|
"As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for a roof so a family from Fargo can be guaranteed to see a game." -Chad Doughty |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Check back here often for commentary and announcements. POSTS BY TOPIC 2010 Election Baseball Beer Beer of the Week Books Business Culture Drinking Economics Football Global Warming Health Care Hockey (02-05) Hockey (06-07) Hockey (08-09) Media-Local (02-04) Media-Local (05-07) Media-Local (08-09) Media National (02-06) Media National (07-09) Media National (10-11) Movies Music NARN (04-05) NARN (06-07) NARN (08-09) NARN (10-11) Politics-Local (02-03) Politics-Local (04-05) Politics-Local (06-07) Politics-Local (08-09) Politics-National (02-04) Politics-National (05-07) Politics-National (08-10) Ralphie Religion Separated At Birth? Television Terrorism Travel CHAD THE ELDER: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Twitter SAINT PAUL: saintp at excite.com JB DOUBTLESS: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com ATOMIZER: atomizer77 at yahoo.com SISYPHUS: NIHILIST IN GOLF PANTS: NihilistPaul at yahoo.com Twitter THE CRAZY UKE: karkoc5 at earthlink.net FEATURES Beer Ratings 
Recommended Reading Fraters At The Fair Hugh Hugs A Tree Separated At Birth? Travels With Ralphie ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Friday, March 05, 2010
This article from the Star Tribune explains that not all blacks who make history are welcome during black history month:
During a Feb. 26 parade in the school playground honoring Black History Month, some youngsters carried photos of Simpson, RuPaul and Rodman while others displayed more conventional role models such as President Barack Obama and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Essentially, the principal of this Los Angelis school is very upset that during a black history parade, 1st, 2nd and 4th grade children carried pictures of certain unapproved blacks who made history. Unapproved by the NAACP, who complained to the school district. The district has suspended three white male teachers that they claim were responsible for, "questionable decisions were made in the selection of noteworthy African-American role models," according to principal Lorraine Abner. At first glance, one might agree that inclusion of convicted felon and acquitted murder suspect OJ Simpson is a questionable decision. However, Simpson's name was on a list of approved persons for the school district's Black History Month activities. The district admitted that they hadn't updated the list since 1985, prior to Simpson's controversial actions. The fact that Simpson was on the list published in 1985 means that sports figures were included. Dennis Rodman was a multiple time NBA rebounding champion with a handful of NBA championships in his career. He was also known as an eccentric personality and for occasionally wearing a wedding gown and other items of women's clothing. There is no doubt that Rupaul is the world's best known cross dresser, and is known as a pioneer in transgender performances. I am surprised that the same people who champion diversity based on the color of one's skin cringe at the ide of diversity across male/female gender roles. That those who hail Jackie Robinson as the first to break a color barrier in one popular form of entertainment would scorn someone like Rupaul, who broke ground in a different form of entertainment. The whole attitude seems discriminatory. It would be interesting to know what black figures were on the approved list, besides President Obama and Dr. King. Were any rappers known for violent lyrics or musicians with drug problems on the list? Anyone who's ever uttered a public slur or committed violence against women? How about Congressman Charles Rangel, who'se accused of major ethics violations. As our friend Jay B says, the game of diversity-based rock, paper, scissors is a fascinating thing. Labels: Education Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Don't look now, but there seems to be something astir when it comes to the world of American public education. And it doesn't involve pouring more money into the system in vain hopes that this time the results will be different despite forty years of failure to realize improvements from increased spending. No, it involves real reform as more and more people finally seem willing to tackle one of the real roots of the problem.
On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett was talking with Senator Jim DeMint. Near the end of the conversation--after covering health care and spending--Bennett (former Secretary of Education) asked DeMint for the opportunity to come before Senate Republicans and discuss some very simple and inexpensive steps that would improve education. The key reform would be to get rid of the bottom 5% of teachers. Bennett mentioned that there is now a wealth of research that shows how critical teacher quality is to student achievement. It seems like a obvious correlation, but it's one that the national teacher unions and their liberal allies in the Democratic party have been loath to address. Talking about teacher performance or removing teachers who aren't getting the job done had become the third rail of education. No one wanted to touch it. But there are winds of change in the air. As Saint Paul noted last week even long-time liberals like film critic Roger Ebert are being forced to face up to the fact that money is not why our education system is failing, it's the quality of our teachers. And no group has done more to contribute to the problem or resist any attempts to fix it than the teachers unions. More evidence of an emerging consensus on this aspect of education that crosses political boundaries was presented by Stephen Spruiell in the February 8th edition of National Review (sub req): It is equally difficult to argue now that teacher quality and student test scores are not correlated. Empirical studies from groups such as the New Teacher Project, Teach for America, and the Brookings Institution have demonstrated that teachers matter, and that test scores are a reliably accurate tool for measuring how much they matter. A Brookings study of Los Angeles public schools published in 2006 concluded that "having a top-quartile teacher rather than a bottom-quartile teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the black-white test score gap." As in the debate over free trade, liberal journalists and policymakers are increasingly embracing the evidence. I first learned of the Brookings study from a Steven Brill article in The New Yorker that absolutely eviscerated New York's United Federation of Teachers for blocking reforms that would make it easier for schools to use tests in teacher evaluations. Amanda Ripley of The Atlantic recently wrote about Teach for America's groundbreaking efforts to track test-score data, link it to each of the organization's teachers, and use it to assess their effectiveness. Bob Herbert, the New York Times columnist, wrote a column in January praising Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, for her grudging acceptance of the notion that standardized test scores should be part of the evaluation process. (The National Education Association, AFT?s much larger cousin, remains opposed.) Roger Ebert, the Brookings Institute, The New Yorker, and Bob Herbert understand (at some level at least) what the problem really is. If President Obama actually wants to "pivot to the center," "reach out his hand across the aisle," and "work together in a bipartisan manner," this would be a golden opportunity. Taking on Sister Souljah was child's play compared to what President Obama would face in challenging his allies in the teachers unions, but the political payoff could be equally significant. So far his administration's talk on education has been much better than its walk. This is an opportunity to put it to the test. Labels: Education Thursday, February 04, 2010
When a lifelong, committed liberal zealot like Roger Ebert makes an argument against political interest, you have to pay attention. Excerpts from his review of the new documentary "Waiting for Superman":
Roger Ebert, Al Gore's global warming documentarian, and Bill Gates agree with a position held by a majority of conservatives in this country. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some of that vaunted bipartisan action we keep hearing so much about. At the Federal level, the only substantive action the Obama administration has taken with regard to this issue is to block reform. The latest federal education budget goes out of its way to eliminate funding for new DC area charter school vouchers, closing off the one tiny escape outlet from the failing status quo of public schools. The Washington Post characterizes the motivation behind killing the voucher program: Teachers unions and other education groups active in the Democratic Party regard vouchers as a drain on public education that benefits relatively few students, and they say the students don't achieve at appreciably higher levels at their new schools. The teacher's unions, according to Davis Guggenheim the same group bringing you the Dropout Factories, Classrooms of Death, and the Lemon Dance, and who Ebert called an "obscenity". With a track record like that, how do they continue to wield so much power? One possibility - fully one in ten delegates to the 2008 Democrat National Convention were teacher's union members. In 2008, 91% of political contributions from the National Education Association went to Democrat Party candidates and causes. And the NEA looks downright centrist compared to the American Federation of Teachers, who gave 99% of their political contributions to Democrats. Something to remember next time your favorite Democrat politician starts to rail against the corrupting influence of special interest groups. Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Too often local school board races are a matter of trying to find the least objectionable candidate to vote for. If you come across someone whose calls for increased spending are 10% less than other candidates and is only in lockstep with the teachers' union 80% of the time, you consider yourself lucky and pull the lever for the slighter lesser of the many evils.
Which is why it's such a breathe of fresh air to see someone like Andrew Richter running for school board. Even better, he's running in District 281 so I get a chance to vote for him. He gets off to a good start with My Pledges to You from his website: I will not vote to spend one penny of your money on consultants, studies, or search firms. There is no reason for the Board to contract out their job. I will press our legislature to end the unfunded mandates as well as the Choice Is Yours Program. I will not come to the taxpayers for a referendum unless is the absolute last resort. The citizens of this district are not an ATM machine. I will work to end the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program. This program pushes a certain world point of view and is run by world elites who are not accountable to our district. Our AYP test scores are unacceptable. Fourteen out of sixteen schools failing the test is a joke. Board members need to be outraged at this and demand better, rather than make pathetic excuses. Even better are some of the bits from a school board candidate profile that appeared in the local community newspaper (and for some inexplicable reason is not available online): The board should represent everyone, not just the parents or yes voters. ...as a non-parent I think I'll bring the perspective of the common citizen to the board. I also have a great ability to say the word "no," which seems to be a problem in government. I also bring an independent voice, since I am not endorsed by an group or union. You had me at "no." I don't look at the area I've lived my whole life in and see groups, victims, race, or national origin. The best thing we can do for every student is to offer equal opportunity; we can't guarantee equal outcome. We need parents and community members to be our partners in this, but the schools are not daycare centers, baby-sitters, parents, or the Cub Scouts. Amen. I worry about the curriculum. We need to teach more American history and eliminate indoctrination programs like IB. More American history, less indoctrination in the public schools? Is this guy for real? Alas, I fear that Richter's outspoken positions--while eminently sensible and reasonable--will likely result in him not being elected. Unfortunately it seems that the people with the most interest in school board elections are those with a vested and usually economic interest in the outcome. They aren't the kind of folks who take kindly to the word "No." But at least this time around I'll be able to cast my ballot for a candidate whose views I actually agree with and not simply the least worst choice. Labels: Education, Politics-Local (08-09) Wednesday, September 16, 2009
During the presidential campaign last year, a good deal of time and energy was spent talking about what could be done to help America's "struggling" middle class. Now, with all the hubbub over health care reform, cap n' trade, and skyrocketing deficits most of that talk seems to have been pushed to the back burner. Other than the oddly titled Making Work Pay Tax Credit (which amounts to $400 a year for singles/$800 for marrieds--or $20/$40 on your bi-weekly paycheck), it's hard to point to concrete steps that the Obama administration has taken to help middle class Americans and their families. It's time for some new ideas.
Like many others, the company I work for offers Flexible Spending Accounts: A flexible spending arrangement (FSA), or Flexible Spending Account, as they are commonly called, is one of a number of tax-advantaged financial accounts that can be set up through a cafeteria plan of an employer in the United States. An FSA allows an employee to set aside a portion of his or her earnings to pay for qualified expenses as established in the cafeteria plan, most commonly for medical expenses but often for dependent care or other expenses. Money deducted from an employee's pay into an FSA is not subject to payroll taxes, resulting in a substantial payroll tax savings. We have both medical expense and dependent care FSAs available. The medical FSA is a good way to cover any medical expenses not picked up your insurance coverage. It also encourages you to monitor your health care spending more closely than you might otherwise. Having a little skin in the game motivates you to compare costs and plan for elective care procedures (like Lasik). The one downside is that you can't roll over money in the account from one year to the next, but that's a minor complaint. While there are some restrictions on what medical FSAs will pay for and limits on how much you can set aside in any given year, in general they provide a good deal of freedom for individuals to decide how their health care dollars are spent. Dependent care FSAs meanwhile are more restrictive. Mainly they are used to cover day care costs for your children (also for older parents who live with you) up to a limit of $5000 a year. They are also only available for single parent families or families where both spouses work. If you're in a family where both of you work it's a good way to help save money on your day care costs (for some--others would be better off taking a child tax credit instead). So in effect, the government is subsidizing part of a family's annual day care costs thereby making it easier for both parents to choose to work. You might even say the government is encouraging such a choice. Granted, it's not a huge encouragement from a financial perspective and probably is not a factor in most people's decisions whether they should both work or not. But it is a benefit that the government is only making available to working parents and it's not necessarily based on any actual need. Consider the following: A two parent working family that makes $200K a year and sends their kids to day care could utilize the dependent care FSA to avoid payroll taxes on $5K of income. A two parent family where only one works that makes $50K a year and pays tuition to send their kid to pre-kindergarten could not utilize the dependent care FSA at all. Seems fair, right? Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the government should be helping parents pay for their kids day care. Let's allow dependent care FSAs to cover day care as they currently do. But why not expand the scope? Instead of just day care, dependent care FSAs should be available for two parent families where only one parent works and they should cover educational care for dependent children. That could be school supplies, tuition, and any other educational expenses your children incur up to the age of eighteen. And yes, that would include tuition for private schools. Again as with medical expenses, it would encourage parents to plan for their educational costs and shop around. If you decide to send your kids to public schools you could still use the FSA for expenses like fees, outside tutoring, supplies, etc. (I know there are some tax deductions for these already but they seem overly limited). If you send your kids to private school, you get some savings from being able to use tax free money for tuition (at least up to $5K). It's a start. One of the reasons that the middle class is reportedly so stressed and struggling is that we're worried about our children's education. Expanding the dependent care FSA to cover educational expenses would at least begin to help alleviate some of that stress. And it would allow people at least a little more freedom in making educational choices. How to make up for the lost tax revenue you ask? The glib answer would be "who cares?" as we're already so far under fiscal water that whatever revenue shortfall this created would be like a drop in the ocean. But if you insist on pay-as-you-go planning, I'd take it straight outta the Department of Education's budget. Who knows better than parents how to spend money on their children's education? Labels: Education Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Ben from Infinite Monkeys had his 7-year-old son analyze President Obama's back-to-school speech:
Me: So, Benjamin, you heard the president speak today. What did you think? Benjamin: Mmmm. Naw. Me: What do you mean? You didn't hear it or...? Benjamin: I didn't like it. Me: Why not? Benjamin: Well, I couldn't really understand most of the words, and there was a lot of talking. Nothing drives a young boy to distraction like a lot of talking. Maybe next year President Obama can deliver his speech to kids while going through the Wipeout course. Might help keep his target audience more interested. Saturday, September 05, 2009
On Tuesday September 8, President Obama will make a televised appearance in classrooms all over America to speak to the country's elementary school children. This event has drawn the ire or many conservatives. They believe that this president, who had claimed to be post-partisan, will offer an indoctrination to our kids that will amount to an unopposed attack on his political opponents.
The administration refutes this claim and says the president will speak about American principles of hard work and education: During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. So what should a responsible school administrator do? Do they believe that President Obama is providing a non-political talk about the importance of education or do they think that he will brainwash his captive audience toward his political agenda? Not surprisingly, most public school administrators take the administration's word at face value and will air his address with no questions asked. A few conservative administrators won't chance controversy and refuse to let the president into their classrooms. Fortunately, parents who sacrifice to send their children to private school may end up with the best alternative. The Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul recently sent the following advice to it's school administrators (please forgive the lack of a link): . . . some of our Catholic schools across the country are choosing to tape the President?s address, preview it, and then make the decision whether or not to share it with students in age-appropriate gatherings. We would recommend this as a prudent method in alignment with how you already bring speakers and groups into your buildings. This makes all the sense in the world. There is no reason this address needs to be shown live. If it is an inspirational non-partisan message, then the kids should see it. However, if it is controversial political propaganda then they should pass. I for one welcome my president to reinforce universal themes of hard work, education and avoidance of drugs. The Elder Concurs: I applaud the prudent approach the Archdiocese is taking on the matter. While the original DOE lesson plan that was to accompany the speech was out of line, there's nothing inherently wrong with the President speaking to America's schoolchildren. Conservatives need to be careful not to overreact to everything Obama that comes down the pike. There's enough real issues to be concerned about without having to gin up outrage over relatively unimportant matters like this one. Best to keep our powder dry. (Note: the last idiom was employed for rhetorical purposes only and should in no way be taken in its literal sense.) Thursday, June 11, 2009
Newsweek has taken a momentary break from deifying President Obama to publish their list of the Top 1500 public high schools in America:
Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2008 divided by the number of graduating seniors. All of the schools on the list have an index of at least 1.000; they are in the top 6 percent of public schools measured this way. I was curious to see how our local schools stacked up. This year, twenty-eight Minnesota public high schools made the cut: 105 St. Louis Park 108 Edina 227 Southwest Minneapolis 491 St. Anthony Village 529 South Minneapolis 588 Eastview Apple Valley 630 Como Park St. Paul 640 Mahtomedi 734 Patrick Henry Minneapolis 744 Minnetonka 823 Lakeville North 833 Central St. Paul 912 Irondale New Brighton 939 Wayzata 954 Century Rochester 1045 Eden Prairie 1095 Simley Inver Grove Heights 1117 Moorhead 1120 Hopkins 1180 North St. Paul 1238 Stillwater Area 1258 South St. Paul 1270 Eagan 1279 Prior Lake 1309 Sibley West St. Paul 1398 Mounds View Arden Hills 1399 Robbinsdale Cooper New Hope 1475 Mankato West A couple of things from the list stand out. The first is that there are only three schools from outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area (which reflecting a nationwide pattern). The second is that it seems like most of the metro area high schools made the list. I don't know how many public high schools there are total in the metro area (a few minutes spent Googling for that number proved fruitless), but if twenty-five made the list it would almost seem more newsworthy to note those that didn't. Labels: Education Sunday, March 15, 2009
Just in case you weren't able to attend last week's "great conversation" at the taxpayer financed University of Minnesota--featuring Larry Jacobs, Walter Mondale, Seymour Hersh, and a crowd of sycophant sympathizers chortling about the evils of the Bush/Cheney regime--in person or listen to it broadcast on taxpayer supported Minnesota PUBLIC Radio the following day, word has it that MPR found the dialog so compelling that they're going to rebroadcast it tonight at 6pm. It's just a shame that there aren't more ways for the taxpayers of Minnesota to help chip in to spread the word about this terrific little chat.
I also understand that the next event in the U's "great conversations" series will feature Larry Jacobs, Vin Weber, and Mark Steyn discussing the perils of the Obama administration leading America down the path to Euro-statism. Ha, ha, ha. That would be the day. Labels: Education, Media-Local (08-09) Friday, March 13, 2009
Earlier this week at the University of Minnesota, a very special episode of their "Great Conversations" series:
Larry Jacobs, the University of Minnesota's Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the Center of the Study of Politics and Governance at the Humphrey Institute, and Walter Mondale, former Vice President of the United States, discuss America's constitutional crisisThe most overexposed pundit in Minnesota and the only man in history to lose an election in all 50 states, pontificating on politics for an hour? Sounds riveting. And a new definition of "great", I must say. Sorry I missed it. If the next "Great Conversation" is Denny Green and Brad Childress discussing the keys to winning in the NFL playoffs, count me in. Also of note are Professor Jacobs' titles: "Mondale Chair" and "Humphrey Institute Director" at the University of Minnesota. I suppose these are the most prominent local politicians we've got. If we must name our institutions and offices after the famous (or infamous), I guess that's what we're stuck with. (Warning to academics in future generations, before occupying the distinguished Al Franken Chair, you might want to check it for a whoopee cushion.) Yet I'm still concerned about the message this sends to the young, impressionable scholars we send to our premiere public university. Beyond even the psychological affliction of studying under the banner of two of the most famous losers in American political history. More importantly, there's the problem inherent in creating this crushing institutional endorsement of a political party. I submit to you that branding yourself as Democrat Party Incorporated will affect the scholarship produced by, and intellectual development of, the minds of mush we send there to be formed. It strains credulity to believe that pimply faced college students at the U will be equally likely to pursue conservative lines of thought and argument, knowing their work is being judged by the likes of the Mondale Chair at the Humphrey Institute. It's a subtle form of indoctrination and group think enforcement and it cannot stand. Top of mind suggestions of non-partisan names for the rebranding: The Jesse Ventura Chair for Political Egotism and Ignorance and the Center for the Study of Political Irrelevance at the Dean Barkley Institute. BONUS MATERIAL: Anti-intellectual jokes at the expense of my academic betters. Reviewing the list of other endowed chairs at the U, these caught my eye. From the College of Education and Human Development: Dorothy McNeill and Elbridge Ashcraft Tucker Chair for Women in Exercise Science and SportThe patriarchal tyranny evident in promoting women's exercise with a chair is appalling At the Institute of Technology: Harold Sweatt Chair in Technological LeadershipYou might want to wipe that one down before taking a seat! Finally, from the Medical School: University of Minnesota's Academic Chair in Sexual HealthAccording to what I've heard, this position requires one of the largest endowments on campus. Unfortunately, their entire press release reads as similarly low comedy: A group of sexual health advocates celebrated Coleman's appointment to the endowed position at an invitation-only reception.That sounds like the opening of an article about a raid by the vice squad. "With support from this endowed chair, I hope to further the Program in Human Sexuality's mission to create a sexually healthier world."All I can say is a chair like that must have a Magic Fingers option. Labels: Education Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Yesterday, President Obama unveiled his plans for education. To his credit, he talked about the need to reward good teachers and remove bad ones. And to expand charter schools. Neither proposal is all that bold or ground breaking, but at least he's willing to talk about subjects that Democrats--in deference to teachers unions--have usually refused to even bring to the table. However, I am still skeptical about his ability to turn this talk into concrete actions. Leaders with a far better record of reforming institutions--Rudy Giuliani for example--have found their best laid plans for school reform scuttled on the shoals of the entrenched educational bureaucracies and interest groups.
I also wonder if some of his other education plans are another case of misdiagnosing the real cause of the problem. To solve our economic problems, he claims the most important action is to control rising health care costs. But there's a lot of question whether that is actually the root of our current problem or the most pressing factor in our future economic growth. There's no dispute that our current education system is not delivering the results that we expect or need. Two of the proposals that President Obama revealed to improve the system are getting children into school sooner and having more people go to college. Again, I question whether these are really the right solutions to the problem. In regard to early childhood education, Mr. Obama seems to believe that weighing the benefits against the costs make it an open and shut case. Studies show that children in these programs are more likely to score higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job. For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly ten dollars back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health costs, and less crime. That is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act I signed into law invests $5 billion in growing Early Head Start and Head Start, expanding access to quality child care for 150,000 more children from working families, and doing more for children with special needs. And it is why we are going to offer 55,000 first-time parents regular visits from trained nurses to help make sure their children are healthy and prepare them for school and life. While it's true that there are many studies that demonstrate the benefits of ECE, there are also many studies that question the real impact. And some of the studies that are cited by ECE supporters don't hold up to rigorous analysis. The study cited by President Obama showing a 10 to 1 return on investment is one example: The research design simply "matched" children whose parents chose to participate in the CPC program with those who did not. It's not a random-assignment study, which means that subtle differences between the two groups--which can easily go undetected by survey responses, income data, and other rough measures --might explain all differences between the two populations. There is absolutely no way to determine if the program had an impact or the families who participated were different from those who did not participate. ECE might benefit some children in some circumstances. But it hasn't been proven to be the educational panacea that many of its supporters claim it to be. It's also worth asking again if one of the biggest reasons that our current system is failing is that children aren't going to school early enough. While it's not always reasonable (given demographic differences) to compare practices and results across countries, it is interesting to note that in Finland--a country that regularly kicks our butt as badly on educational testing as they do Nordic combined skiing--children typically don't start school until they are seven. Another widely held assumption repeated by Mr. Obama yesterday is that the more people we have graduate from college the better. The fifth part of America's education strategy is providing every American with a quality higher education--whether it's college or technical training. Never has a college degree been more important. And never has it been more expensive. At a time when so many of our families are bearing enormous economic burdens, the rising cost of tuition threatens to shatter dreams. That is why will simplify federal college assistance forms so it doesn't take a PhD to apply for financial aid. And that is why we are already taking steps to make college or technical training affordable. Now, he did mention college and technical training, but the emphasis in his plan--and, as near as I can tell, in the spending--is focused on college. I would argue that a greater problem facing the country is not that enough people don't go to college, but that there aren't enough viable alternatives available for those for whom college is not the best path. No one will argue that we need a better educated workforce in order to compete. But is the real problem that we don't have enough people going to college or that many of those who currently do graduate lack the skills, mindset, and capacity for critical thinking and problem solving that businesses require? Like putting more money in the system, simply putting more students into the top of college funnel doesn't do anything to change the product that comes out the bottom. Yes, his plan includes proposals to help more people stay in college to graduate, but there's not much about making sure they do so prepared for the challenging and competitive environment of the real world. Overall, the education plan unveiled yesterday is a mixed bag. Some rays of hope with merit pay, charter schools, and the need for parental responsibility: So, yes, we need more money. Yes, we need more reform. Yes, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for every dollar we spend. But there is one more ingredient I want to talk about. The bottom line is that no government policies will make any difference unless we also hold ourselves more accountable as parents. Because government, no matter how wise or efficient, cannot turn off the TV or put away the video games. Teachers, no matter how dedicated or effective, cannot make sure your children leave for school on time and do their homework when they get back at night. These are things only a parent can do. These are things that our parents must do. But continuing to focus on more of the same and sooner (both in terms of money and student participation) as the ultimate solutions to our education problems is not enough of a change from the past to convince me that he's interested in implementing real reform. Labels: Education Friday, November 07, 2008
We all have heard plenty of talk of late of the pernicious impact that "Big Oil" and "Big Pharma" (among others) have on our political process. These "special interest" groups use their money to influence the outcome of elections and seek to have policies implemented that benefit their members materially. It's described as an outrage against the very principals on which our democracy was founded.
Strangely enough, rarely do you hear people talking about the role that "Big Education" plays in politics. In Robbinsdale School District 281, we were faced with two school financing levy referendum questions on this year's ballot. Both passed: Question One Nonpartisan YES 30083 55.12 Nonpartisan NO 24490 44.88 Question Two Nonpartisan YES 28552 52.42 Nonpartisan NO 25913 47.58 As a result, homeowners in the district will see a rather substantial increase in their property taxes: The owner of a $245,000 home would pay an additional $18.50 in property tax per month ($15 for Question One and $3.50 for Question Two). The district would receive $632 in additional revenue for each student in the district. Eighteen fitty a month doesn't sound that bad on the surface, but over a year that's $222. And in a tough economic time with people struggling to pay their bills, that's a bite that many will feel. That's $18.50 a month that won't go to paying the mortgage, buying groceries, or investing in your kid's college fund. But as the Vote Yes for Robbinsdale Area Schools site reminds us, "Everyone Benefits." Not equally of course and as is usually the case when you're trying to figure who stands to gain the most, it helps to follow the money. This week's New Hope-Golden Valley Sun reported on the campaign finance reports filed by District 281 referendum groups: Campaign financial reports have been filed with Robbinsdale District 281 by the 281 C.A.R.E. Committee, which opposed the Nov. 4 referendum, and the Robbinsdale Area Schools "Vote Yes" committee, which supported it. Ron Stoffel of Crystal, treasurer of the C.A.R.E. committee, reported $375 in contributions to that group between Jan. 1 and Oct. 26 this year. The committee listed no donor names in its report. It listed expenditures of $758 for advertising, $38 for postage and $10.69 for fundraising, for a total of about $806. The group took in four hundo and spent eight. Truly a grassroots, shoe-string, citizen-lead operation. Meanwhile: The "Vote Yes" Committee's report, filed by John Heinrich of New Hope, reported total income of $22,613 between May 13 and Oct. 20 this year. That's over SIXTY times as much as the group that opposed the referendum. And they put that money to good use: The Vote Yes expenditures included $3,300 for database software setup and rental fees; $290 for banner, copies and post office box rental; $582 for T-shirts; $7,116 for lawn signs; $204 for phone bill; $75 for radio commercials; $500 for liability insurance; $57 for open house and phone bank expenses; and $3,622 for office rent in September and October. But you say, if the citizens of the district supported the measure, shouldn't they be able to support it with their dollars? Of course the should. Let's see who those citizens are: The largest contribution of $7,500 came from the Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers, the 1,800-member teachers' union in District 281. I guess the teachers' union cares so much about the children of the district that they dug deep and ponied up some of the precious money collected by their members' union dues. Their noble effort on behalf of the children almost brings a tear to the eye. How is this levy money going to be used to help the children anyway? Levy Question One--Asks voters to increase the existing $12.6 million levy by $7.6 million for a total of $20.2 million annually. Passage of question one would reduce class size by rehiring 30 teachers, partially restore after school activities and retain valuable programs, including band and orchestra at the elementary level and some art and athletic opportunities at the secondary level. Levy Question Two--This question can only pass if Question One passes. Asks for an additional $1.8 million dollars, bringing the total to $22 million annually. Passage of question two would further reduce class size by rehiring up to 10 more teachers and support accelerated implementation and staff training for the Strategic Plan goal to enrich academic achievement. Now someone of a more cynical bent might look at that and conclude that the teachers' union contribution to the vote yes campaign was nothing more than a self-serving effort to increase the group's membership, its power, and the amount of money that it will be receiving in dues from the additional teachers. But we know that this is all about the children and only a narrow-minded, anti-education, child-hating monster could thing otherwise. The teachers weren't the only ones looking after their vested interests: A contribution of $1,350 was reported from the District 281 Principals Association, as well as $1,000 from the Sunny Hollow Elementary School PTSO. Donations of $500 each were reported from Sonnesyn Elementary School PTSO, Pilgrim Lane Elementary School PTO and Sandburg Middle School PTSO, while a $250 contribution was listed from Noble Elementary School. It really warms my heart to know that these parent-teacher-student organizations could come together and voluntarily raise money that could be used to conduct a campaign whose end result will be to confiscate money from everyone else in the district that will then be used for their benefit. They really must care about the kids. Others happy to contribute to a cause so that their neighbors can be taxed more to support that cause include: School Board Member Tom Walsh of Plymouth donated $110; Assistant Superintendent Gayle Walkowiak contributed $300; and Jeff Dehler, the district's community relations program director, donated $150. Residents listed as donating money were John Appelen of Plymouth, $400; Stephen Hagstrom of New Hope, $350; Steve Lear of Plymouth, $500; and Mary McKoskey of Plymouth, $500. The great thing is that even though Mary McKoskey could only contribute five hundred dollars, thanks to the awesome taxing power of the government she has helped the schools reap millions of additional dollars. Her gift just keeps on taking and taking and taking. Funny that the people who talk about taking big money and special interests out of politics never seem to mention the eight-hundred pound education gorilla rampaging through neighborhoods throughout the country. Labels: Education Thursday, October 09, 2008
Regarding that sobering speech by David McCullough I referenced a couple of days ago, Jenny writes in with the find:
I think this is the CSPAN video of David McCullough you couldn't find. It last aired about a week ago. Powerful stuff from a favorite historian who knows the costs we pay for ignorance. You can also view the video in 2 segments here. Thanks for the good work. Those are the correct links to that remarkable speech, thanks Jenny. That second link directs to a site associated with the occasion of the McCullough's speech back in April, the official opening of the "Journey Through Hallowed Ground." Organized by the National Park Service, it is a tour through 65 of the historic sites of Northern Virginia's Piedmont region. A summary for those, like me, previously unfamiliar with this intense concentration of American history: The Northern Virginia Piedmont region is a scenic and historically rich landscape that has "soaked up more of the blood, sweat, and tears of American history than any other part of the country," according to the late historian C. Vann Woodward. "It has bred more founding fathers, inspired more soaring hopes and ideals and witnessed more triumphs, failures, victories, and lost causes than any other place in the country." Meandering through more than 75 miles and nine counties of Virginia hillside, U.S. Route 15 and State Route 20 form the spine of the Piedmont. This National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary explores 65 historic places that evoke in vivid detail the soldiers, statesmen, farmers, and slaves who fought, toiled, and governed in the Virginia Piedmont. Here is a listing of all sites features on the Journey. Really an astonishing and enticing collection of museums, battlefields, and landmarks associated with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and other events of historical importance. Featured are three Presidential estates, many other private residences notable persons, schools, churches, courthouses, and historic districts that were the settings for many critical events for the country. It all looks to be fun and educational for the entire family. There are a few sites that will be of particular interest to dear ol' Dad. Historic bars and taverns. Including: The Red Fox Inn - Where everyone is greeted with a chorus of "You big dummy!" Actually, it has nothing to do with that old guy from Sanford and Son, it predates him by a century or two: The Red Fox Inn was a meeting spot for Confederate Colonel John Mosby and his Rangers. A century later, President Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, held press conferences at the Red Fox in the Jeb Stuart room. Rawleigh Chinn, who originally owned the land on which Middleburg developed, reputedly built a tavern near this intersection in 1728. Madden's Tavern - No, it's not a football video game themed sports bar at the Mall of America. It's much, much more: This simple log structure is a rare relic of pre-Civil War black entrepreneurship in rural Virginia. Completed about 1840, the tavern was built by, owned, and operated by Willis Madden (1800-1879) a free black, and was likely the only tavern in the region with a proprietor of Madden's race. Virginia free blacks were able to earn and keep wages and to own and operate a business, but were forbidden to vote, bear arms, testify against a white person, or be educated. Madden built the tavern on property purchased in 1835 on the Old Fredericksburg Road. Boswell's Tavern - A landmark for travelers since Nicholas Johnson built its earliest section c.1735, this weatherboarded structure on the edge of the Green Springs Historic District is one of the state's time-honored rural taverns. It was purchased in 1761 by Johnson's brother-in-law, John Boswell, who served as proprietor until his death in 1788. A number of political figures, including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Madison frequented the tavern. It served as a headquarters for the Marquis de Lafayette in 1781. Can you imagine the pride any American would have in grabbing a seat at the bar, having a few dozen belts, and falling off the same barstool as Patrick Henry? (hic) Give me Leinenkugel's or give me death! (CRASH!) Caution, some of these "taverns" on the tour now appear to be private residences rather than active public houses for alcohol. But I bet if you asked the owners real nice for something to drink, they'd give you something for the effort. Either way, the "Journey Through Hallowed Ground" and now enters my top 10 future vacations list (and the tour of Joe Biden's Boyhood Home gets bumped back to 2019). Saturday, October 04, 2008
The liberal news site MinnPost celebrates this glimpse into the state of public education in Minneapolis:
When asked what historical figure they'd most like to study this year, an astounding 22 of the 35 students in Ms. Ellingham's eighth-grade history class at Susan B. Anthony middle school in Minneapolis answered, "Yoko Ono" and/or "John Lennon." I weep for the future. The great historian David McCullough was on C-SPAN this past week, looking like a beaten man while describing the crushing level of historical ignorance among America's youth. He summed up with the warning that one can never love a country one doesn't know. It sounded like an epitaph. I can't find the transcript of his comments online, but I did find his address upon accepting the National Book Award. The commentary is very similar. And all the more depressing to realize they were made in 1996. Please add the damage of 12 more years of lost time (an entire scholastic generation) to the following conclusions: We, in our time, are raising a new generation of Americans who, to an alarming degree, are historically illiterate. The situation is serious and sad. And it is quite real, let there be no mistake. It has been coming on for a long time, like a creeping disease, eating away at the national memory. While the clamorous popular culture races on, the American past is slipping away, out of site and out of mind. We are losing our story, forgetting who we are and what it's taken to come this far. Warning signals, in special studies and reports, have been sounded for years, and most emphatically by the Bradley Report of 1988. Now, we have the blunt conclusions of a new survey by the Education Department: The decided majority, some 60 percent, of the nation's high school seniors haven't even the most basic understanding of American history. The statistical breakdowns on specific examples are appalling. But I speak also from experience. On a winter morning on the campus of one of our finest colleges, in a lively Ivy League setting with the snow falling outside the window, I sat with a seminar of some twenty-five students, all seniors majoring in history, all honors students-the cream of the crop. "How many of you know who George Marshall was?" I asked. None. Not one. At a large university in the Midwest, a young woman told me how glad she was to have attended my lecture, because until then, she explained, she had never realized that the original thirteen colonies were all on the eastern seaboard. Who's to blame? We are. Everywhere in the country there are grade school and high school teachers teaching history who have had little or no history in their own education. Our school system, the schools we are responsible for, could rightly be charged with educational malpractice. If you happen to live in a school district asking for a raise this year (for example Minneapolis, looking for $480 million over 8 years), perhaps you should keep this and John Lennon in mind when deciding whether or not they have been proper stewards of your money. Labels: Education Friday, August 22, 2008
In today's WSJ, Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell write that universal pre-school is not all that it's cracked up to be:
In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s. Preschool activists at the Pew Charitable Trust and Pre-K Now -- two major organizations pushing universal preschool -- refuse to take this evidence seriously. The private preschool market, they insist, is just glorified day care. Not so with quality, government-funded preschools with credentialed teachers and standardized curriculum. But the results from Oklahoma and Georgia -- both of which implemented universal preschool a decade or more ago -- paint an equally dismal picture. A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia's universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee's preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade. What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids. Why don't preschool gains stick? Possibly because the K-12 system is too dysfunctional to maintain them. More likely, because early education in general is not so crucial to the long-term intellectual growth of children. Finland offers strong evidence for this view. Its kids consistently outperform their global peers in reading, math and science on international assessments even though they don't begin formal education until they are 7. Subsidized preschool is available for parents who opt for it, but only when their kids turn 6. More on the Finnish approach to education and its results is available here. Dalmia and Snell also note that there is some evidence that preschool may actually be bad for kids: If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool. Of course, there are selected groups of children who do benefit: The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful. The problem is thinking that since preschool helps these kids, it will help all children. The reality is that for most children the results of preschool are mixed at best. In far too many aspects of life today, children are pushed to grow up far too fast. Why should school be another one? Let kids just be kids for a while. There will be plenty of time for formal education later. Labels: Education Saturday, June 28, 2008
The problem with local school board referendums is that while you can occasionally band together with your fellow peasants to beat the beast back to its lair, you know that it's only a matter of time before it returns to terrorize your pocketbook. This is exactly what's now unfolding in
Robbinsdale District 281: Voters defeated a $9.7 million District 281 referendum in November 2007. Since then, the district has cut its 2008-09 budget by $5.4 million and is looking at another $6 million in cuts for 2009-10. The board made a preliminary decision to seek voter approval this fall at a work session June 9, following a presentation by Unite 281, a committee of parents who have collected 1,000 signatures from people supporting another chance to vote on a school referendum. This is a particularly revolting development (especially since I now live in District 281). The voters in the district rejected the referendum less than a year ago and now it's going to be back on the ballot again. One of the few good ideas that Jesse Ventura proposed was to not allow such referendums in "off" election years. This would have resulted in a better turnout from the citizens impacted by the referendum and also ensured that at least two years would pass between attempts. Meanwhile, residents of District 281 should get their pitchforks and torches ready. The beast is back. Labels: Education Monday, March 03, 2008
There was an interesting article in last Friday's Wall Street Journal that looked at the reasons behind the startling success of Finnish teenagers on international tests (sub req):
High-school students here rarely get more than a half-hour of homework a night. They have no school uniforms, no honor societies, no valedictorians, no tardy bells and no classes for the gifted. There is little standardized testing, few parents agonize over college and kids don't start school until age 7. Yet by one international measure, Finnish teenagers are among the smartest in the world. They earned some of the top scores by 15-year-old students who were tested in 57 countries. American teens finished among the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and rules. Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also waste hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to rap and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in math, science and reading--on track to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers. The Finns won attention with their performances in triennial tests sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group funded by 30 countries that monitors social and economic trends. In the most recent test, which focused on science, Finland's students placed first in science and near the top in math and reading, according to results released late last year. An unofficial tally of Finland's combined scores puts it in first place overall, says Andreas Schleicher, who directs the OECD's test, known as the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. The U.S. placed in the middle of the pack in math and science; its reading scores were tossed because of a glitch. About 400,000 students around the world answered multiple-choice questions and essays on the test that measured critical thinking and the application of knowledge. A typical subject: Discuss the artistic value of graffiti. The results are (or would be in anyone was paying attention) an acute embarrassment for the United States. We had our arses kicked by such notable education powerhouses as Liechtenstein, Estonia, Slovenia, and even...(gulp) Canada. It's probably lucky that there was a glitch in the reading scores as I don't imagine we would have fared well there either. A few notable tidbits from the story that caught my eye: Visitors and teacher trainees can peek at how it's done from a viewing balcony perched over a classroom at the Norssi School in Jyväskylä, a city in central Finland. What they see is a relaxed, back-to-basics approach. The school, which is a model campus, has no sports teams, marching bands or prom. In other words, nothing to distract students from what should be the real purpose of school: education. Fanny earns straight A's, and with no gifted classes she sometimes doodles in her journal while waiting for others to catch up. She often helps lagging classmates. "It's fun to have time to relax a little in the middle of class," Fanny says. Finnish educators believe they get better overall results by concentrating on weaker students rather than by pushing gifted students ahead of everyone else. The idea is that bright students can help average ones without harming their own progress. This is an interesting approach. In the US, there seems to be more concern with not having the best and brightest becoming bored than with maintaining a common pace for all students. Intuitively, I would suspect that the US method is superior although the Finnish results do raise questions. The Norssi School is run like a teaching hospital, with about 800 teacher trainees each year. Graduate students work with kids while instructors evaluate from the sidelines. Teachers must hold master's degrees, and the profession is highly competitive: More than 40 people may apply for a single job. Their salaries are similar to those of U.S. teachers, but they generally have more freedom. Finnish teachers pick books and customize lessons as they shape students to national standards. "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs," says Mr. Schleicher, of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student test in 2000. In the US, education too often feels like a Soviet tractor factory trying to meet its five year plan. One explanation for the Finns' success is their love of reading. Parents of newborns receive a government-paid gift pack that includes a picture book. Some libraries are attached to shopping malls, and a book bus travels to more remote neighborhoods like a Good Humor truck. Far too many children and adults in the US view reading as a chore. If there's one thing parents can do to help their children down the right educational path, it's to instill in them a love of reading. I don't know how much of its is nature versus nurture (can you really teach kids to love reading?), but I do know that if you wait for the schools to do it for you, it's more than likely going to be too late. Despite the apparent simplicity of Finnish education, it would be tough to replicate in the U.S. With a largely homogeneous population, teachers have few students who don't speak Finnish. In the U.S., about 8% of students are learning English, according to the Education Department. There are fewer disparities in education and income levels among Finns. But I thought diversity was our strength? Finland separates students for the last three years of high school based on grades; 53% go to high school and the rest enter vocational school. (All 15-year-old students took the PISA test.) Finland has a high-school dropout rate of about 4% -- or 10% at vocational schools -- compared with roughly 25% in the U.S., according to their respective education departments. Another big problem in the US is that too many people go to college. I don't know if I'd be real keen on this two-track path that the Finns (and many other countries) use to direct their students, but there has to be a better way to prepare those kids who don't want (or shouldn't want) to go to college for their post-high school life. Another difference is financial. Each school year, the U.S. spends an average of $8,700 per student, while the Finns spend $7,500. Finland's high-tax government provides roughly equal per-pupil funding, unlike the disparities between Beverly Hills public schools, for example, and schools in poorer districts. The gap between Finland's best- and worst-performing schools was the smallest of any country in the PISA testing. The U.S. ranks about average. A mixed bag here. This is where trying to compare a country the size of the United States with Finland really starts to become difficult. A better comparison might be between Finland and a state of similar size. A state like Minnesota perhaps, which spends about $8,600 a year per student. Unfortunately, we don't have test results to directly compare Minnesota students with their Finnish peers. However there is this comment from a WSJ.com Forum on the topic: Still, being a Finn myself, I don't think there is a wonder-drug for the US to take. Cultures are different, and having spent a year in Minnesota as a student, I regret to say that most Americans do not value education, only money. Probably more than a grain of truth to that. It's true that there aren't many lessons from Finland's educational success that are easily applicable in the United States. But there still may be a few things that we can take away from our Finnish friends. Taking away the competition of getting into the "right schools" allows Finnish children to enjoy a less-pressured childhood. While many U.S. parents worry about enrolling their toddlers in academically oriented preschools, the Finns don't begin school until age 7, a year later than most U.S. first-graders. Once school starts, the Finns are more self-reliant. While some U.S. parents fuss over accompanying their children to and from school, and arrange every play date and outing, young Finns do much more on their own. At the Ymmersta School in a nearby Helsinki suburb, some first-grade students trudge to school through a stand of evergreens in near darkness. At lunch, they pick out their own meals, which all schools give free, and carry the trays to lunch tables. There is no Internet filter in the school library. They can walk in their socks during class, but at home even the very young are expected to lace up their own skates or put on their own skis. Or I imagine carry their own hockey bags. Less pressure and more independence in childhood could not only help American children have better educational results, but better lives overall. Labels: Education Sunday, November 11, 2007
Richard John Neuhaus on the moral case for parental choice in education at FIRST THINGS:
But the moral case standing on its own is not enough to persuade the majority of voters. The moral case is focused on the plight of the disadvantaged, especially the urban underclass, mainly black and Latino, in our larger cities. Here in New York, as in other major cities, expenditure per student in the government schools has multiplied many times over, and still less than half the young people end up with a high school diploma they can read. A third of all black young men in the country will spend some time in jail. In the inner cities, that figure is well over half. The reality is that most parents in America are, wisely or not, more or less satisfied with the government schools that their children attend. They may have a twinge of conscience about their selfishness, but the teachers-union propaganda about vouchers taking money away from their own schools is powerfully effective. And, they understandably ask, whether caring about your own first is really selfishness or the exercise of parental responsibility. The brutal fact is that twinges of conscience can be easily stifled when they come up against self-interest. Labels: Education Wednesday, November 07, 2007
From today's Star Tribune:
Only one of the three levies on Stillwater's ballot passed -- a $927-per-pupil levy that will replace the district's expiring levy. The other measures would have combined to reduce class sizes by an average of 2.3 students and fund a curriculum review. That should warm Saint Paul's pocketbook. I'm sure he would have liked to have a clean sweep, but beating back two of the three levies should still be considered a victory. Especially since levies in many other areas passed. Out of 341 districts in the state, 99 were going to voters for more money. That's the second-most in recent history, trailing only 2001. Many schools were treating this year's results as critical to the future of their school programs. Some districts were poised to either reap tens of millions in new tax dollars or be forced to make drastic cuts. As results came in, winners seemed to outnumber losers. The Associated Press was reporting 47 districts with at least one victory, compared with 27 defeats. Some with multiple questions had split verdicts. Interesting to note that the labels "winners" and "losers" were applied to the districts, not to the taxpayers who actually pay for the levies. I'm pretty sure that Saint Paul considers himself a winner this morning. SP ADDS: As with nuclear war, with the modern, teacher's union-driven school bond referendum, there are no winners, only losers. If a majority of the voting citizens somehow overcome the crushing institutional PR campaign and manage to vote them down, the administration and school board are hell bent to make the students and community suffer. If these things pass, its more forced takings by the government and a validation of the notion that 10K per pupil funding wasn't enough and paying 50% of your income in total taxes is insufficient. Which means we'll probably be hearing more whining and threats from the "Yes to Kids!" crowd well before this new levy expires. More evidence of loss, a "polarized" community (I love to use that term like a liberal, as a bludgeon against those who win elections yet are supposed to do what the losers want instead). The one levy that passed was still rejected by 47% of the community. Finally, the one levy that passed in Stillwater was the monster - $64 million. My pocket book feels no warmth at having to only fund that one. The other two were much smaller and completely gratuitous money grabs. I suspect they were only added as cover for the first one. It allowed some of those Stillwaterians who were leaning against the school district's enormous and deceptive money demands to vote "no" on these obvious gravy boats and feel fiscally responsible, while still voting for the "replacement" levy. Problem is, the replacement is twice as large as the expiring levy. "Replacing" $32 million with $64 million. Only in government. The Elder Piles On: I apologize for declaring victory too soon. It sounds like the most egregious money grab for Saint Paul's wallet did indeed succeed. On Monday on MPR, I heard one of the Stillwater levy proponents describe the vote as "do or die." I guess education in Stillwater is not dead after all. In the same MPR piece, they made highlighted the fact that of the 99 districts asking for more money, something like ten or twelve faced organized opposition to the levies as if that were note worthy. What should be note worthy (and sad) is that the vast majority of districts once again faced no organized opposition at all. Of course, those districts whose taxpayers have the gall to get together, stand up, and cry "No mas!" whine that it's not fair. From the same Strib story: The Robbinsdale school district faced another challenge. Iowa-based anti-tax consultant Paul Dorr, who has built a reputation by helping to defeat levy and bond requests in five Midwestern states, had been enlisted by levy opponents to help defeat the district's request. Dorr, who circulated anti-levy fliers to district residents, apparently turned the tide. With results all in, voters rejected the district's proposal to extend the current $13.1 million-a-year levy and add $9.7 million in levy funds a year over the next decade. District Superintendent Stan Mack attributed the loss to the "Dorr factor," which included blizzarding district residents with mailings and phone calls on the last days before the vote. Blizzarding district residents with mailings and phone calls? Sounds pretty much like what nearly every district does to push its residents to vote yes to levies. Throw in notes sent home with children, yard signs, and using local media at every opportunity to get their message across and groups that oppose levies pretty much have to bring in people like Dorr just to compete on an equal playing field. UPDATE-- Paul e-mails to really pile on: I awoke this morning to a beautiful day in the Robbinsdale school district. The birds were singing and the sun was shining and my wallet was safe, at least until they call a special election in February when the seniors are down south. I enjoyed your comments on the levy (it was much easier to enjoy when the massive increase is not in my district). However, I would have liked it if you included the paragraph of the Strib story where the Robbinsdale superintendant called me and fellow "no" voters racists. I'd also like to inform you that I never received a phone call, flyer or mailing from anyone advocating a "no" vote. I know they had that chili dinner rally, but that was funded at less than $20 per person, so any activity by consultants on the anti-levy side must have been minimal, unlike the glossy mailing that I got from the school district. Oh wait, I guess that was neutral since it just laid out the "facts," at least as our race-baiting superintendant sees them. Finally, I knew it was a good sign when I saw a dozen blue-hairs at my polling place yesterday. As far as school levys go, I'm in favor of high voter turnout. UPDATE II-- Derek has more on the vote in Robbinsdale at Freedom Dogs. (Be sure to read the comments.) SP CONSOLES HIMSELF: Sisyphus reminds us in Stillwater why we should be glad to pay more for our government schools. Labels: Education Thursday, October 11, 2007
