Chicago Public School Teachers on Strike...

RW81233

Look, for the record, I played high school basketball and golf, and then collegiate baseball so it's not like I didn't get into the action and am bitching from the outside. However, can you post me any examples of where a school built a $60 million art studio, or musical space? That's what I'm getting at - sport gets the lions share to the detriment of most other forms of education. I'm not belittling sport, I'm belittling it's space of reverence in our society.

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

Look, for the record, I played high school basketball and golf, and then collegiate baseball so it's not like I didn't get into the action and am bitching from the outside. However, can you post me any examples of where a school built a $60 million art studio, or musical space? That's what I'm getting at - sport gets the lions share to the detriment of most other forms of education. I'm not belittling sport, I'm belittling it's space of reverence in our society.

Ramon C. Cortines School Of Visual And Performing Arts - $272M - LA Public School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_School_for_the_Visual_and_Performing_Arts

Robert F. Kennedy Community School - $578M - LA Public School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Community_Schools

:ugeek:

RW81233

damn expensive spots, but they include sports stuff no?

Blockhead

RW81233 wrote:

Look, for the record, I played high school basketball and golf, and then collegiate baseball so it's not like I didn't get into the action and am bitching from the outside. However, can you post me any examples of where a school built a $60 million art studio, or musical space? That's what I'm getting at - sport gets the lions share to the detriment of most other forms of education. I'm not belittling sport, I'm belittling it's space of reverence in our society.

How much revenue does a college art studio bring in, or how about a college play/concert?

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

damn expensive spots, but they include sports stuff no?

The Kennedy school most likely does. From what I can tell, the Cortines school does not have athletic programs.

RW81233

Blockhead wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Look, for the record, I played high school basketball and golf, and then collegiate baseball so it's not like I didn't get into the action and am bitching from the outside. However, can you post me any examples of where a school built a $60 million art studio, or musical space? That's what I'm getting at - sport gets the lions share to the detriment of most other forms of education. I'm not belittling sport, I'm belittling it's space of reverence in our society.

How much revenue does a college art studio bring in, or how about a college play/concert?

you do know that collegiate athletics teams - particularly football teams - lose shit tons of money. Literally, only 6 turn a profit out of the 300+ schools that offer football so that argument demonstrates that you listen to what the mainstream media feeds down our throats and have not actually looked at the way those programs cook the books. Also, I would guess that very few high school programs turn a profit, and, on top of that, what does bringing in revenue and turning a profit have to do with education?

RW81233

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

damn expensive spots, but they include sports stuff no?

The Kennedy school most likely does. From what I can tell, the Cortines school does not have athletic programs.

so it is possible to waste money without sports - fair enough.

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

Also, I would guess that very few high school programs turn a profit, and, on top of that, what does bringing in revenue and turning a profit have to do with education?

The Chicago public school system faces a deficit of $700M in 2013. The unions want a pay raise which will increase that deficit.

What does revenue have to do with education? :fp:

RW81233

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Also, I would guess that very few high school programs turn a profit, and, on top of that, what does bringing in revenue and turning a profit have to do with education?

The Chicago public school system faces a deficit of $700M in 2013. The unions want a pay raise which will increase that deficit.

What does revenue have to do with education? :fp:

sorry, let me rephrase, why are we relying on sports teams to drive revenue and turn a profit when that has, for all but a few schools, never worked. Seriously 6 out of 300 in college and probably less in high school turn a profit. Why not do what we should do and stop giving corporations tax breaks and start funneling that shit to our teachers and schools. Oh wait, I said the T word and meant it.

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

sorry, let me rephrase, why are we relying on sports teams to drive revenue and turn a profit when that has, for all but a few schools, never worked. Seriously 6 out of 300 in college and probably less in high school turn a profit. Why not do what we should do and stop giving corporations tax breaks and start funneling that shit to our teachers and schools. Oh wait, I said the T word and meant it.

Where do you get that 6 in 300 teams in college don't turn a profit? That is unpossible I say. Unpossible.

cincybearcat

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

sorry, let me rephrase, why are we relying on sports teams to drive revenue and turn a profit when that has, for all but a few schools, never worked. Seriously 6 out of 300 in college and probably less in high school turn a profit. Why not do what we should do and stop giving corporations tax breaks and start funneling that shit to our teachers and schools. Oh wait, I said the T word and meant it.

Where do you get that 6 in 300 teams in college don't turn a profit? That is unpossible I say. Unpossible.

It's not true....

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011 ... t-profits/


More likely, he is including the entire athletic program. That could be true because for each scholarship in football, the university must provide a female athletic scholarship. And field hockey don't make $. So as a whole they might lose $ due to Title IX.

