Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

California Students File Constitutional Challenge to Teacher Firing Practices; Unions are the Child Molester's Best Friend
Humorous Reporting Regarding Effect of Tapering on US Treasuries; Robotic "Righting"
Disgusting Compromise on $956B Farm Bill; In Spite of Massive Howls, No Actual Cuts in Food Stamps
California Water Synopsis: Water Woes Just Beginning or About to End? Good News for California?

California Students File Constitutional Challenge to Teacher Firing Practices; Unions are the Child Molester's Best Friend

Posted: 29 Jan 2014 06:23 PM PST

Three cheers for a group of nine California students who are fed up with tenure rules that protect not only incompetent teachers, but also sexual predators.

Reuters reports California students challenge teacher employment rules in lawsuit.

A group of nine California students will challenge employment rules they complain force public schools in the most populous U.S. state to retain low performing teachers, as opening arguments kick off on Monday in a lawsuit over education policy.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn five California statutes that set guidelines for permanent employment, firing and layoff practices for K-12 public school teachers, saying the rules violate the constitutional rights of students by denying them effective teachers.

Among the rules targeted by the lawsuit is one that requires school administrators to either grant or deny tenure status to teachers after the first 18 months of their employment, which they complain causes administrators to hastily give permanent employment to potentially problematic teachers.

"The system is dysfunctional and arbitrary due to these outdated laws that handcuff school administrators from operating in a fashion that protects children and their right to quality education," attorney Theodore Boutrous of the education advocacy group Students Matter said in a media call.

The plaintiffs are also challenging three laws they say make it difficult to fire low-performing tenured teachers by requiring years of documentation, dozens of procedural steps and hundreds of thousands in public funds before a dismissal.

Lastly, the plaintiffs want to abolish the so-called "last-in first-out" statute, which requires administrators to lay off teachers based on reverse seniority.

The group says that the layoff policy disproportionately affects minority and low-income students, who are more likely to have entry-level teachers and poor quality senior teachers assigned to their district.

"When the layoffs come, the more junior teachers are laid off first, which ends up leaving a higher proportion what we call the 'grossly ineffective' teachers," Boutrous said. "It's really a vicious cycle."

Teachers' Union Response

"We don't think stripping teachers of their workplace professional rights will help students," said California Federation of Teachers President Joshua Pechthalt."

Mish Translation of Teachers' Union Response

Teachers first.
We don't give a damn about the kids.
We protect the incompetents and the molesters alike.
Molesters pay dues, kids don't.
Those dues pad our pockets.
Padding our pockets allows us to bribe legislators for more rules we want.

Testimony Started Monday

The lawsuit was filed by the nonprofit advocacy group Students Matter, which contends education laws are a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee because they do not ensure all students have access to an adequate education.

The LA Times reports Testimony begins in trial over California teachers' job protections.

Arguments begin Monday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of laws that govern California's teacher tenure rules, seniority policies and the dismissal process -- an overhaul of which could upend controversial job security for instructors.

The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit advocacy group Students Matter, contends these education laws are a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee because they do not ensure all students have access to an adequate education.

Vergara vs. California, filed on behalf of nine students and their families in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks to revamp a dismissal process the plaintiffs say is too costly and time consuming, lengthen the time period for instructors to gain tenure and dismantle the "last hired, first fired" policies that fail to consider teacher effectiveness.

The lawsuit aims to protect the rights of students, teachers and school districts against a "gross disparity" in educational opportunity, lawyers for the plaintiffs said.

Many students — overwhelmingly those who are minority and low-income — are destined to suffer from ineffective and unequal instruction because administrators are unable to remove ineffective teachers from schools, attorneys said.

Students Matter was founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David F. Welch, a research scientist who went on to co-found Infinera, a manufacturer of optical telecommunications systems based in Sunnyvale, Calif. The group is partly funded by organizations known for battling teachers unions. The foundation of Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad, which has backed numerous education initiatives, also supports it.

Gross Lie of the Day

In the gross lie of the day category, "The California Department of Education contends districts have the opportunity and discretion to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms and decide whether to grant tenure."

In contrast, L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy, is a supporter of the effort to repeal the statutes. He declined to comment because he is a witness in the case.

Lay it on them John!

Unions are the Child Molester's Best Friend

I am quite sure Deasy can testify how hard it is to get rid of incompetent teachers, even child molesters.