Better get ready for an update to JFK's book, because we have another local profile in courage that should be noted for posterity. St. Thomas Changes Mind, Will Invite Tutu To Speak:
(AP) Minneapolis Saying that his earlier decision was wrong, University of St. Thomas President Dennis Dease said Wednesday that he would be proud to invite Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu to speak at the St. Paul school. In a letter to students, faculty and staff, Dease said he had good intentions when he originally decided not to invite Tutu because of worries that Tutu's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would offend the Jewish community. But Dease said Wednesday that he didn't have all the facts at that time, though he didn't elaborate. Let me get this straight: St. Thomas decided to invite Tutu. Then, after being pressured, they decided that that decision was wrong, so they disinvited him. Now, after being pressured again, they've decided that the decision to disinvite Tutu was wrong. I don't think the problem was that Dease didn't have all the facts. The problem was (and is) that he doesn't have any back as in bone. At least we can all rest easy knowing that this decision by President Dease is final. Until someone else protests and he changes his mind again. Labels: Education Monday, November 14, 2005
The inimitable Vox Day has a new column today where he gets to the heart of the goals of public education and it aint readin', ritin' or rithmetic'.
California parents are reeling from the recent decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which asserts that parents' have no right to control how the public schools educate their children. In Texas, parents are angrily protesting their children being medicated by school personnel against their wishes. However, these despicable actions should come as a surprise only to the ignorant - who are clearly the great majority - since only an ignoramus or a fool would voluntarily pass his children through the pagan fires of the public schools. I strongly agree with that last sentence. It amazes me how many seemingly smart people are completely unaware of what happens in the public schools (and yes, that does include the one in YOUR neighborhood). Listen to (local talk show host) Soucheray any day and there will inevitably be some guy calling in from Shoreview or wherever that is indignant that his son/daughter is being taught any number of lies stemming from an aggressive secular humanist agenda. I just want to ask these people what they think conservatives have been talking about all these years. I'm afraid these people suffer from what I call the "MOR Putz" syndrome. This syndrome is characterized by a unexamined faith in always trying to find the middle ground of issues--of always looking for the Middle Of the Road. "Yeah," they say to themselves, "maybe those conservatives are right in their criticism of the schools, but then again they DO sound kind of angry, so maybe there's something wrong with them. Oh well, who knows. Off to the public schools Brandon". This defaulting to whatever the popular culture throws their way (In But Not Of anyone?) makes for great problems down the road when they actually wake up and realize what they are condemning their children to. What's that you say? You'd just love to send your kids to private school, but dang it, you just can't afford it? Sorry Charlie, no sale. What kind of cars do you drive? How big is your house? Where did you vacation this year? I flat out reject the affordability excuse when many people are living the lifestyles that were once only afforded to CEOs, business owners or government employees. If I sound preachy, deal with it. This issue isn't going away. The only people that should have their kids in public schools are leftists who actually believe in and agree with the secular humanist agenda. If you aren't one and don't, then you have to ask yourself one question: Are you an ignoramus or a fool? Labels: Education Tuesday, October 18, 2005
This Saturday, we will welcome Marcus Winters, contributor to Education Myths : What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn't So, to the Northern Alliance Radio Network show. The books lists eighteen education myths and, to warm up for the appearance, I'm going to post three a day through Saturday. Here's four through six:
The Class Size Myth--"Schools should reduce class sizes; small classes would produce big improvements." The Certification Myth--"Certified or more experienced teachers are substantially more effective." The Teacher Pay Myth--"Teachers are badly underpaid." Stay tuned for more throughout the week. Labels: Education, NARN (04-05) Monday, October 17, 2005
This Saturday, we will welcome Marcus Winters, contributor to Education Myths : What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn't So, to the Northern Alliance Radio Network show. The books lists eighteen education myths and, to warm up for the appearance, I'm going to post three a day through Saturday. Here's the first three:
The Money Myth--"Schools perform poorly because they need more money." The Special Ed Myth--"Special education programs burden public schools, hindering their academic performance." The Myth of Helplessness--"Social problems like poverty cause students to fail; schools are helpless to prevent it." Stay tuned for more throughout the week. Labels: Education, NARN (04-05) Friday, May 20, 2005
This year, the Center of the American Experiment celebrates its fifteenth anniversary and last night they did it up right at their 2005 Annual Dinner at the RiverCentre in Saint Paul. Rudy Giuliani was the key note speaker and the former mayor of New York City did not disappoint. I hope to have time for a more in-depth post on last night's event later, but for now let me note one of Rudy's most interesting revelations. During his stint as mayor, he challenged the city's most powerful unions in order to push the reforms needed to turn New York around. The police unions, the fire unions, the city workers unions, health care unions. You name 'em, he took 'em on and dragged them kicking and screaming along with his plans that revitalized a city previously thought to be on an irreversible decline.
All except one. Giuliani admitted that the one area that he was unable to make any real progress in New York City was education. This was the man who stared down drug dealers, Mafia bosses, and the hostile New York media. The man who pared back the New York City welfare rolls, dramatically reduced crime, and made the Big Apple livable again. The man who emerged unbowed, defiant, and resolute following the horrific attacks on 9/11. This man finally met his match when he went up against one of the most powerful, well organized, deeply entrenched organizations in the world. Rudy Giuliani could not overcome the resistance of the teachers unions. But if there is to be any hope for reforming public education in the United States, these unions must not be allowed to continue to control the agenda. Their hegemony over public education must be ended and they must be held to account for their role in the decline of American educational standards and achievement. A great way to take the first steps to making this happen is to support groups like Parents for Truth in Education: We're two parents in the town of Fort Collins, Colorado. Next week we go head-to-head with the teachers unions in court, and we desperately need to get the word out about our cause. We filed a legal complaint against our local union for violating election law last year. In our first hearing, the union's motion to dismiss was rejected and we managed to get the statewide Colorado Education Association and the local school district enjoined as co-defendants. We go to trial next week. Our legal complaint states that the union illegally conducted blatant campaign operations during school hours and using school resources. Teachers even complained --in writing-- about the campaign demands on their time. The local and state teachers unions, working through the schools, used district resources to recruit volunteers, organize meetings, and offer inducements to volunteers on behalf of Bob Bacon's campaign for State Senate. This was done using school resources during school hours by school employees. We are seeking injunctive relief, meaning that our suit could re-write election law and force teachers unions to change how they do business in the future. This could be the little lawsuit that significantly alters the balance of power in Colorado politics. We created Parents for Truth in Education, and we quickly put up a website at www.parentsfortruth.com so we can accept PayPal contributions. Without significant financial help, we will not be able cover our legal fees. We need money, and we need it immediately. You can read more about their case here, here, and here. This fight is taking place in Colorado, but it's more than a local issue. It's about the future of education in America. The future of the country itself. Take the first step and help Parents for Truth in Education in their struggle against the power of the teachers unions. Let's win this one for Rudy. Labels: Education Friday, October 22, 2004
John Kerry's rally in the Metrodome parking lot yesterday is being hailed as one of the largest in state history. The Kerry campaign's estimate was 30,000. Inflated as that might be by spin, the pictures attest it was an impressively proportioned seething mob.
