24 million to renovate the building is bloated and outrageous!

At the first referendum informational night, one of the school board members attempted to convince the audience that “history isn’t made of bricks and mortar.” He said that pictures and memories of the Academy should be good enough to preserve history.

Why then, do we continue to supply public funds to build and operate museums? Let’s just take photos of the Mona Lisa and the Hope Diamond and get rid of them.

Please consider voting “No!” to the referendum on April 5, and ask the River Falls School Board to come up with a more reasonable referendum proposal.

2011-2
25

*** Job Performance Should Trump Union “Collective Bargaining”

Category: Education | 31 Comments

Governor Walker’s bill has helped bring to light how absurd government union “collective bargaining” is.

Most private sector employees don’t have the luxury of guaranteed employment, (even if their performance is stellar). Market forces and business performance determine their employment security.

So, why do unions get to enjoy a safety net? Why do government union members get the luxury of guaranteed employment, raises, and benefits regardless of their performance?

Let’s apply this to teachers:

A “good” teacher should always have a job…obviously, because children will always go to school. So if good teachers can expect to enjoy continued employment, pay raises and benefits—because they perform well—why would they need to have teacher unions “collectively bargain” for them?

Here’s the answer: They DON’T need a union! Some of them may not even want to be forced into a union and being part of the “collective”, but you’ll never hear them publicly say that, for fear of union retribution.

What teachers and other union members SHOULD be asking for, though, is higher salaries for the top performing employees, and if performance is poor, those people should be demoted or let go. (But we know that neither of those things will happen, because it’s practically impossible when unions are involved.)

What may result in all of this though, along with reducing the state’s budget deficit, and giving teachers a choice in whether or not they want to belong to a union, is a reduction in the amount of union funds channeled to Democrat Party candidates—and their job destroying policies—against the will of some union members and the taxpaying public.

If teachers or state workers want to contribute to the Democrat party, they should do so on their own accord, but they should not be “forced” to contribute to a political party that they might not support.

We need to get serious about curbing out-of-control government spending. Governor Walker’s current focus on unions is a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility, and hopefully being able to reward top performing employees in the future!

2011-2
17

*** River Falls Teachers use Bully Pulpit to Indoctrinate Students

Category: Education | 41 Comments

A few teachers in the River Falls, WI school district are using the bully pulpit to indoctrinate students. What’s even worse is that the administration has given their nod of approval by allowing it.

Over the years I have had to “de-program” all three of my children after they get home from school. We talk about their day, along with the opinions or possible misinformation they pick up from teachers or fellow students, but this tops it all!

Yesterday, after school, one of my boys came home and asked me what I thought about an issue that the teachers were preaching to the students. Apparently, my son was under the impression that the teachers were getting an 8% pay cut, and several students were planning to walk out this morning to show their support for the teachers.

First, how did my son become so misinformed about this issue? As his mother, I would like to think he has at least average intelligence! Are the teachers misrepresenting their plight? Or, perhaps my son just wasn’t listening; he is a young male after all.

I encouraged him to not make any decisions to participate in a walk out until he got his facts straight.

After his dad and I had a discussion with him, and he took the initiative to do some research on the internet, he discovered that teachers are NOT getting a pay cut; however, Governor Walker was proposing changes to teacher union collective bargaining and also asking the teachers to contribute to their own pension and health insurance plans.

Governor Walker’s job is to bring fiscal responsibility to Wisconsin, and he should be applauded for making the tough decisions.

When I called the school this morning and asked if the students had permission to participate in a walk out, I was informed that, yes…the students were given instructions on the parameters of a walkout. I was also told that there was nothing the administration could do if the students decided to walk out.

Well, how about this idea? Could the administration tell the little darlings that they weren’t allowed to disrupt class by walking out, and if they chose to do so, there would be possible punishments or consequences?

Because the administration did not discouraging the students, it’s almost as if they were ENCOURAGING the students to take the side of the teacher’s union.

Are the students now encouraged to walk out any time that they decide to protest something, perhaps disrupting class on a daily basis? Or does this disruption only apply if they are supporting teacher benefits?

I just have one thing to say, “Hey, teachers, leave our kids alone!”