If you think I am making this up, sadly, I am not.

I highly recommend reading the LA Times report: Failure Gets a Pass L.A. Unified Pays Teachers Not to Teach.

You can find similar articles about New York, in fact, anywhere unions rule.

Every time I write something like this I get a ton of emails from teachers. Surprisingly, about a third of them are in support of what I say.

In Praise of Teachers

I have said this before and I say it again: I have nothing against teachers. Most of them are dedicated, hard-working professionals.

I do have everything against public unions whose sole mission is to collect dues and coerce legislators into laws written for the union at the expense of the kids.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Humorous Reporting Regarding Effect of Tapering on US Treasuries; Robotic "Righting"

Posted: 29 Jan 2014 12:18 PM PST

I happen to like US treasuries on the basis the economy is slowing much more than anyone thinks.

Short-term, who knows? Certainly not those who intend to call every uptick or downtick as if it's meaningful, especially on days of economic news, like today.

Here is an image that shows what I mean.

I did not stitch that together. The items were back-to-back on a news feed site I follow.

Which is it?

At 2:20 PM Bloomberg reported Treasuries Rise
At 2:20 PM MarketWatch reported Treasuries Fall

Here is another MarketWatch image.

Click on the MarketWatch "Treasuries Fall" link and this is what you see.

Robotic "Righting"

This kind of nonsense happens all the time. Headlines change from Bonds Fall Because of Tapering to Bonds Rise Because of Tapering. Very few notice how ridiculous this reporting is, or how headline stories change 180 degrees in seconds.

May as well have a robot "write" these stories. Perhaps I mean "right" these stories. Or is that what's happening already?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Disgusting Compromise on $956B Farm Bill; In Spite of Massive Howls, No Actual Cuts in Food Stamps

Posted: 29 Jan 2014 10:09 AM PST

Proving that neither party really wants to do anything about escalating costs of anything, in typical D.C. compromise action, the House Passes $956B Farm Bill in a bipartisan vote.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all voted for the bill.

Democrats are howling over miniscule cuts in SNAP (food stamps). For example, an inane headline on the Daily Koz reads House passes food stamp-slashing farm bill.

Supposedly there will be $8.6 billion in devastating food stamp cuts. Even if that happens it is less than a 1% cut in an economy that is supposedly in recovery.

Contrary to Popular Belief, No Cuts in Food Stamps

Will there be any cuts? I rather doubt it. In the "too stupid to make up category", this is how they determined the cuts.

The bill finds $8.6 billion in savings by requiring households to receive at least $20 per year in home heating assistance before they automatically qualify for food stamps, instead of the $1 threshold now in place in some states.

Amazing!

Now what do you think will happen? If you can't figure it out, I will tell you. States will give $20 per year in home heating assistance to everyone currently getting $1 per year in annual home heating assistance.

There will be miniscule (if any) savings at all at the federal level, and small increases at the state level.

Crop Subsidies Preserved

Next consider House passes farm bill, crop subsidies preserved.

After more than two years of partisan squabbles over food and farm policy, the House passed and sent to the Senate Wednesday an almost $100 billion-a-year, compromise farm bill containing a small cut in food stamps and preserving most crop subsidies.

The measure, which the House approved 251-166, had solid backing from the Republican leadership team, even though it makes smaller cuts to food stamps than they would have liked. The bill would cut about $800 million a year from the $80 billion-a-year program, or around 1 percent. The House had sought a 5 percent cut.

The legislation also would continue to heavily subsidize major crops for the nation's farmers while eliminating some subsidies and shifting them toward more politically defensible insurance programs.

House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who has been working on the bill since 2011, called the compromise a "miracle" after years of setbacks.

For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible insurance programs. That means farmers would have to incur losses before they could get a payout.

Miracle Not

It is beyond idiotic to call this do-nothing compromise a "miracle". It's a do-nothing bill for which D.C. is famous.

It would have been a miracle had there been any real cuts.

Actual CBO Estimated Savings

The facts speak for themselves.

In spite of the trumped up $8.6 billion in savings in food stamps and smaller savings on farm subsidies, "The bill would save around $1.65 billion annually overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

Assuming the CBO is correct, the actual savings on the bill is $1.65 billion out of $956 billion. In percentage terms (drum roll please) .... the devastating cutbacks amount to 0.17%!

Oh! The Horror!