Big attendance and the pictures provided are the real point of these events. If you can portray an outpouring of genuine support and revved up excitement for a candidate, the independent swing voter might just be swayed. Because deep in his heart, all he really wants to do is support a winner. It's the bandwagon effect and this is partly why polls taken days after an election asking voters "who did you vote for?" typically result in the margin of victory for the winner far exceeding the actual vote tally. Believe it or not, sometimes the press even helps out in creating the impression of a chosen candidate as Mr. Excitement. For example, the Star Tribune's breathless headline today "Kerry Ignites Dome Crowd" and the objective description provided by the professional journalist on hand was: Tens of thousands of fans roared their way through an amped-up 34-minute version of the Massachusetts senator's stump speech. This Kerry fellow does sound like he's some sort of Magic Man. From that description, even I may have to consider voting for him. But I hope his chances aren't hurt by voters confusing him with that other John Kerry. You know, that aristocratic, moribund Democrat we've seen on TV for the past 20 years. Perhaps the Democratic partisans were really as fired up as the press reports. By their own "Anybody But Bush" philosophy, their standards for excitement are remarkably low. They'd probably be just as jazzed for an appearance by someone as coma inspiring as Walter Mondale. (Oh. Never mind.) This is the point that is missed in the press reports. The crowd was almost exclusively comprised of rabid partisans. No one was there with an open mind or drawn there on the basis of Kerry's magnetism. The crowd is there to play the game as much as the candidate is. He pretends he's the fresh new voice of optimism and excitement and progress, they pretend they're reasonable, intelligent voters who've conscientiously weighed the issues and realized this man is what the country needs. And it all looks good on TV and in the quotes provided to the newspaper. Things like: Kerry ignited thousands of supporters, many of whom waited outside the Metrodome in a light drizzle and steady winds for more than two hours. "We need change and we need help and I think he brought that to us tonight," said Marlys Fox, 43, of Columbia Heights. Getting back to the alleged record crowd for Kerry, I wonder how much of the turn out was due to another event, conveniently being held at the same time. The teacher's union convention started yesterday in St. Paul. These days they call themselves Education Minnesota and their convention is their annual gratuitous demonstration of power to the people of Minnesota. Instead of holding their meetings sometime over their three month break during the summer, they shut down the entire public school system in the middle of the school year. By their own estimates (which again should be looked on with suspicion) 10,000 - 12,000 professional educators attend. This out of their entire membership of 70,000. So the education system grinds to a halt so 17% of the membership can attend a union meeting, while the rest enjoy a nice four day weekend at taxpayer's expense. Showing once again, being a monopoly is good work if you can get it. I wonder how many in the crowd yesterday were teachers, fresh from their Excel Center meetings and seminars. Or simply teachers who had the day off, and no work the next day either, thus allowing them the luxury of taking hours to participate in a political rally on what is a work night for everyone else. There's no direct evidence to support this speculation (the local press sure isn't on it), but the teacher's union unyielding support for the Democrats is well established. According to George Will: one in 10 delegates to the Democratic [National] convention was a member of a teachers union According to Free Republic (via the AP), the 2.7 million member national teacher's union (NEA): ... has never endorsed a Republican for president and typically spends $9 out of every $10 it raises on Democrats. All of that money, by the way, provided by YOU. From your property taxes to teachers' salaries to the union to the campaign of John Kerry. Yet another reason to demand school choice - defund the Left! For these reasons, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume the Metrodome parking lot last night was lousy with teachers. But in actuality, they didn't even need to go to Minneapolis to participate in a partisan political rally. There was plenty of that going on at their convention. Flash from Centrisity was there: Bob Woodward was the keynote speaker at the Education Minnesota convention. I was fortunate enough to make it in time to get a nice center aisle seat, 5 rows from the front. He opened to a standing ovation, receiving a warm greeting from a crowd who wasn't really sure what he was going to share. He waved us down stating "Please sit down, it's not that good", which was greeted with a room full of chuckles. Giving a newspaper reporter a standing ovation is a bit much (which even Woodward seemed to realize). But never underestimate the love of this crowd toward those who helped bring down a Republican. The Education Minnesota promotion of the Woodward appearance tends to support this: Woodward first gained national attention when, as a young investigative reporter for the Washington Post, he teamed up with Carl Bernstein to investigate the burglary at the Watergate office building that eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Bravo! Bravo! Sure, maybe they were only applauding that whole 'speaking truth to power' thing. If so, I expect Matt Drudge to get a standing ovation for instigating the Clinton impeachment, next time he's invited to address Education Minnesota. More from the Flash at the convention: This spiel was no rah rah speech like those that preceded his keynote. Prior to him, both Senator Mark Dayton and Garrison Keillor pumped up the crowd in a 'Political Forum' While it's good to see Mark Dayton has crawled out from his concrete bunker to make a public appearance, the whole idea of a "Political Forum" during a public employee union meeting, featuring a shameless hack like Garrison Keillor, is a little depressing. Remember, these are the people taking your tax dollars, demanding more and more every year, so they can turn around and give millions to John Kerry's campaign. Who knows how much more of your money they spent on Bob Woodward's and Garrison Keillor's speaking fees. Good citizens, these are the people teaching your kids! At least they will be on Monday. Remember, they have today off too. Labels: Education, Politics-National (02-04) Monday, September 23, 2002
From the Sunday Star Tribune, a description of the salary and benefits of the executives from Education Minnesota, the teacher's trade union in Minnesota:
[President Judy] Schaubach is the big cigar, with annual pay of $128,648, 7 percent more than the governor. Executive Director Larry Wicks makes nearly the same, and the next three top officers average $114,232. The union also pays Cadillac benefits: dental coverage and 100 percent health care coverage, a matching 401(k) plan and separate pension. And under a company car program that Wicks describes as money-saving, more than 50 officers, managers and high-mileage staff members drive a union-purchased sedan. The top officers ride in Buick LeSabres. Staff members who drive more than 10,000 miles a year for work get a Ford Taurus. The in-between car is a Chevy Impala. Given the the constant cry from the education bureaucracy that we're not doing enough for the children (even despite massive increases in funding over the last 10 years), doesn't all that seem a tad excessive? Especially considering that all union administration and activities are funded via teacher's salaries--which are 100% a public expenditure via tax dollars--doesn't this actually seem borderline criminal--at least by the standards that are being applied to private corporations right now? The text of the article in the Strib was reasonably balanced, but for a subtle example of media bias, check out the graphics used to illustrate the two lobbying groups profiled. First Education Minnesota. Now the Freedom Club (a private organization of business and community leaders ). Which group do you feel is better for the average Minnesotan--the racially and gender diverse multitude marching forward (toward a brighter tomorrow, no doubt), or the three white businessmen in suits, huddled together in a congratulatory embrace, literally dwarfing some poor, little family (with a dominant mother figure)? My only surprise is that they didn't somehow work in cartoons of obese cats wearing tuxedos and lighting their cigars with twenty dollar bills. Labels: Education
|
TALK O' THE TOWN 
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 3pm on AM 1280-The Patriot:
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