RW81233

sorry it was 22, up from 14 the year before. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011 ... ams_m.html

cincybearcat

RW81233 wrote:

sorry it was 22, up from 14 the year before. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011 ... ams_m.html

And that is entire athletic departments. Football is making money, Title IX is losing it.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

sorry it was 22, up from 14 the year before. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011 ... ams_m.html

And that is entire athletic departments. Football is making money, Title IX is losing it.

Thank goodness for football. It would be a complete washout if not for all glorious and powerful football! Let us begin construction of the colosseums nationwide so that water polo teams and tennis programs can exist.

Are you not entertained?

RW81233

I've gotta find the harshest article (and start a different thread) but even with the nicest numbers 44% of schools lose money on football so how the eff are they "paying" for the other sports?


http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa
While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.

In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively.

Among the remaining programs in Division I -- those that don't play football at all -- all 94 had expenses that exceeded their generated revenues, and the median net loss was about $5.8 million.

2006 Median Revenues and Expenditures by Division I Subdivisions
Median Total Revenues Median Generated Revenues Median Total Expenses Median Net Revenue (or Deficit)
Football Bowl Subdivision $35,400,000 $26,342,000 $35,756,000 -$7,265,000
Football Championship Subdivision $9,642,000 $2,345,000 $9,485,000 -$7,121,000
Division I -- no football $8,771,000 $1,828,000 $8,918,000 -$6,607,000

Thirty Bills Unpaid

RW81233 wrote:

I've gotta find the harshest article (and start a different thread) but even with the nicest numbers 44% of schools lose money on football so how the eff are they "paying" for the other sports?


http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/16/ncaa
While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.

In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively.

Among the remaining programs in Division I -- those that don't play football at all -- all 94 had expenses that exceeded their generated revenues, and the median net loss was about $5.8 million.

2006 Median Revenues and Expenditures by Division I Subdivisions
Median Total Revenues Median Generated Revenues Median Total Expenses Median Net Revenue (or Deficit)
Football Bowl Subdivision $35,400,000 $26,342,000 $35,756,000 -$7,265,000
Football Championship Subdivision $9,642,000 $2,345,000 $9,485,000 -$7,121,000
Division I -- no football $8,771,000 $1,828,000 $8,918,000 -$6,607,000

This has morphed into a discussion regarding college athletics and the viability of their programs.

I know you responded to my original assertion where I thought you needed to re-think your position on the role of athletics in high schools: you responded that there were some 'flowery' things that could be deliverables from an athletic experience. Again... you have dismissed the value of athletics in high schools by minimizing the positive impact of the athletic programs and what they offer students who need them.

If one was to disregard athletics with such disfavour... couldn't someone else trivialize all other aspects of the school setting? What does anyone learn from blowing into a flute? What can anyone learn drawing a picture? Is it really important to know the date for the completion of the railroad? Is the French Revolution relevant anymore? Why study Shakespeare when the English language has evolved to the point where it makes his written work merely relics of the past? Why provide a theater for students to rehearse and produce plays? Is Algebra really necessary... I mean where do you see such formulas in everyday life?

Endless.

And, aside from being dismissive... all of these questions really harm the integrity of the school system and the value of all programs to kids. Just as some kids need to connect with a band program or others be challenged with difficult math problems... some kids need athletics. To attempt to 'trim this bit of fat' as you have kind of suggested is very narrow-minded thinking and quite frankly, given the thought you have put into many of your other comments... I'm surprised.

I was a college athlete too. And thank the heavens. If I hadn't had basketball growing up... I don't think I'd have very much of anything now. I owe everything in my life to sport.

Jason P

The Democrat's War on Teachers has reached a compromise. This was my favorite quote:

Darren Tuggle, who has taught high school English for 13 years, said the strike wasn't about money, but about classroom conditions. He said that teachers were frustrated with the board, whose members are appointed and most of whom came from business backgrounds.

:think:

So if there is a $700M shortfall in the budget next year ... and more money is paid to the teachers ... where does the money to improve classroom conditions magically come from?

:?:

peacefrompaul

Jason P wrote:

The Democrat's War on Teachers has reached a compromise. This was my favorite quote:

Darren Tuggle, who has taught high school English for 13 years, said the strike wasn't about money, but about classroom conditions. He said that teachers were frustrated with the board, whose members are appointed and most of whom came from business backgrounds.

:think:

So if there is a $700M shortfall in the budget next year ... and more money is paid to the teachers ... where does the money to improve classroom conditions magically come from?

:?:

Let me give Ben Bernanke a call and see what he would do.

riotgrl

NPR ran an interesting show today about the strike:

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161424000/what-the-chicago-strike-taught-teachers-unions

I think the thing I most liked about this story was that they pointed out that not all districts are the same. While some of the complaints about teachers in YOUR district are valid, we do not have centralized standards that apply across the nation; therefore, some of the generalized statements are true, you cannot/should not paint all teachers or union with the same broad stroke.