Republicans and Democrats alike should both be ashamed, not only for doing virtually nothing, but also for howling at the moon as if they did.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

California Water Synopsis: Water Woes Just Beginning or About to End? Good News for California?

Posted: 29 Jan 2014 09:19 AM PST

Leaving aside religious debates on global warming, UC Berkeley professor B. Lynn Ingram says California water woes could be just beginning.

As 2013 came to a close, the media dutifully reported that the year had been the driest in California since records began to be kept in the 1840s. UC Berkeley paleoclimatologist B. Lynn Ingram didn't think the news stories captured the seriousness of the situation.

"This could potentially be the driest water year in 500 years," says Ingram, a professor of earth and planetary science and geography.

"These extremely dry years are very rare," she says.

But soon, perhaps, they won't be as rare as they used to be. The state is facing its third drought year in a row, and Ingram wouldn't be surprised if that dry stretch continues.

The NewsCenter spoke to Ingram about the lessons to be drawn from her research as California heads into what could be its worst drought in half a millennium.

Q: California is in its third dry year in a row. How long could that continue?

A: If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren't as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.

The late 1930s to the early 1950s were when a lot of our dams and aqueducts were built, and those were wetter decades. I think there's an assumption that we'll go back to that, and that's not necessarily the case. We might be heading into a drier period now. It's hard for us to predict, but that's a possibility, especially with global warming.

Magic Words

With that, Ingram, just mentioned the unmagic words "global warming". Is that a contrary indicator?

Perhaps.

Here is another one: Ingram is the author of The West without Water What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climatic Clues Tell Us about Tomorrow.

Typically, such books mark extreme sentiment and the end of such trends.

Hundred Years of Dry

Want a third contrary indicator?

If so, I have one: Ecocentric, "all things green from capital hill" reports Hundred Years of Dry: How California's Drought Could Get Much, Much Worse.

Good News Coming?

I delayed commenting on the California water crisis recently, rather expecting something like this January 28, 2014 report: El Nino May Return as Models Signal Warming of Pacific Ocean.

An El Nino weather pattern, which can parch Australia and parts of Asia while bringing rains to South America, may occur in the coming months as the Pacific Ocean warms, according to Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.

Most climate models suggest the tropical Pacific will warm through the southern autumn and winter, the bureau said in a statement today. Some models predict this warming may approach El Nino thresholds by early winter, it said. Australia's autumn runs from March to May and winter is from June to August.

El Ninos, which are caused by the warming of the Pacific, affect weather worldwide and can roil agricultural markets as farmers contend with drought or too much rain. An El Nino trend is likely to develop this year, Gavin Schmidt, deputy director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said this month. It's been almost five years since the last event, which typically occurs every two to seven years, according to Indonesia's Meteorological, Climatology and Geophysics Agency.

"Less spring rainfall for the east coast would be the major concern" for Australia, said Paul Deane, an analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Melbourne. "It increases the chance that we're not going to get trend wheat yields, that would be one of the risks. The other one would be on livestock, where you'd have lower pasture growth."

OK But What About California?

That's a good question.

Wikipedia has this to say about El Niño conditions in North America.

"Winters, during the El Niño effect, are warmer and drier than average in the Northwest, northern Midwest, and northern Mideast United States, so those regions experience reduced snowfalls. Meanwhile, significantly wetter winters are present in northwest Mexico and the southwest United States, including central and southern California, while both cooler and wetter than average winters in northeast Mexico and the southeast United States."

Personally Speaking

Living in Illinois, Northwest of Chicago, I certainly can use less snow and less cold. We have had numerous days of negative temperatures this month, coupled with plenty of snow.

Enough!

Global Warning

My global "warning" about global "warming" follows.

Cyclically-speaking, I tend to believe another El Niño effect is on the way. If so, it will bring relief to Southern California.

Thus, short-term I suspect Lynn Ingram is off the mark. Books and hysteria mark tops and bottoms. Besides, we have strongly presented viewpoints about pending cyclical changes.

However, Ingram could easily be correct on a long-term basis.

Either way, none of this has anything to do with global warming. For a detailed explanation, please see Europe Dumps Global Warming Efforts; Good Idea?

Addendum:

The California Weather Blog has an interesting article some inquiring minds may wish to read: Ridiculously Resilient Ridge continues to shatter records, but pattern shift may be approaching

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Economy News

29.1.14

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment