This timeless piece could have been written today, the mantra of lack of money continues to be the excuse of public schools today. Their problem is reckless spending and lack of accountability. Lack of money is an excuse and not the answer. Many schools are asking for money on March 21, 2006. We must continue to vote down referenda and demand real reform from our legislators. It is time to end tenure, it is time demand results from our public education system and it is time for legislators to stop bowing to every demand of the teacher's unions, service unions and administrators of our public schools. Legislators are to represent all of the people of Illinois not just the special interests groups.
Money As An Excuse, Not An Answer
The Blum Center for Parental Freedom in Education
David W. Kirkpatrick On School Choice, No. 18, January, 1997
By David W. Kirkpatrick
Opponents of school choice, and other basic reforms of public schools, not only argue against real change but generally maintain that what is needed is more money. While no school can operate without funds that does not prove that more money will suffice.
Not that money isn't required, or that teachers shouldn't receive decent salaries, or that some classes may not be too big. But satisfying these needs, if that is possible, cannot and will not do the job, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated.
There are some 15,000 school districts in the nation, ranging from a few students to the million or so in New York City. They also range from districts that are very poor and could effectively use more money to some that spend more than $20,000 per year per pupil. Yet, whatever their size or budget, where is the district that says it has enough money or, wonder of wonders, that says it is spending too much?
Significantly, apologists for the status quo rarely attempt to cite instances where money has led to noteworthy achievement gains, much lower dropout rates, or other proof that money alone works. Nor do they say how much is needed, other than "more."
The standard answers to the present system's faults have been tried and have failed. Incomprehensibly, there are those who should know this who continue to advocate more of the same.
A generation ago John Henry Martin put the platitudes to the test. He was the superintendent of a school district which supported a budget increase of 35%, making possible many changes that are supposed to make for efficient schools and effective education.
Average class size went from over thirty pupils to about twenty. Specialists of all kinds were hired or increased in number: guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, classroom aides, and remedial teachers. Two full-time remedial reading teachers were assigned to each elementary school in which the average enrollment was 600 pupils.
Teachers with advanced degrees were hired, the curriculum was updated, an extensive in-service program for teachers was initiated, a teacher council was chosen by secret ballot, and dozens of other reforms were introduced. After two years, outside evaluators were hired to assess the results. Students took achievement tests, with the results analyzed by class size, teacher age and experience, and the student's race, sex and family income.
In his 1972 book, Free To Learn, co-authored with Charles H. Harrison, Martin reported, "In the end, the cherished faith died...all that was done to make a difference had made no difference. The panaceas were, after all, only false promises--vain expectations. All the patented prescriptions...that made such a grand appearance in the college textbooks had failed the hard test of reality in the field."
At about the same time, in 1970, former Berkeley, California school superintendent Neil Sullivan told a U.S. Senate committee that his district had also lowered class size, provided remedial teachers, and the like, only to conclude three years later that inner city children had actually lost ground.
One of the most extensive and, given the source, one of the more important tests of the money theory was New York City's More Effective Schools (MES) program, initiated and supported by the New York local of the American Federation of Teachers, begun by the district with much fanfare in the 1960s. Because of the great costs it was introduced into only a handful of the 1,000 or so schools in the district.
MES could more properly have been termed the More Expensive Schools Program, because that was its principal distinction. It succeeded in spending great sums of money, but not in gaining added academic achievement by students.
It was also evaluated and found wanting, despite smaller classes (a teacher-pupil ratio of less than one to twelve), more experienced teachers, greater per-pupil expenditures, better facilities, compensatory education efforts, and all the rest. In only four of twenty-one schools did students average reading at grade level, and these schools contained mostly middle-class white students. The background of the students again appeared far more important than anything the schools did.
Even if MES had worked, a teacher-pupil ratio of one to twelve would not be replicable. Nationwide that would require some 3,750,000 teachers, over a million more than are currently in the schools, an obvious fiscal impossibility. But MES didn't work, and, in the mid-seventies it was ended, with much less fanfare than accompanied its introduction.
This information has been available for years, and has been publicized from time to time, including in my book, Choice in Schooling, published at the beginning of this decade. Yet it is largely ignored or forgotten. Even those who argue that just spending more money is not the answer often do so rhetorically without citing the ample evidence supporting their view.
Many urban districts that are in desperate shape educationally are among the nation's most expensive. Despite spending as much as $10,000 per year per pupil some cannot even maintain clean and safe schools. As Cleveland reportedly does, they may pay custodians as much as $80,000 per year while students have textbooks that are decades old. They then use the deterioration of the buildings, for which they are responsible, as an argument for more money.
Perhaps nowhere is the failure of money more evident than in the ongoing saga of Kansas City, Missouri. Federal district Judge Russell G. Clark took control of the district in the mid-1980s and ordered the state to give the district virtually a blank check.
He accepted the professional educators argument that money could make a difference, and if they were given enough of it they could transform the district, even raise test scores to state averages in about five years. (NOTE: the establishment wants several years to test its reforms, but demands that projects they don't like be declared failures and discontinued if they don't show immediate gains.)
In the decade since then more than 1.6 billion extra dollars have been spent on the fewer than 40,000 students, or about $40,000 extra per pupil. State officials argue that they have been forced to spend 45% of the state's education funds on the 9% of the state's students who are in Kansas City.
As Paul Ciotti noted in the Philadelphia Inquirer last August, "...in the new magnet schools were an Olympic-size swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, a robotics lab, professional quality recording...and animation studios, theaters, a planetarium, arboretum, zoo, a mock court with a judge's chamber and jury deliberation room and a model United Nations with simultaneous language translation." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" did a feature presentation on the topic.
The result?
Minority enrollment in the district has increased to 77%, achievement rates have not gone up, the large gap in scores between blacks and the district's few remaining whites continues, while dropout rates are said to have gone up to 55% and are still rising.
In short, "all that was done to make a difference had made no difference." Despite all the changes that money could buy the situation has worsened.
At last, the U.S. Supreme Court, reacting to an appeal from Missouri officials, has directed Judge Clark to modify his approach. It remains to be seen what benefit that will have for students, not to mention teachers, parents, and taxpayers.
The forecast here is that the outlook is grim unless the system is opened up through the introduction of meaningful reforms, including full school choice, that permit the creativity and intelligence of individual teachers, parents and students to be utilized.
Democracy rests on the belief that people make better decisions for themselves than others will make for them, but everyone seems not to have gotten the word. According to Nicole Garnett, writing about the school choice program in Milwaukee in the December 30, 1996/January 6, 1997 issue of The Weekly Standard, although 96% of the students in the program are minorities, and the local African-American newspaper, the Community Journal, reports 90% of the black community supports the program, the Milwaukee National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), argues against its expansion, saying "African Americans and other racial minorities especially benefit from implementation of uniformity of educational opportunity by a government official."
Unbelievable!
But arguing for more money has one seldom-recognized benefit for the educational establishment. When they fail to make progress they have a ready answer: we weren't given enough money!
Money As An Excuse, Not An Answer
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
A few words on accountability.
Reform is not rocket science is the motto of Charles E. Breiling is a teacher in Philadelphia and host of www.reformk12.com. The piece below is taking in part from his BLOG.
Schools are No Different: The preceding four paragraphs were a defense of the status quo, and we don't believe them for a second. Sure, they have elements of the truth, but they gloss over the important parts, concealing the cold reality: accountability for failure is possible with schools.
If Johnny was never taught fractions, what did Johnny do in 4th grade math? Who was his math teacher and why was Johnny passed on to the next grade? If Suzie has only 6th grade skills, but is a sophomore in high school, why was she promoted repeatedly above her level of scholarship? Who were the principals of the schools which permitted that?
Schools can claim "we have no idea how that happened" but this is really a lazy way of saying "we haven't paid any attention." Being that education is a process that is people-centric (as opposed to an engineering analysis of structures and forces), this means we need to examine people.
There is a Better Way: The solution is a universal system of standardized testing, which we call ATESLA: Annual Testing for Every Student, with Longitudinal Analysis, (which we've discussed before). Simply stated, instead of having several widely-spaced standardized tests, some of which are "high stakes," test every kid every year, so that there is no excuse for not knowing that failure exists. Longitudinal analysis will permit measurement of the year-to-year growth of student skills.
In addition to universal testing, the names of a student's teachers, along with subjects taught, need to be part of a student's record. This is extremely controversial, tying teachers' names with student records. Real accountability, down to the level of individual teachers, is simply not done in today's big-city school districts, which can depend on the sheer size of the district to provide a level of anonymity for teachers.
For example, American Idol winner Fantasia Barrino, who dropped out of school after 9th grade, revealed that she's functionally illiterate. Sure, she didn't graduate from high school, but what we want to know is who taught her in Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade, along with all the rest of her teachers who promoted her every year without teaching her to read.
These teachers have names, along with their principal.
You want accountability? Measure students every year, and start taking names.
To view the preceding four paragraphs of the BLOG click here.
Schools are No Different: The preceding four paragraphs were a defense of the status quo, and we don't believe them for a second. Sure, they have elements of the truth, but they gloss over the important parts, concealing the cold reality: accountability for failure is possible with schools.
If Johnny was never taught fractions, what did Johnny do in 4th grade math? Who was his math teacher and why was Johnny passed on to the next grade? If Suzie has only 6th grade skills, but is a sophomore in high school, why was she promoted repeatedly above her level of scholarship? Who were the principals of the schools which permitted that?
Schools can claim "we have no idea how that happened" but this is really a lazy way of saying "we haven't paid any attention." Being that education is a process that is people-centric (as opposed to an engineering analysis of structures and forces), this means we need to examine people.
There is a Better Way: The solution is a universal system of standardized testing, which we call ATESLA: Annual Testing for Every Student, with Longitudinal Analysis, (which we've discussed before). Simply stated, instead of having several widely-spaced standardized tests, some of which are "high stakes," test every kid every year, so that there is no excuse for not knowing that failure exists. Longitudinal analysis will permit measurement of the year-to-year growth of student skills.
In addition to universal testing, the names of a student's teachers, along with subjects taught, need to be part of a student's record. This is extremely controversial, tying teachers' names with student records. Real accountability, down to the level of individual teachers, is simply not done in today's big-city school districts, which can depend on the sheer size of the district to provide a level of anonymity for teachers.
For example, American Idol winner Fantasia Barrino, who dropped out of school after 9th grade, revealed that she's functionally illiterate. Sure, she didn't graduate from high school, but what we want to know is who taught her in Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade, along with all the rest of her teachers who promoted her every year without teaching her to read.
These teachers have names, along with their principal.
You want accountability? Measure students every year, and start taking names.
To view the preceding four paragraphs of the BLOG click here.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Real results, not effort
Another great letter to the editor we need more citizens speaking up for our children and their future. Bravo!
Real results, not effort
[published on Sat, Jan 21, 2006 in the Northwest Herald]
To the Editor:
Peter Krallitsch wrote Jan. 13, "I suggest that we get back to basics and set teachers salaries based on results, not based on union demands."
Hear, hear! It's about time someone sees and says the truth.
In the "real world," there is no such thing as tenure.
In nearly every job (besides teaching), little credit is given for past results. The job world is one of, "What have you done for me lately?" Performance evaluations, pay increases, etc., are based on the most recent results.
Even if one has been an exemplary employee for 10 years and has a year with little or no effective results, that employee likely will face disciplinary action, and perhaps even lose his or her job.
Employment in the "real world" depends on results, not effort or execution.
Why should our posterity, our most cherished and important life investments, be entrusted to those unwilling to step up and prove their results?
Why should anyone be able to maintain a job, despite sinking results, simply because he or she has held a position for a given time period? It's nonsense.
I say: "Prove it. Show me the money."
John Vales
Crystal Lake
Real results, not effort
[published on Sat, Jan 21, 2006 in the Northwest Herald]
To the Editor:
Peter Krallitsch wrote Jan. 13, "I suggest that we get back to basics and set teachers salaries based on results, not based on union demands."
Hear, hear! It's about time someone sees and says the truth.
In the "real world," there is no such thing as tenure.
In nearly every job (besides teaching), little credit is given for past results. The job world is one of, "What have you done for me lately?" Performance evaluations, pay increases, etc., are based on the most recent results.
Even if one has been an exemplary employee for 10 years and has a year with little or no effective results, that employee likely will face disciplinary action, and perhaps even lose his or her job.
Employment in the "real world" depends on results, not effort or execution.
Why should our posterity, our most cherished and important life investments, be entrusted to those unwilling to step up and prove their results?
Why should anyone be able to maintain a job, despite sinking results, simply because he or she has held a position for a given time period? It's nonsense.
I say: "Prove it. Show me the money."
John Vales
Crystal Lake
Friday, January 20, 2006
Most College Students Insufficiently Literate
Study: Most College Students Insufficiently Literate
Thursday, January 19, 2006
WASHINGTON — Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.
Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.
More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.
That means they could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school.
The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips.
"It is kind of disturbing that a lot of folks are graduating with a degree and they're not going to be able to do those things," said Stephane Baldi, the study's director at the American Institutes for Research, a behavioral and social science research organization.
Most students at community colleges and four-year schools showed intermediate skills, meaning they could perform moderately challenging tasks. Examples include identifying a location on a map, calculating the cost of ordering office supplies or consulting a reference guide to figure out which foods contain a particular vitamin.
There was brighter news.
Overall, the average literacy of college students is significantly higher than that of adults across the nation. Study leaders said that was encouraging but not surprising, given that the spectrum of adults includes those with much less education.
Also, compared with all adults with similar levels of education, college students had superior skills in searching and using information from texts and documents.
"But do they do well enough for a highly educated population? For a knowledge-based economy? The answer is no," said Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, an independent and nonpartisan group.
"This sends a message that we should be monitoring this as a nation, and we don't do it," Finney said. "States have no idea about the knowledge and skills of their college graduates."
The survey examined college and university students nearing the end of their degree programs. The students did the worst on matters involving math, according to the study.
Almost 20 percent of students pursuing four-year degrees had only basic quantitative skills. For example, the students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the service station. About 30 percent of two-year students had only basic math skills.
Baldi and Finney said the survey should be used as a tool. They hope state leaders, educators and university trustees will examine the rigor of courses required of all students.
The survey showed a strong relationship between analytic coursework and literacy. Students in two-year and four-year schools scored higher when they took classes that challenged them to apply theories to practical problems or weigh competing arguments.
The college survey used the same test as the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the government's examination of English literacy among adults. The results of that study were released in December, showing about one in 20 adults is not literate in English.
On campus, the tests were given in 2003 to a representative sample of 1,827 students at public and private schools. The Pew Charitable Trusts funded the survey.
It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
WASHINGTON — Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.
Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.
More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.
That means they could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school.
The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips.
"It is kind of disturbing that a lot of folks are graduating with a degree and they're not going to be able to do those things," said Stephane Baldi, the study's director at the American Institutes for Research, a behavioral and social science research organization.
Most students at community colleges and four-year schools showed intermediate skills, meaning they could perform moderately challenging tasks. Examples include identifying a location on a map, calculating the cost of ordering office supplies or consulting a reference guide to figure out which foods contain a particular vitamin.
There was brighter news.
Overall, the average literacy of college students is significantly higher than that of adults across the nation. Study leaders said that was encouraging but not surprising, given that the spectrum of adults includes those with much less education.
Also, compared with all adults with similar levels of education, college students had superior skills in searching and using information from texts and documents.
"But do they do well enough for a highly educated population? For a knowledge-based economy? The answer is no," said Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, an independent and nonpartisan group.
"This sends a message that we should be monitoring this as a nation, and we don't do it," Finney said. "States have no idea about the knowledge and skills of their college graduates."
The survey examined college and university students nearing the end of their degree programs. The students did the worst on matters involving math, according to the study.
Almost 20 percent of students pursuing four-year degrees had only basic quantitative skills. For example, the students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the service station. About 30 percent of two-year students had only basic math skills.
Baldi and Finney said the survey should be used as a tool. They hope state leaders, educators and university trustees will examine the rigor of courses required of all students.
The survey showed a strong relationship between analytic coursework and literacy. Students in two-year and four-year schools scored higher when they took classes that challenged them to apply theories to practical problems or weigh competing arguments.
The college survey used the same test as the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the government's examination of English literacy among adults. The results of that study were released in December, showing about one in 20 adults is not literate in English.
On campus, the tests were given in 2003 to a representative sample of 1,827 students at public and private schools. The Pew Charitable Trusts funded the survey.
It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Stuck on Stupid in America
Stuck on Stupid in America
By Chuck Muth
CNSNews.com Commentary
January 17, 2006
I hereby bequeath Citizen Outreach's 2006 Thomas Paine Award to ABC's John Stossel for his 20/20 report entitled "Stupid In America: How We Cheat Our Kids," a blistering expose of the government education system in the United States today.
For those of you who learned American history education from a public school, you might be surprised to know that in 1775 most colonists did NOT support separation from England. Many actually preferred remaining as subjects of the King. They were called "Loyalists." They wanted to continue working within the existing system, but maybe with a few "reforms." They were opponents of independence. They were anti-freedom.
Then along came Tom Paine and his pamphlet titled "Common Sense." As Gregory Tietjen notes in his introduction of a reprint of this immortal historical document, Common Sense "immediately became the moral and intellectual touchstone for American colonists struggling to articulate their case for independence from England."
The pamphlet enjoyed unprecedented distribution; the "first printing of several thousand copies sold out in days, and the second, with additions, sold just as quickly."
Many historians consider publication of Paine's Common Sense to have been the turning point of public opinion against the status quo and for a break from the King. In that regard, we can only hope that John Stossel's "Stupid in America" has the same effect over 230 years later.
Stupid in America has the potential for becoming the "moral and intellectual touchstone" for Americans who have been fighting for independence from the tyranny of government schools in this country for many years now.
As in 1775, most Americans today harbor a belief, more a hope, that education under the current system isn't all that intolerable; that we just need to tinker around the edges a bit with a tweak here and a tweak there. Oh, and more money, of course.
Stupid in America obliterates that flight of fancy (click here to watch excerpts.
I won't go into the details and content of Stossel's actual report here. Rather, I'm suggesting that education patriots who have long supported a break from the public school monopoly may now have a modern-day version of Common Sense with which to finally turn around the majority of public opinion.
Stupid in America needs to be distributed far and wide. Every elected legislator in the country ought to watch it, as should every concerned parent and taxpayer. The case for complete and total education independence will no longer be arguable after watching this report by anyone but blind loyalists of the current system.
It's time to choose sides. No more fence-sitting. You're either with us or against us. You're either for total freedom, choice and independence from the government school monopoly or you're an education "Loyalist," deserving of disdain and derision. And that especially goes for our modern-day Lobsterbacks, the teachers union.
These militant foot soldiers of the status quo, as exposed in Stossel's report, will stoop to any level in defending their monopoly control over our kids' lackluster education - and they are 100% committed to crushing anyone who dares threaten their power.
It's time to strip away the Suzy Sunshine face they portray in public and expose them for what they and their agenda really and truly are: Anti-education. Or at least, anti-education excellence. These people are Masters of Mediocrity. At best.
And if you are a teacher who belongs to the teachers union, thus helping to perpetuate with your dues their iron grip on the current system, you, too, are anti-education. There's just no nice way to put it. It's well past time for you to...quit...the...union.
All of this might sound harsh if you haven't yet watched Stupid in America.
But once you see this eye-opener, you, too, won't be able to help coming to the conclusion that the education monopoly in this country must be obliterated -- not just accommodated or reformed -- once and for all. Which makes it all the more important for education patriots to assure the widest distribution and circulation possible of Stossel's Stupid in America.
It's just common sense.
(Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.)
Copyright 2006, Chuck Muth
By Chuck Muth
CNSNews.com Commentary
January 17, 2006
I hereby bequeath Citizen Outreach's 2006 Thomas Paine Award to ABC's John Stossel for his 20/20 report entitled "Stupid In America: How We Cheat Our Kids," a blistering expose of the government education system in the United States today.
For those of you who learned American history education from a public school, you might be surprised to know that in 1775 most colonists did NOT support separation from England. Many actually preferred remaining as subjects of the King. They were called "Loyalists." They wanted to continue working within the existing system, but maybe with a few "reforms." They were opponents of independence. They were anti-freedom.
Then along came Tom Paine and his pamphlet titled "Common Sense." As Gregory Tietjen notes in his introduction of a reprint of this immortal historical document, Common Sense "immediately became the moral and intellectual touchstone for American colonists struggling to articulate their case for independence from England."
The pamphlet enjoyed unprecedented distribution; the "first printing of several thousand copies sold out in days, and the second, with additions, sold just as quickly."
Many historians consider publication of Paine's Common Sense to have been the turning point of public opinion against the status quo and for a break from the King. In that regard, we can only hope that John Stossel's "Stupid in America" has the same effect over 230 years later.
Stupid in America has the potential for becoming the "moral and intellectual touchstone" for Americans who have been fighting for independence from the tyranny of government schools in this country for many years now.
As in 1775, most Americans today harbor a belief, more a hope, that education under the current system isn't all that intolerable; that we just need to tinker around the edges a bit with a tweak here and a tweak there. Oh, and more money, of course.
Stupid in America obliterates that flight of fancy (click here to watch excerpts.
I won't go into the details and content of Stossel's actual report here. Rather, I'm suggesting that education patriots who have long supported a break from the public school monopoly may now have a modern-day version of Common Sense with which to finally turn around the majority of public opinion.
Stupid in America needs to be distributed far and wide. Every elected legislator in the country ought to watch it, as should every concerned parent and taxpayer. The case for complete and total education independence will no longer be arguable after watching this report by anyone but blind loyalists of the current system.
It's time to choose sides. No more fence-sitting. You're either with us or against us. You're either for total freedom, choice and independence from the government school monopoly or you're an education "Loyalist," deserving of disdain and derision. And that especially goes for our modern-day Lobsterbacks, the teachers union.
These militant foot soldiers of the status quo, as exposed in Stossel's report, will stoop to any level in defending their monopoly control over our kids' lackluster education - and they are 100% committed to crushing anyone who dares threaten their power.
It's time to strip away the Suzy Sunshine face they portray in public and expose them for what they and their agenda really and truly are: Anti-education. Or at least, anti-education excellence. These people are Masters of Mediocrity. At best.
And if you are a teacher who belongs to the teachers union, thus helping to perpetuate with your dues their iron grip on the current system, you, too, are anti-education. There's just no nice way to put it. It's well past time for you to...quit...the...union.
All of this might sound harsh if you haven't yet watched Stupid in America.
But once you see this eye-opener, you, too, won't be able to help coming to the conclusion that the education monopoly in this country must be obliterated -- not just accommodated or reformed -- once and for all. Which makes it all the more important for education patriots to assure the widest distribution and circulation possible of Stossel's Stupid in America.
It's just common sense.
(Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.)
Copyright 2006, Chuck Muth
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Myth: Schools don't have enough money
You will see the story below on a number of BLOGs but it is well worth repeating and reading again.
Myth: Schools don't have enough money
"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."
The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.
Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."
The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Not enough money for education? It's a myth.
The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.
To view the rest of the story click here to go to Townhall.com
Myth: Schools don't have enough money
"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."
The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do.
Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."
The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Not enough money for education? It's a myth.
The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.
To view the rest of the story click here to go to Townhall.com
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
What Can Happen If You Offer 4% Instead of 5%
I copy and pasted this post from Intercepts the BLOG for the Education Intelligence Agency. Just another example of how teachers' unions are out of control. Click on the title above to go to Mike Antonucci's BLOG on the BLOG you will find several must see links in the story that I did not place in this post.
What Can Happen If You Offer 4% Instead of 5%
This illustration of denial is brought to you by the Walnut Valley Educators Association in California.
The morning after presiding over a packed school board meeting with more than 100 union members wearing red t-shirts, four board members found their homes vandalized -- their driveways covered in red paint and with threatening notes identifying them by name.
The union is at odds with the board because contract negotiations are stalemated. The district is offering a 4 percent pay raise. The union wants 5 percent. District officials say currently 42 percent of Walnut Valley teachers make more than $69,000 annually.
"You can only assume the union is involved. It could be just an individual that's taking it to a level that has gone above and beyond what the expectation is," said board president Cindy Ruiz. "It's scary now. How do they expect us to react to this?"
Union President Jim Faren doesn't believe a teacher or union member was involved. "We didn't condone this type of activity. That's not the type of activity that we believe in," he said. Another union representative is disappointed that "the knee-jerk reaction has been that the union did it."
Really? Who else even knows all the school board members by name, never mind where they live?
Faren posted a statement on the union web site:
"The WVEA Leadership and the Negotiations Team received news on Friday, Jan 13th that the homes of four members of the Board of Education were vandalized. We are disturbed and upset that this act was directed toward members of our own district. No one in our educational community deserves to be the recipient of such behavior."
Disturbed and upset. But was he surprised? Take a look at this video the union shot of Faren's speech at the school board meeting. He is cordial and contained throughout, but at about the six-minute mark, he says this: "WVEA will continue to impress upon our members rational and positive behavior during this campaign. But what individual groups or individuals may do could be out of our control."
What Can Happen If You Offer 4% Instead of 5%
This illustration of denial is brought to you by the Walnut Valley Educators Association in California.
The morning after presiding over a packed school board meeting with more than 100 union members wearing red t-shirts, four board members found their homes vandalized -- their driveways covered in red paint and with threatening notes identifying them by name.
The union is at odds with the board because contract negotiations are stalemated. The district is offering a 4 percent pay raise. The union wants 5 percent. District officials say currently 42 percent of Walnut Valley teachers make more than $69,000 annually.
"You can only assume the union is involved. It could be just an individual that's taking it to a level that has gone above and beyond what the expectation is," said board president Cindy Ruiz. "It's scary now. How do they expect us to react to this?"
Union President Jim Faren doesn't believe a teacher or union member was involved. "We didn't condone this type of activity. That's not the type of activity that we believe in," he said. Another union representative is disappointed that "the knee-jerk reaction has been that the union did it."
Really? Who else even knows all the school board members by name, never mind where they live?
Faren posted a statement on the union web site:
"The WVEA Leadership and the Negotiations Team received news on Friday, Jan 13th that the homes of four members of the Board of Education were vandalized. We are disturbed and upset that this act was directed toward members of our own district. No one in our educational community deserves to be the recipient of such behavior."
Disturbed and upset. But was he surprised? Take a look at this video the union shot of Faren's speech at the school board meeting. He is cordial and contained throughout, but at about the six-minute mark, he says this: "WVEA will continue to impress upon our members rational and positive behavior during this campaign. But what individual groups or individuals may do could be out of our control."
Monday, January 16, 2006
Bringing light to dark hours ahead no easy task for tax hike pushers
Another Daily Herald writer hits one out of the ballpark. Great Job Chris Bailey. If you do not live in the Daily Herald readership area I strongly suggest you subscribe to the Daily Herald and have it mailed home. Their education pieces have been excellent.
This story appeared in the January 15th edition of the Daily Herald. Click on the post title to view the story at the Daily Herald website.
Bringing light to dark hours ahead no easy task for tax hike pushers
Chris Bailey
Posted Sunday, January 15, 2006
If the endless gray days haven’t already sent folks into a mid-winter funk, they should have no fear. Despair is just around the corner. The darkest hour for any taxpayer — referendum time — is upon us.
For the most part, the primary election on March 21 will be ignored by all but the most party-oriented or habitual voters, of which there are very few. The exceptions, of course, will be where voters are being asked to approve tax hike or bond sale requests for their school, fire, park or library districts.
That’s because most voters know they’re being asked to give more money to public servants who, by and large, already have it better than they do in terms of pay, pensions and health care benefits. And those who pay any attention to the numbers also recognize that such requests are coming from people proposing budgets and long-range plans that are not financially sustainable — unless taxpayers ante up again later.
If you think this is “all about the kids” or “all about public safety,” ask yourself who benefits from passage. And then ask who will be paying if the tax hike rejected.
The answer to the first question is “public servants.” The answer to the second is “students” or “consumers.” None of these proposed tax hikes will be accompanied by plans that freeze or control wages in any significant way or bring to an end the belief that the expense side of the ledger can grow forever without consequence. Few will be accompanied by serious attempts to control the growing health care or pension costs that are bankrupting governments everywhere. Some will actually ask to put more people on the government pension dole.
You will hear many heartfelt arguments about the need to remain “competitive” in the employment marketplace, but no one will be able to explain why community colleges require more and more students who come from those so-called competitive marketplaces to take remedial classes.
And then look at the consequences for non-approval of referendums. I am not among those who consider those explanations “threats,” but they do tell me who is serious and who isn’t. Athletics and extracurricular activities and gifted programs are drops in school budget buckets, for example. If they are at the top of the cut list, attempts to rein in spending aren’t serious, but simply dabbling in emotion.
Without wage controls, any serious attempt to restrain school expenditures must look seriously at the big, often bloated programs like special and bilingual education. Because of parental and political pressure, they are often far out of line with expenditures on other students and legal requirements.
Though Elgin School District U-46 is often maligned, it stands as proof that spending can be restrained. A few years ago it was buried in red ink — $60 million worth or so. It analyzed program costs and then acted decisively. It delayed opening four new schools and slashed hundreds of teachers, many of them in bilingual and special education programs, with little discernible negative impact. Without any referendums passing, it has halved its deficit, which now stands at less than $10 million, every year. Beyond that, its test scores are improving in most areas and it has involved its unions in attempts to scale back health-care expenditures. Though results in those areas are not yet worth wild celebration, there is no denying the numbers are moving in the right direction. Yes, the district has issued life-safety bonds that don’t require taxpayer approval but do affect tax bills. But at least that money goes toward the basics and the other gradual improvements show the expense side of the ledger can be restrained — with effort.
I’m guessing most upcoming referendums will fail for one of three reasons. Taxpayers will feel they can’t afford them. Taxpayers won’t trust those who’ve said one thing and done another. Or they will resent that increasing the revenue side of the ledger remains the first resort while little serious effort is expended to reduce the cost side. Anyone expecting the sun to be shining March 22 had better be prepared to address all three.
This story appeared in the January 15th edition of the Daily Herald. Click on the post title to view the story at the Daily Herald website.
Bringing light to dark hours ahead no easy task for tax hike pushers
Chris Bailey
Posted Sunday, January 15, 2006
If the endless gray days haven’t already sent folks into a mid-winter funk, they should have no fear. Despair is just around the corner. The darkest hour for any taxpayer — referendum time — is upon us.
For the most part, the primary election on March 21 will be ignored by all but the most party-oriented or habitual voters, of which there are very few. The exceptions, of course, will be where voters are being asked to approve tax hike or bond sale requests for their school, fire, park or library districts.
That’s because most voters know they’re being asked to give more money to public servants who, by and large, already have it better than they do in terms of pay, pensions and health care benefits. And those who pay any attention to the numbers also recognize that such requests are coming from people proposing budgets and long-range plans that are not financially sustainable — unless taxpayers ante up again later.
If you think this is “all about the kids” or “all about public safety,” ask yourself who benefits from passage. And then ask who will be paying if the tax hike rejected.
The answer to the first question is “public servants.” The answer to the second is “students” or “consumers.” None of these proposed tax hikes will be accompanied by plans that freeze or control wages in any significant way or bring to an end the belief that the expense side of the ledger can grow forever without consequence. Few will be accompanied by serious attempts to control the growing health care or pension costs that are bankrupting governments everywhere. Some will actually ask to put more people on the government pension dole.
You will hear many heartfelt arguments about the need to remain “competitive” in the employment marketplace, but no one will be able to explain why community colleges require more and more students who come from those so-called competitive marketplaces to take remedial classes.
And then look at the consequences for non-approval of referendums. I am not among those who consider those explanations “threats,” but they do tell me who is serious and who isn’t. Athletics and extracurricular activities and gifted programs are drops in school budget buckets, for example. If they are at the top of the cut list, attempts to rein in spending aren’t serious, but simply dabbling in emotion.
Without wage controls, any serious attempt to restrain school expenditures must look seriously at the big, often bloated programs like special and bilingual education. Because of parental and political pressure, they are often far out of line with expenditures on other students and legal requirements.
Though Elgin School District U-46 is often maligned, it stands as proof that spending can be restrained. A few years ago it was buried in red ink — $60 million worth or so. It analyzed program costs and then acted decisively. It delayed opening four new schools and slashed hundreds of teachers, many of them in bilingual and special education programs, with little discernible negative impact. Without any referendums passing, it has halved its deficit, which now stands at less than $10 million, every year. Beyond that, its test scores are improving in most areas and it has involved its unions in attempts to scale back health-care expenditures. Though results in those areas are not yet worth wild celebration, there is no denying the numbers are moving in the right direction. Yes, the district has issued life-safety bonds that don’t require taxpayer approval but do affect tax bills. But at least that money goes toward the basics and the other gradual improvements show the expense side of the ledger can be restrained — with effort.
I’m guessing most upcoming referendums will fail for one of three reasons. Taxpayers will feel they can’t afford them. Taxpayers won’t trust those who’ve said one thing and done another. Or they will resent that increasing the revenue side of the ledger remains the first resort while little serious effort is expended to reduce the cost side. Anyone expecting the sun to be shining March 22 had better be prepared to address all three.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Stupid in America
Stupid in America
How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education
By JOHN STOSSEL
Jan. 13, 2006 — "Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it.
Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."
We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.
Washington, D.C., officials steered us to the best classrooms in their district.
We wanted to tape typical classrooms but were turned down in state after state.
Finally, school officials in Washington, D.C., allowed "20/20" to give cameras to a few students who were handpicked at two schools they'd handpicked. One was Woodrow Wilson High. Newsweek says it's one of the best schools in America. Yet what the students taped didn't inspire confidence.
One teacher didn't have control over the kids. Another "20/20" student cameraman videotaped a boy dancing wildly with his shirt off, in front of his teacher.
If you're like most American parents, you might think "These things don't happen at my kid's school." A Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.
Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, "They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that."
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved … We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
Ben Chavis is a former public school principal who now runs an alternative charter school in Oakland, Calif., that spends thousands of dollars less per student than the surrounding public schools. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money.
"That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.
To save money, Chavis asks the students to do things like keep the grounds picked up and set up for their own lunch. For gym class, his students often just run laps around the block. All of this means there's more money left over for teaching.
Even though he spends less money per student than the public schools do, Chavis pays his teachers more than what public school teachers earn. His school also thrives because the principal gets involved. Chavis shows up at every classroom and uses gimmicks like small cash payments for perfect attendance.
Since he took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst in Oakland to being the best. His middle school has the highest test scores in the city.
"It's not about the money," he said.
He's confident that even kids who come from broken families and poor families will do well in his school. "Give me the poor kids, and I will outperform the wealthy kids who live in the hills. And we do it," he said.
At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th. (ABC News)
We did not post the complete story, to view the complete story click on the title of this post.
How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education
By JOHN STOSSEL
Jan. 13, 2006 — "Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it.
Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."
We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.
Washington, D.C., officials steered us to the best classrooms in their district.
We wanted to tape typical classrooms but were turned down in state after state.
Finally, school officials in Washington, D.C., allowed "20/20" to give cameras to a few students who were handpicked at two schools they'd handpicked. One was Woodrow Wilson High. Newsweek says it's one of the best schools in America. Yet what the students taped didn't inspire confidence.
One teacher didn't have control over the kids. Another "20/20" student cameraman videotaped a boy dancing wildly with his shirt off, in front of his teacher.
If you're like most American parents, you might think "These things don't happen at my kid's school." A Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.
Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, "They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that."
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved … We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
Ben Chavis is a former public school principal who now runs an alternative charter school in Oakland, Calif., that spends thousands of dollars less per student than the surrounding public schools. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money.
"That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.
To save money, Chavis asks the students to do things like keep the grounds picked up and set up for their own lunch. For gym class, his students often just run laps around the block. All of this means there's more money left over for teaching.
Even though he spends less money per student than the public schools do, Chavis pays his teachers more than what public school teachers earn. His school also thrives because the principal gets involved. Chavis shows up at every classroom and uses gimmicks like small cash payments for perfect attendance.
Since he took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst in Oakland to being the best. His middle school has the highest test scores in the city.
"It's not about the money," he said.
He's confident that even kids who come from broken families and poor families will do well in his school. "Give me the poor kids, and I will outperform the wealthy kids who live in the hills. And we do it," he said.
At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th. (ABC News)
We did not post the complete story, to view the complete story click on the title of this post.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
America's pension time bomb
CRAFT and many other education reformists have often talked about the troubles of the Teachers Retirement System. We are glad to see so many problems with our system now being played out in the mainstream media. Both of these articles appeared at CNN Money. Voting yes on referenda only increases the obligation of the pension because of the increase in salaries that occur. This burden of paying the pensions will be passed on to your children.
America's pension time bomb
Commentary: Workers, employers, taxpayers, governments. Meet the key players in the coming battle.
By Geoffrey Colvin, FORTUNE senior editor-at-large
January 13, 2006: 11:03 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - Some of the nastiest conflicts in America's future have recently begun to reveal themselves. Let's call them, broadly, the pension wars.
They will be fought on a wide range of battlefields, involving not just workers and their employers but also governments at all levels, regulators, accountants and taxpayers. And these wars will be bitter -- because the combatants will be desperate.
Corporate pensions are an unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of paying for retirement. (Read column)
A hint of what's to come could be seen in the New York City transit strike. Most of America didn't notice exactly what sparked the first such strike in 25 years, costing businesses, individuals and the city hundreds of millions of dollars. The answer is pensions. The transit authority and the workers were agreed on virtually everything except how much new employees would contribute toward their pensions--6 percent of wages vs. 2 percent -- and neither side felt it could give an inch on that.
The reasons illustrate the larger problem. The transit authority, like many private and public employers, is watching its pension costs rocket as longer-living retirees increase in number. That burden will become unbearable. On the other side, union members are watching employers nationwide dumping or cutting their pensions just as Social Security starts to look shaky. They figure retirement security is the one thing they cannot sacrifice. Result: war.
New York's transit strike also illustrates an important reason that the pension wars weren't headed off long ago. The truth about pensions has been systematically hidden, with all parties collaborating in the deceit. Public-employee pensions have never been accounted for like those run by private employers. No government is required to tell you its pension liability the way, say, General Motors is, on the theory that governments can always just extract more money from the taxpayers to pay retirees.
But this year the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which sets the rules for the public sector, is changing its regulations. State and local governments will now have to reveal their pension liabilities, which may be underfunded by $1 trillion or more.
Private employers, while required to account for their pensions, have played sophisticated games with the numbers -- all within the rules. For example, they can assume the pension fund increased in value when it actually declined. They can assume it will continue increasing in value at a rate that is almost certainly way too high. They can even jack up their reported profits based on that assumed, though nonexistent, increase in pension-fund value.
But eventually actual dollars must be paid out, a prospect that has seriously spooked private employers. Just this month IBM (Research) announced that it would join the long list of companies (Verizon, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola) that have frozen their pension plans, instead increasing 401(k) contributions for employees. And the 18-month negotiation between UPS and its pilots has come down to just two points: whether outsourced pilots overseas must be union members, and (you guessed it) pensions.
The pension wars will inevitably include Congress, which is working out a way to increase funding for the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., now deeply in the red as huge companies like UAL, parent of United Air Lines, dump their pension plans on it. Since the PBGC is an insurer, the logical move is to raise the premiums companies pay, especially for the riskiest plans.
But if Congress mandates a premium hike, as it probably will, then more companies will just dump their plans on the PBGC, redoubling the need for more funds, leading to more premium hikes, and so on. If you can see any way taxpayers will not get billed for a giant bailout, please e-mail Congress immediately.
And then there's the greatest pension crisis of all: Social Security. We've stayed in denial thanks to the so-called trust fund, that magical place where the plan's annual surpluses are sent to be invested until we need them. But since those surpluses must by law be invested in government bonds, they have simply been handed over to the U.S. Treasury and spent by Congress.
The trust fund is in fact meaningless, a bit of marketing hooey cooked up in the '30s. When Social Security's annual surpluses end in just six or seven years, the battle over whose ox to gore in order to cover the plan's obligations will be truly epic.
The hard reality is that for decades we haven't told ourselves the truth about pensions. Now, as the first baby-boomers turn 60, we must finally confront reality -- and absolutely no one will like it. In New York last month, transit workers and management compromised; employees will make small contributions toward health insurance premiums but will keep one of the richest retirement deals around.
Soon those compromises simply won't be affordable. And that's when the pension wars will explode.
The next article can be viewed at http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/12/news/economy/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm.
Good riddance to pensions
Corporate pensions are an unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of paying for retirement.
By Justin Fox, FORTUNE editor-at-large
January 12, 2006: 5:56 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - It really is over for the corporate pension. Now that IBM has opted out, telling employees last week that their pension benefits will be frozen in 2008, it's hard to see what's to stop every last American corporation from preparing its eventual exit from the pension business. Lots of reasonably healthy companies -- Verizon, NCR, Lockheed Martin and Motorola, to name a few -- already have.
This phenomenon, along with the more dramatic cases of companies going bankrupt and defaulting on existing pension commitments (think United Airlines), has gotten tons of press, most of it of the "ain't it a shame" variety. But the real shame may be that we ever put so much faith in such an inherently unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of providing for retirement.
The corporate pension has been around since the 19th century, but really came into its own in the United States in the years just after World War II. General Motors president Charles Wilson was its most visible champion, creating a company-run pension plan in 1950 over the initial objections of the United Auto Workers union because he believed it would improve employee relations.
But there were problems with Wilson's approach that, while they didn't seem like a big deal in 1950, were to loom large decades later. For one thing, the Wilson way assumed that lifetime jobs with big, pension-granting corporations were the American norm -- which ceased to be the case decades ago.
For another, it failed to foresee that pension commitments could become a heavy burden for companies (among them Wilson's own General Motors) forced by competition and changing consumer demand to get smaller or at least leaner.
If GM had simply set aside all the money it put into its pension plan over the decades in individual retirement accounts for its employees, it wouldn't have this problem. Some GM retirees would be worse off than they are under the existing pension plan, but prospects for current employees (and potential future employees) would be far better.
That's the problem with pension plans that promise a specific benefit in the future -- they amount, pension consultant Keith Ambachtsheer says, to a contract between current and future generations, and those future generations aren't represented at the bargaining table. As a result, they get stuck guaranteeing the retirement income of their elders while receiving nothing in return.
When succeeding generations are bigger and wealthier than the ones whose retirements they must help fund -- as is the case in a growing corporation or in the United States since the launch of Social Security -- this isn't much of a problem. But it's no longer the case at GM, and may no longer hold for the U.S. as a whole a few decades down the road.
An alternative
So what's the alternative, when it's also clear that many otherwise productive members of society are incapable on their own of setting aside enough money and investing it wisely enough to fund a comfortable retirement?
Toronto-based Ambachtsheer has been thinking about this harder than just about anybody else over the past few years (a sampling of his writings can be found on the Web site of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management) and he has become a big believer in individual retirement accounts that are aggregated into what he calls "buyer's co-ops."
That is, the money belongs to the individual, but the choices of how much money to set aside and how to invest it are at least partly in the hands of professionals who aren't in the employ of a for-profit mutual fund company or brokerage firm. The closest thing to such a co-op currently in existence in the United States is TIAA-CREF, the retirement fund for academic, medical, cultural and research workers. But more and more corporations are now approximating the buyer's co-op model by reinventing their 401(k)s as paternalistic organizations that automatically set contribution percentages and investment choices unless employees opt out.
That still leaves the majority of Americans who don't happen to be professors or employees of especially enlightened corporations. To help them provide for retirement, we could move to a system like Australia's, where 9 percent of every worker's income (up to a limit similar to the wage ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes) is automatically funneled into retirement accounts managed by organizations akin to Ambachtsheer's buyer's co-ops.
That's sort of what President Bush was proposing last year with his Social Security private accounts -- but those accounts were relatively puny, the president was unwilling to come clean about the true costs of his plan, and Congress in its wisdom (and fear of the AARP) chose to do nothing.
A long-cracked pillar of the American retirement system is crumbling, and not nearly enough is being done to build a replacement.
America's pension time bomb
Commentary: Workers, employers, taxpayers, governments. Meet the key players in the coming battle.
By Geoffrey Colvin, FORTUNE senior editor-at-large
January 13, 2006: 11:03 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - Some of the nastiest conflicts in America's future have recently begun to reveal themselves. Let's call them, broadly, the pension wars.
They will be fought on a wide range of battlefields, involving not just workers and their employers but also governments at all levels, regulators, accountants and taxpayers. And these wars will be bitter -- because the combatants will be desperate.
Corporate pensions are an unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of paying for retirement. (Read column)
A hint of what's to come could be seen in the New York City transit strike. Most of America didn't notice exactly what sparked the first such strike in 25 years, costing businesses, individuals and the city hundreds of millions of dollars. The answer is pensions. The transit authority and the workers were agreed on virtually everything except how much new employees would contribute toward their pensions--6 percent of wages vs. 2 percent -- and neither side felt it could give an inch on that.
The reasons illustrate the larger problem. The transit authority, like many private and public employers, is watching its pension costs rocket as longer-living retirees increase in number. That burden will become unbearable. On the other side, union members are watching employers nationwide dumping or cutting their pensions just as Social Security starts to look shaky. They figure retirement security is the one thing they cannot sacrifice. Result: war.
New York's transit strike also illustrates an important reason that the pension wars weren't headed off long ago. The truth about pensions has been systematically hidden, with all parties collaborating in the deceit. Public-employee pensions have never been accounted for like those run by private employers. No government is required to tell you its pension liability the way, say, General Motors is, on the theory that governments can always just extract more money from the taxpayers to pay retirees.
But this year the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which sets the rules for the public sector, is changing its regulations. State and local governments will now have to reveal their pension liabilities, which may be underfunded by $1 trillion or more.
Private employers, while required to account for their pensions, have played sophisticated games with the numbers -- all within the rules. For example, they can assume the pension fund increased in value when it actually declined. They can assume it will continue increasing in value at a rate that is almost certainly way too high. They can even jack up their reported profits based on that assumed, though nonexistent, increase in pension-fund value.
But eventually actual dollars must be paid out, a prospect that has seriously spooked private employers. Just this month IBM (Research) announced that it would join the long list of companies (Verizon, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola) that have frozen their pension plans, instead increasing 401(k) contributions for employees. And the 18-month negotiation between UPS and its pilots has come down to just two points: whether outsourced pilots overseas must be union members, and (you guessed it) pensions.
The pension wars will inevitably include Congress, which is working out a way to increase funding for the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., now deeply in the red as huge companies like UAL, parent of United Air Lines, dump their pension plans on it. Since the PBGC is an insurer, the logical move is to raise the premiums companies pay, especially for the riskiest plans.
But if Congress mandates a premium hike, as it probably will, then more companies will just dump their plans on the PBGC, redoubling the need for more funds, leading to more premium hikes, and so on. If you can see any way taxpayers will not get billed for a giant bailout, please e-mail Congress immediately.
And then there's the greatest pension crisis of all: Social Security. We've stayed in denial thanks to the so-called trust fund, that magical place where the plan's annual surpluses are sent to be invested until we need them. But since those surpluses must by law be invested in government bonds, they have simply been handed over to the U.S. Treasury and spent by Congress.
The trust fund is in fact meaningless, a bit of marketing hooey cooked up in the '30s. When Social Security's annual surpluses end in just six or seven years, the battle over whose ox to gore in order to cover the plan's obligations will be truly epic.
The hard reality is that for decades we haven't told ourselves the truth about pensions. Now, as the first baby-boomers turn 60, we must finally confront reality -- and absolutely no one will like it. In New York last month, transit workers and management compromised; employees will make small contributions toward health insurance premiums but will keep one of the richest retirement deals around.
Soon those compromises simply won't be affordable. And that's when the pension wars will explode.
The next article can be viewed at http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/12/news/economy/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm.
Good riddance to pensions
Corporate pensions are an unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of paying for retirement.
By Justin Fox, FORTUNE editor-at-large
January 12, 2006: 5:56 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - It really is over for the corporate pension. Now that IBM has opted out, telling employees last week that their pension benefits will be frozen in 2008, it's hard to see what's to stop every last American corporation from preparing its eventual exit from the pension business. Lots of reasonably healthy companies -- Verizon, NCR, Lockheed Martin and Motorola, to name a few -- already have.
This phenomenon, along with the more dramatic cases of companies going bankrupt and defaulting on existing pension commitments (think United Airlines), has gotten tons of press, most of it of the "ain't it a shame" variety. But the real shame may be that we ever put so much faith in such an inherently unstable, unfair and economically perverse means of providing for retirement.
The corporate pension has been around since the 19th century, but really came into its own in the United States in the years just after World War II. General Motors president Charles Wilson was its most visible champion, creating a company-run pension plan in 1950 over the initial objections of the United Auto Workers union because he believed it would improve employee relations.
But there were problems with Wilson's approach that, while they didn't seem like a big deal in 1950, were to loom large decades later. For one thing, the Wilson way assumed that lifetime jobs with big, pension-granting corporations were the American norm -- which ceased to be the case decades ago.
For another, it failed to foresee that pension commitments could become a heavy burden for companies (among them Wilson's own General Motors) forced by competition and changing consumer demand to get smaller or at least leaner.
If GM had simply set aside all the money it put into its pension plan over the decades in individual retirement accounts for its employees, it wouldn't have this problem. Some GM retirees would be worse off than they are under the existing pension plan, but prospects for current employees (and potential future employees) would be far better.
That's the problem with pension plans that promise a specific benefit in the future -- they amount, pension consultant Keith Ambachtsheer says, to a contract between current and future generations, and those future generations aren't represented at the bargaining table. As a result, they get stuck guaranteeing the retirement income of their elders while receiving nothing in return.
When succeeding generations are bigger and wealthier than the ones whose retirements they must help fund -- as is the case in a growing corporation or in the United States since the launch of Social Security -- this isn't much of a problem. But it's no longer the case at GM, and may no longer hold for the U.S. as a whole a few decades down the road.
An alternative
So what's the alternative, when it's also clear that many otherwise productive members of society are incapable on their own of setting aside enough money and investing it wisely enough to fund a comfortable retirement?
Toronto-based Ambachtsheer has been thinking about this harder than just about anybody else over the past few years (a sampling of his writings can be found on the Web site of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management) and he has become a big believer in individual retirement accounts that are aggregated into what he calls "buyer's co-ops."
That is, the money belongs to the individual, but the choices of how much money to set aside and how to invest it are at least partly in the hands of professionals who aren't in the employ of a for-profit mutual fund company or brokerage firm. The closest thing to such a co-op currently in existence in the United States is TIAA-CREF, the retirement fund for academic, medical, cultural and research workers. But more and more corporations are now approximating the buyer's co-op model by reinventing their 401(k)s as paternalistic organizations that automatically set contribution percentages and investment choices unless employees opt out.
That still leaves the majority of Americans who don't happen to be professors or employees of especially enlightened corporations. To help them provide for retirement, we could move to a system like Australia's, where 9 percent of every worker's income (up to a limit similar to the wage ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes) is automatically funneled into retirement accounts managed by organizations akin to Ambachtsheer's buyer's co-ops.
That's sort of what President Bush was proposing last year with his Social Security private accounts -- but those accounts were relatively puny, the president was unwilling to come clean about the true costs of his plan, and Congress in its wisdom (and fear of the AARP) chose to do nothing.
A long-cracked pillar of the American retirement system is crumbling, and not nearly enough is being done to build a replacement.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Alsip District 126 Referendum Discussion
The below post is from Robert Shelstorm of Southland Education Watch. He is one of our many friends fighting for education reform in the State of Illinois. This is a great example of how a well prepared speech can persuade people to vote against a referendum or at least consider voting against a referendum. This is an excellent summary of the Alsip District 126 referendum forum. Great research Bob!
Last night I attended a "public forum" regarding a 50 cent proposed tax increase for the ed fund in the District 126. Over 200 people showed up, but about 180 were teachers, administrators, and staff.
I was surprised that the board let me speak, since I didn't live in the district.
I told the group that the root problem was that the board and the union had agreed to an unsustainable plan. Teacher raises were averaging 4.1%, and average revenue growth was at about 3%. Administrators, I told the crowd, were also setting a bad example in a financially troubled district by accepting raises of 6.8% last year. The line, "How can administrators ask teachers, children, and parents to make sacrifices when they take care of themselves so well?" Actually drew some applause from the teachers.
I also pointed out a reasonable option to address this problem was not identified in the board hand outs; renegotiating the teachers contract to freeze wages to save jobs planned to be cut and adjusting the contract to allow raises to be paid from available funds from revenue growth. This would ensure student services and teacher jobs would be protected.
Surprisingly, there were no boos or blunt objects thrown at me, so I continued.
I said that as a former United Steelworker Union member, I learned that a union was like a family. When a member of the union "family" was faced with a devastating event like losing their livelihood, the union stuck together and shared the hardship to protect their brothers and sisters. Besides, even freezing salaries for a year would leave the teachers with an average 2% raise, which isn't bad in this economy.
I went on to challenge claims by the district that revenues were only growing by 1% per year, citing the 3.3% COLA for last year and the 7% per year increase in EAV per student in the last period.
I also noted that the district's enrollment has dropped by 6.5% over the last 5 years, which should free up more funds for salaries.
I brought their attention to the fact that the district had a serious problem in their non-instructional expenses. The district typically spends about $3,100 of its $7,700 per student operating expenses outside of instruction. I questioned whether the administration had done" benchmarking" comparisons with other districts such as Summit Hill 161, which spends on $1,800 per student in non-instructional expenses, to find better ways of management to avoid hurting students and staff. The administration sheepishly admitted that they hadn't.
This response brought some angry looks from the audience, including teachers, towards the Superintendent.
I concluded by saying that ultimately the decision of the community to raise or not raise taxes was more of an emotional than an analytical one, but it was clear in this instance that there were fair options that could protect student services and teacher jobs that had not been adequately explored by the board prior to calling to raise taxes.
I offered my help to the board and community if they wanted to explore ways to protect the children, parents, taxpayers, and staff without increasing taxes. I had about a half dozen people come up and ask for my card following the meeting, including some parents who originally spoke out for the tax increase, but were developing second thoughts.
I had only two "hostile" responses. One was a teacher who said "I didn't live in their community" and "he always comes out against tax increases". The other was a teacher who completely misconstrued what I said to mean "teachers are overpaid".
Bob Shelstrom
Last night I attended a "public forum" regarding a 50 cent proposed tax increase for the ed fund in the District 126. Over 200 people showed up, but about 180 were teachers, administrators, and staff.
I was surprised that the board let me speak, since I didn't live in the district.
I told the group that the root problem was that the board and the union had agreed to an unsustainable plan. Teacher raises were averaging 4.1%, and average revenue growth was at about 3%. Administrators, I told the crowd, were also setting a bad example in a financially troubled district by accepting raises of 6.8% last year. The line, "How can administrators ask teachers, children, and parents to make sacrifices when they take care of themselves so well?" Actually drew some applause from the teachers.
I also pointed out a reasonable option to address this problem was not identified in the board hand outs; renegotiating the teachers contract to freeze wages to save jobs planned to be cut and adjusting the contract to allow raises to be paid from available funds from revenue growth. This would ensure student services and teacher jobs would be protected.
Surprisingly, there were no boos or blunt objects thrown at me, so I continued.
I said that as a former United Steelworker Union member, I learned that a union was like a family. When a member of the union "family" was faced with a devastating event like losing their livelihood, the union stuck together and shared the hardship to protect their brothers and sisters. Besides, even freezing salaries for a year would leave the teachers with an average 2% raise, which isn't bad in this economy.
I went on to challenge claims by the district that revenues were only growing by 1% per year, citing the 3.3% COLA for last year and the 7% per year increase in EAV per student in the last period.
I also noted that the district's enrollment has dropped by 6.5% over the last 5 years, which should free up more funds for salaries.
I brought their attention to the fact that the district had a serious problem in their non-instructional expenses. The district typically spends about $3,100 of its $7,700 per student operating expenses outside of instruction. I questioned whether the administration had done" benchmarking" comparisons with other districts such as Summit Hill 161, which spends on $1,800 per student in non-instructional expenses, to find better ways of management to avoid hurting students and staff. The administration sheepishly admitted that they hadn't.
This response brought some angry looks from the audience, including teachers, towards the Superintendent.
I concluded by saying that ultimately the decision of the community to raise or not raise taxes was more of an emotional than an analytical one, but it was clear in this instance that there were fair options that could protect student services and teacher jobs that had not been adequately explored by the board prior to calling to raise taxes.
I offered my help to the board and community if they wanted to explore ways to protect the children, parents, taxpayers, and staff without increasing taxes. I had about a half dozen people come up and ask for my card following the meeting, including some parents who originally spoke out for the tax increase, but were developing second thoughts.
I had only two "hostile" responses. One was a teacher who said "I didn't live in their community" and "he always comes out against tax increases". The other was a teacher who completely misconstrued what I said to mean "teachers are overpaid".
Bob Shelstrom
Profession tarnished
The letter to the editor below appeared in the Northwest Herald and can be accessed by clicking on the title above. Bravo to Bill for speaking up. As long as public school teachers support unions that refuse accountability they are a part of the problem and not the solution. We have had three generations of uneducated or undereducated children graduating our K -12 system. With billions of dollars wasted annually on inefficient school systems it is time for parents, business owners and taxpayers to speak up to the injustice to so many generations of children. Results of our poor public school systems are billions of dollars spent annually on remedial education in higher education, social welfare programs and penal systems.
Profession tarnished
[published on Tue, Jan 10, 2006]
To the Editor:
Public schools are a disgrace.
School boards, administrators and teachers have taken the once proud profession of educator and created a cancer that's draining society.
Eighty percent of property taxes go to education, and as property values skyrocket, actual tax dollars skyrocket, too. Public grade schools now charge tuition.
The largest general expense the state pays is education. That's before considering the teachers retirement fund shortage that's larger than the whole state budget.
Small-town superintendents earn more than the governor, but threaten program cuts to be fiscally responsible.
They conveniently forget fiscal responsibility while negotiating contracts with the already bankrupt schools.
They also forget to mention large raises when they sell referendums. How about our wonderful teachers hoisting picket signs because they're insulted by offers of only 6 percent annual raises. It's despicable the way they hold our children's education hostage. Their mantra, "It's for the kids." What a joke.
I'm pro-education. That's why I'm outraged our taxes go to fund their greed instead of educating our children.
We've already paid and borrowed all we can to satisfy your never-ending extortion. We will not let you raise taxes. Education has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Bill Russin
Richmond
Profession tarnished
[published on Tue, Jan 10, 2006]
To the Editor:
Public schools are a disgrace.
School boards, administrators and teachers have taken the once proud profession of educator and created a cancer that's draining society.
Eighty percent of property taxes go to education, and as property values skyrocket, actual tax dollars skyrocket, too. Public grade schools now charge tuition.
The largest general expense the state pays is education. That's before considering the teachers retirement fund shortage that's larger than the whole state budget.
Small-town superintendents earn more than the governor, but threaten program cuts to be fiscally responsible.
They conveniently forget fiscal responsibility while negotiating contracts with the already bankrupt schools.
They also forget to mention large raises when they sell referendums. How about our wonderful teachers hoisting picket signs because they're insulted by offers of only 6 percent annual raises. It's despicable the way they hold our children's education hostage. Their mantra, "It's for the kids." What a joke.
I'm pro-education. That's why I'm outraged our taxes go to fund their greed instead of educating our children.
We've already paid and borrowed all we can to satisfy your never-ending extortion. We will not let you raise taxes. Education has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Bill Russin
Richmond
Unwelcome present from District 203
The letter to the editor below appeared in the January 12, 2006 online edition of the Daily Herald. This letter could have been written by a resident in any school district. These problems exist in school districts across the State.
Unwelcome present from District 203
Christmas time is finally over for me. Four days before Christmas, Naperville Unit District 203 gave me the typical present — over-taxation by levying more taxes than required for operation.
Last week ended the cycle with my health insurance company, giving me and my co-workers cost increases in excess of 25 percent.
These two points may seem unrelated but they both apply and are related to District 203.
Back on Sept. 1, the board voted 5-2 to approve a teacher contract that guarantees large raises, significantly higher than private industry and CPI. Included in this contract, again, is a very generous health insurance package that protects the teacher from health insurance cost increases, but will time and time again further hurt the district’s financial status.
Myself, I have to endure raises that the market will support to keep the consulting firm I work for in business and also have to bear much of my insurance increases for the same reasons.
Then, to further frustrate the community, they will again levy more money than needed for a next year’s operation with the same 5-2 vote. Fortunately there are two board members that fully understand the problem and want to make changes.
Next, there is one board member who understands that there are problems but has yet made the completely right decisions to try and fix the problem.
As for the remaining members, I am not sure what they are all thinking about, but hopefully the community will wake up and let them know there is a problem with the district.
Kevin Hausman
Naperville
Unwelcome present from District 203
Christmas time is finally over for me. Four days before Christmas, Naperville Unit District 203 gave me the typical present — over-taxation by levying more taxes than required for operation.
Last week ended the cycle with my health insurance company, giving me and my co-workers cost increases in excess of 25 percent.
These two points may seem unrelated but they both apply and are related to District 203.
Back on Sept. 1, the board voted 5-2 to approve a teacher contract that guarantees large raises, significantly higher than private industry and CPI. Included in this contract, again, is a very generous health insurance package that protects the teacher from health insurance cost increases, but will time and time again further hurt the district’s financial status.
Myself, I have to endure raises that the market will support to keep the consulting firm I work for in business and also have to bear much of my insurance increases for the same reasons.
Then, to further frustrate the community, they will again levy more money than needed for a next year’s operation with the same 5-2 vote. Fortunately there are two board members that fully understand the problem and want to make changes.
Next, there is one board member who understands that there are problems but has yet made the completely right decisions to try and fix the problem.
As for the remaining members, I am not sure what they are all thinking about, but hopefully the community will wake up and let them know there is a problem with the district.
Kevin Hausman
Naperville
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Money doesn't test well
This letter to the Editor in the January 9, 2006 edition of the NWH speaks for itself. Nice job Vern.
Re: Ted Juske's Jan. 1 letter, "Education not debatable."
His letter has some things backward. Schools do not offer free lunch or free transportation. My taxes pay for those things. Businesses do not chose their clients. Their clients choose them.
Too bad our students can't choose which school to attend.
Beyond a minimum threshold, it doesn't matter how much the school district spends.
According to the 2005 School Report Cards: Central District 51 ($4,438 a student); Aviston District 21 ($4,789); Germantown Hills District 69 ($5,036); Oak Grove District 68 ($5,189); St. Rose District 14-15 ($5,421); Washington District 52 ($5,429); Breese District 12 ($5,545); and Geff District 14 ($5,584) all had a higher percentage of students meeting the state's math and reading standards than Lake Forest's Rondout District 72 ($23,799 a student), at a quarter of the cost.
If Lake Forest residents spend so much because they value education, are they getting their money's worth?
If your business puts out an inferior product at four times the cost of your competitors, how long will you stay in business?
Vern R. Klenz
Dixon
Re: Ted Juske's Jan. 1 letter, "Education not debatable."
His letter has some things backward. Schools do not offer free lunch or free transportation. My taxes pay for those things. Businesses do not chose their clients. Their clients choose them.
Too bad our students can't choose which school to attend.
Beyond a minimum threshold, it doesn't matter how much the school district spends.
According to the 2005 School Report Cards: Central District 51 ($4,438 a student); Aviston District 21 ($4,789); Germantown Hills District 69 ($5,036); Oak Grove District 68 ($5,189); St. Rose District 14-15 ($5,421); Washington District 52 ($5,429); Breese District 12 ($5,545); and Geff District 14 ($5,584) all had a higher percentage of students meeting the state's math and reading standards than Lake Forest's Rondout District 72 ($23,799 a student), at a quarter of the cost.
If Lake Forest residents spend so much because they value education, are they getting their money's worth?
If your business puts out an inferior product at four times the cost of your competitors, how long will you stay in business?
Vern R. Klenz
Dixon
Monday, January 09, 2006
2-year schools moving the bar
Yet another story to show how the public education system is failing our children. The story below came from the Daily Herald and can be viewed by clicking on the title above. The Daily Herald has been head and shoulders above the rest of the newspapers in Northern Illinois reporting on education issues. Bravo to Emily Krone and the Daily Herald for its excellent reporting.
2-year schools moving the bar
More community colleges requiring more students to take remedial courses
By Emily Krone
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2006
Doors to Illinois community colleges remain wide open.
But, increasingly, doors to certain classes are starting to close.
Faced with a growing number of unprepared students, local community colleges are instituting tougher enrollment standards for everything from entry-level English to advanced physics.
Students who don’t demonstrate mastery of basic reading, writing and math skills must play catch-up in pre-collegiate classes that don’t count toward a degree — a major shift for institutions known for inclusiveness, accessibility and flexibility.
Elgin Community College’s new minimum competency policy is “the most significant thing we’ve ever done in terms of changing the climate” on campus, said writing professor Patrick Parks, who sits on the academic policy committee that recommended the change.
The new policy requires that ECC students post a certain score on standardized tests to enroll in classes that count toward graduation at a four-year university. Students who do not score high enough must enroll in remedial classes.
Enrollment will shift by about 20 percent as more students are funneled into remedial classes, Vice President for Instruction and Student Services Gena Glickman estimated.
The college this year would have required 15 additional sections of remedial reading to accommodate the students who failed the reading test administered to all first-time, full-time students.
Of those tested, 67 percent placed into developmental writing, 20 percent into developmental reading and 90 percent into developmental math.
Under the new policy, enrollment in remedial classes would have been compulsory for those students.
“We want to make sure we’re teaching at an appropriate level and not watering down content,” Glickman said.
Ready or not
Community college officials said the changes are necessary because so many students don’t have a firm grasp of the fundamentals.
“In the English department, we’ve been keenly aware of the erosion of basic skills in writing,” said Parks. “It’s pretty well-documented nationwide.”
College of Lake County officials have been working to upgrade remedial classes for the past three years because students there aren’t meeting requirements for more advanced classes, Vice President for Education Affairs DeRionne Pollard said.
Several years ago the college instituted new minimum requirements for classes that transfer to four-year colleges.
McHenry County College officials put new standards in place also after noticing an increase in students unprepared to take college-level courses.
“The impetus was that we have seen students coming into our courses and not succeeding as well as they wanted to, and that’s because students came a bit unprepared,” said Keith Snow-Flamer, MCC’s assistant vice president for learning.
The reasons for the increase in unqualified students are many — from many different types of people enrolling in college to more people graduating from high school without basic skills.
And the implications are clear, college officials said.
Students who enroll in classes without proper preparation often end up withdrawing before the end of the semester, Glickman said.
In addition to losing money, students miss the opportunity to address the gaps in their knowledge.
Qualified students lose out also.
“It has a tendency to change the whole demeanor of the class,” Parks said. “At a college composition level, I shouldn’t still be teaching parts of speech.”
Student reaction
Student response to the change at ECC has been mixed, Parks said.
“Some fear there will be a lot of extra coursework,” he said.
That’s a valid concern, according to Donna Younger, director of Oakton Community College’s Learning Center.
Elgin’s approach can “slow progress considerably,” Younger said. “Some may not be going on to a four-year college, so they’d be penalized, in the greater sense, by having to … ensure transferability when they don’t plan to transfer.”
But students adjust quickly to tougher standards, said McHenry County College’s Snow-Flamer.
“It will be a change. There was a change here,” he said. “After it’s been in place for a while, it just becomes routine.”
•Daily Herald staff writers Chad Brooks, Erin Holmes, Mike Riopell, Leslie Hague and Cathi Edman contributed to this report.
2-year schools moving the bar
More community colleges requiring more students to take remedial courses
By Emily Krone
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, January 08, 2006
Doors to Illinois community colleges remain wide open.
But, increasingly, doors to certain classes are starting to close.
Faced with a growing number of unprepared students, local community colleges are instituting tougher enrollment standards for everything from entry-level English to advanced physics.
Students who don’t demonstrate mastery of basic reading, writing and math skills must play catch-up in pre-collegiate classes that don’t count toward a degree — a major shift for institutions known for inclusiveness, accessibility and flexibility.
Elgin Community College’s new minimum competency policy is “the most significant thing we’ve ever done in terms of changing the climate” on campus, said writing professor Patrick Parks, who sits on the academic policy committee that recommended the change.
The new policy requires that ECC students post a certain score on standardized tests to enroll in classes that count toward graduation at a four-year university. Students who do not score high enough must enroll in remedial classes.
Enrollment will shift by about 20 percent as more students are funneled into remedial classes, Vice President for Instruction and Student Services Gena Glickman estimated.
The college this year would have required 15 additional sections of remedial reading to accommodate the students who failed the reading test administered to all first-time, full-time students.
Of those tested, 67 percent placed into developmental writing, 20 percent into developmental reading and 90 percent into developmental math.
Under the new policy, enrollment in remedial classes would have been compulsory for those students.
“We want to make sure we’re teaching at an appropriate level and not watering down content,” Glickman said.
Ready or not
Community college officials said the changes are necessary because so many students don’t have a firm grasp of the fundamentals.
“In the English department, we’ve been keenly aware of the erosion of basic skills in writing,” said Parks. “It’s pretty well-documented nationwide.”
College of Lake County officials have been working to upgrade remedial classes for the past three years because students there aren’t meeting requirements for more advanced classes, Vice President for Education Affairs DeRionne Pollard said.
Several years ago the college instituted new minimum requirements for classes that transfer to four-year colleges.
McHenry County College officials put new standards in place also after noticing an increase in students unprepared to take college-level courses.
“The impetus was that we have seen students coming into our courses and not succeeding as well as they wanted to, and that’s because students came a bit unprepared,” said Keith Snow-Flamer, MCC’s assistant vice president for learning.
The reasons for the increase in unqualified students are many — from many different types of people enrolling in college to more people graduating from high school without basic skills.
And the implications are clear, college officials said.
Students who enroll in classes without proper preparation often end up withdrawing before the end of the semester, Glickman said.
In addition to losing money, students miss the opportunity to address the gaps in their knowledge.
Qualified students lose out also.
“It has a tendency to change the whole demeanor of the class,” Parks said. “At a college composition level, I shouldn’t still be teaching parts of speech.”
Student reaction
Student response to the change at ECC has been mixed, Parks said.
“Some fear there will be a lot of extra coursework,” he said.
That’s a valid concern, according to Donna Younger, director of Oakton Community College’s Learning Center.
Elgin’s approach can “slow progress considerably,” Younger said. “Some may not be going on to a four-year college, so they’d be penalized, in the greater sense, by having to … ensure transferability when they don’t plan to transfer.”
But students adjust quickly to tougher standards, said McHenry County College’s Snow-Flamer.
“It will be a change. There was a change here,” he said. “After it’s been in place for a while, it just becomes routine.”
•Daily Herald staff writers Chad Brooks, Erin Holmes, Mike Riopell, Leslie Hague and Cathi Edman contributed to this report.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Student Achievement in Private Schools: Results from NAEP 2000–2005
The description below was taken directly from the National Center for Education Statistics website. To view the full report click on the title above. Yet another reason for school choice. School choice should not be limited to those with the funds to send their children to private schools. The poor should have the same option.
This report is the first to focus on private school students’ performance on NAEP assessments. It provides results in reading, mathematics, science, and writing in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2005. Specifically, it focuses on the three private school types that combined enroll the greatest proportion of private school students (Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian) as well as private schools overall. It also compares the performance of students in these schools to that of public school students to provide additional perspective. Comparing student performance among the three types of private schools highlights several differences at grades 4 and 8 and a few at grade 12. Among the three types of private schools, few significant differences in performance were found at grade 12. The exceptions were that in 2000, the average score in science for grade 12 students in Catholic schools was 6 points higher than for students in Lutheran schools, and that in the 2000 mathematics assessment, a higher percentage of twelfth-graders in Catholic schools performed at or above Proficient than twelfth-graders in Conservative Christian schools. Where differences existed at grades 4 and 8, students in Lutheran schools generally outperformed those in Conservative Christian schools. In some grade/subject combinations, Lutheran school students outperformed Catholic school students, and Catholic school students outperformed Conservative Christian school students. Students at grades 4, 8, and 12 in all categories of private schools had higher average scores in reading, mathematics, science, and writing than their counterparts in public schools. In addition, higher percentages of students in private schools performed at or above Proficient compared to those in public schools.
This report is the first to focus on private school students’ performance on NAEP assessments. It provides results in reading, mathematics, science, and writing in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2005. Specifically, it focuses on the three private school types that combined enroll the greatest proportion of private school students (Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian) as well as private schools overall. It also compares the performance of students in these schools to that of public school students to provide additional perspective. Comparing student performance among the three types of private schools highlights several differences at grades 4 and 8 and a few at grade 12. Among the three types of private schools, few significant differences in performance were found at grade 12. The exceptions were that in 2000, the average score in science for grade 12 students in Catholic schools was 6 points higher than for students in Lutheran schools, and that in the 2000 mathematics assessment, a higher percentage of twelfth-graders in Catholic schools performed at or above Proficient than twelfth-graders in Conservative Christian schools. Where differences existed at grades 4 and 8, students in Lutheran schools generally outperformed those in Conservative Christian schools. In some grade/subject combinations, Lutheran school students outperformed Catholic school students, and Catholic school students outperformed Conservative Christian school students. Students at grades 4, 8, and 12 in all categories of private schools had higher average scores in reading, mathematics, science, and writing than their counterparts in public schools. In addition, higher percentages of students in private schools performed at or above Proficient compared to those in public schools.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
School officials may get pay hike
The story below was originally posted in the Peoria Journal Star and also is posted on Students First. The greed of these administrators is amazing the incompetence of of this school board is astounding. The board should be voted out of office for giving these raises. Raises of 27.5% and 28% should never be given out when they have a deficit of 7.9 million dollars. The administrators are already in the top 10% of wage earners nationwide. Some school employees have lost touch with reality and want the common man earns. How people who are in the top 10% of wage earners nationwide think they are underpaid is unfathomable. These salaries are even more excessive when you consider the cost of living in the Peoria area.
School officials may get pay hike
1/6/2006
By Elaine Hopkins
Peoria Journal Star
PEORIA - Retroactive pay raises of about 28 percent are planned for two District 150 associate superintendents, though the School Board still must vote on them.
The raises for Cynthia Fischer and Herschel Hannah Jr. will boost their annual pay to $130,000, effective July 1 of last year.
The raises became known when community activist Mimi McDonald used the Freedom of Information Act to ask about them and received details in a letter dated Dec. 22 from Guy Cahill, the district's controller/treasurer.
Cahill said Fisher now is being paid $111,000. That's a 9 percent increase she already received in the current fiscal year - which started July 1 - over her pay of $101,501 from the previous year. From that rate at the end of the 2004-05 fiscal year, her proposed raise would be a 28 percent increase.
Hannah is making $102,000, the same as last year, with a raise to $130,000 a 27.5 percent increase.
Both entered the District 150 administration in the fall of 2004, when they were earning more than $92,200 as principals.
"The board in consensus agreed on (the proposed new) salaries," Cahill said Thursday. "We made it public when administrative salaries were frozen for people in the same positions, with exceptions for the two associates because they changed positions."
Both had been serving as interim superintendents until last summer. Fischer's increase to $111,000 was "an adjustment, not a raise," Cahill added.
Asked why the proposed raises have not been voted on, Cahill said they "fell through the cracks" when the position of human resources director was vacant.
Superintendent Ken Hinton has a contract and is being paid $185,000 plus an allowance for expenses, Cahill said. Last year, Hinton made $165,303, when he had a temporary contract,
Board president Alicia Butler said Thursday she did not recall any public discussion of the amount of the proposed raises, which must be voted on in open session. "It's not on the agenda for Monday," she added.
Butler said the amounts concerned her, since they would pay for another teacher or security guard. "We certainly have to scrutinize every dollar and that includes salaries," she said.
District 150 expects a deficit of $7.9 million this year and has approved tax levies that will increase taxes by $61 on a $100,000 residence.
Raises for unions in District 150 this year range from 1.9 percent for custodians to 3.7 percent for teachers.
Lisa Uphoff, field representative for the Peoria Federation of Support Staff, Paraprofessional Unit, Local 6099, said the administrative raises were discussed at a meeting of the union coalition Wednesday night.
"It was a surprise to everyone there. We were under the assumption that all administrative salaries were frozen," she said.
Hinton could not be reached for comment.
School officials may get pay hike
1/6/2006
By Elaine Hopkins
Peoria Journal Star
PEORIA - Retroactive pay raises of about 28 percent are planned for two District 150 associate superintendents, though the School Board still must vote on them.
The raises for Cynthia Fischer and Herschel Hannah Jr. will boost their annual pay to $130,000, effective July 1 of last year.
The raises became known when community activist Mimi McDonald used the Freedom of Information Act to ask about them and received details in a letter dated Dec. 22 from Guy Cahill, the district's controller/treasurer.
Cahill said Fisher now is being paid $111,000. That's a 9 percent increase she already received in the current fiscal year - which started July 1 - over her pay of $101,501 from the previous year. From that rate at the end of the 2004-05 fiscal year, her proposed raise would be a 28 percent increase.
Hannah is making $102,000, the same as last year, with a raise to $130,000 a 27.5 percent increase.
Both entered the District 150 administration in the fall of 2004, when they were earning more than $92,200 as principals.
"The board in consensus agreed on (the proposed new) salaries," Cahill said Thursday. "We made it public when administrative salaries were frozen for people in the same positions, with exceptions for the two associates because they changed positions."
Both had been serving as interim superintendents until last summer. Fischer's increase to $111,000 was "an adjustment, not a raise," Cahill added.
Asked why the proposed raises have not been voted on, Cahill said they "fell through the cracks" when the position of human resources director was vacant.
Superintendent Ken Hinton has a contract and is being paid $185,000 plus an allowance for expenses, Cahill said. Last year, Hinton made $165,303, when he had a temporary contract,
Board president Alicia Butler said Thursday she did not recall any public discussion of the amount of the proposed raises, which must be voted on in open session. "It's not on the agenda for Monday," she added.
Butler said the amounts concerned her, since they would pay for another teacher or security guard. "We certainly have to scrutinize every dollar and that includes salaries," she said.
District 150 expects a deficit of $7.9 million this year and has approved tax levies that will increase taxes by $61 on a $100,000 residence.
Raises for unions in District 150 this year range from 1.9 percent for custodians to 3.7 percent for teachers.
Lisa Uphoff, field representative for the Peoria Federation of Support Staff, Paraprofessional Unit, Local 6099, said the administrative raises were discussed at a meeting of the union coalition Wednesday night.
"It was a surprise to everyone there. We were under the assumption that all administrative salaries were frozen," she said.
Hinton could not be reached for comment.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Why Mommy and Daddy Can’t Read...
Why Mommy and Daddy Can’t Read -
Public Education’s Crisis and The Stockholm Syndrome
Nearly 50 years ago, Rudolph Flesch wrote a best-selling book called Why Johnny Can’t Read, and identified for the first time the epic proportions of illiteracy that were then plaguing our nation. The book put the blame squarely at the feet of poor reading instruction, and the lack of phonics which years later would also be identified as the number one cause of poor reading proficiency. While some believe Johnny’s prospects may have improved a bit since then, and there is evidence that some students are making progress, it seems that grown-up Johnny has equally paltry literacy skills. As parents, Johnny and his wife also have trouble meeting the basic demands of a literate society.
Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that fully a third of college graduates are incapable of reading “lengthy English texts and making complex references from the readings.” According to former California prosecutor and now - high school teacher Patrick Mattimore, “while the educational attainment of America’s adults increased between 1992 and 2003, the percentages of college graduates scoring at the proficient level declined by nine percentage points.”
To view the rest of the story click here.
Public Education’s Crisis and The Stockholm Syndrome
Nearly 50 years ago, Rudolph Flesch wrote a best-selling book called Why Johnny Can’t Read, and identified for the first time the epic proportions of illiteracy that were then plaguing our nation. The book put the blame squarely at the feet of poor reading instruction, and the lack of phonics which years later would also be identified as the number one cause of poor reading proficiency. While some believe Johnny’s prospects may have improved a bit since then, and there is evidence that some students are making progress, it seems that grown-up Johnny has equally paltry literacy skills. As parents, Johnny and his wife also have trouble meeting the basic demands of a literate society.
Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that fully a third of college graduates are incapable of reading “lengthy English texts and making complex references from the readings.” According to former California prosecutor and now - high school teacher Patrick Mattimore, “while the educational attainment of America’s adults increased between 1992 and 2003, the percentages of college graduates scoring at the proficient level declined by nine percentage points.”
To view the rest of the story click here.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
ReformK12.com Because Education reform is not rocket science!
This site was actually started by a very brilliant public school teacher. He was an engineering student when the teaching bug bit. This fact does not surprise us at CRAFT since many of the education reformists we meet are engineers of one form or another. Engineers appear to have the math skills, problem solving skills and a mastery of logic that makes them excellent education reformists. This is a must read site with a plethora of information.
This great quote is on his website. "We accept no excuses. Excuses do children no favors. We refuse to accept that a child is too poor to learn. We refuse to accept that a parent is too detached to participate. We refuse to accept that a school system is too poor to demand high standards from its students."
-Paul G. Vallas
We agree with Mr. Vallas.
We feel that Education Reform has been portrayed as rocket science by an army of self-serving consultants, publishers, and "experts," when instead there are a few very, very simple culprits to our educational woes.
Lack of Choice: Why is it that in any other area of our lives we don't tolerate the government telling us what to do or what to choose, yet when people propose giving parents real choice (for example in the form of vouchers, or even permitting parents to homeschool), the response is, "Nooooo, that will destroy public education!" In fact, the only thing that would be destroyed is the government monopoly over education. Please see the Milton Friedman Foundation for more.
Low Standards: In far too many schools, especially in our cities, there are crushingly low standards for our children. A common refrain is "they can't!" when describing what poor or minority students can or can't do. This mindset helps the staff of ineffective schools get to work each day, but it does nothing to prepare our kids.
Lack of Discipline: In far too many schools, behavior standards are rare or nonexistent. We've taught in schools where the routine nature of uncivilized conduct made teaching and learning all but impossible. Should the students be blamed for this? Of course not, they are just acting within the boundaries--or lack thereof--established by the adults of the school. The flip side of this is also a problem. "Zero Tolerance" policies are also due to the adults' lack of discipline!
Fuzzy Curriculum: One of the biggest reasons our students are performing poorly relates to our poor choice of curricula. Math appreciation is taught under the NCTM's New New Math, reading appreciation is taught under Balanced Literacy and Whole Language, and culture appreciation is taught in soft-core social studies. And don't get us started on the political correctness which has usurped science.
In more than a few cities, the specific curriculum was tossed in favor of a bare-bones "curriculum frameworks"--frameworks which were famous for their vagueness. This was done in the hopes that a "constructivist pedagogy will inform teachers' choices in the classroom" or other drivel.
Teacher Indoctrination: One sound bite the general public hears is "we need more certified teachers!" Yet no one asks what teachers learn in their certification courses. And people don't ask if certified teachers have been proven to be more effective than non-certified ones. What may shock people is that the best private schools in the U.S. refuse to hire certified teachers! That should tell you something. Which leads us to...
Theory over Practice: This is the primary message teachers receive in their 2-years of brainwashing teacher certification classes. If someone wanted to learn how to grow corn in Iowa, or build a bridge over a windy channel, or navigate a corporation through the waters of Chapter 11, or design a really absorbent diaper ... the first step would be to speak to the people who've been successful at those very things!
The site has a section titled Education Reform Blueprint. To view the complete blueprint click here.
This great quote is on his website. "We accept no excuses. Excuses do children no favors. We refuse to accept that a child is too poor to learn. We refuse to accept that a parent is too detached to participate. We refuse to accept that a school system is too poor to demand high standards from its students."
-Paul G. Vallas
We agree with Mr. Vallas.
We feel that Education Reform has been portrayed as rocket science by an army of self-serving consultants, publishers, and "experts," when instead there are a few very, very simple culprits to our educational woes.
Lack of Choice: Why is it that in any other area of our lives we don't tolerate the government telling us what to do or what to choose, yet when people propose giving parents real choice (for example in the form of vouchers, or even permitting parents to homeschool), the response is, "Nooooo, that will destroy public education!" In fact, the only thing that would be destroyed is the government monopoly over education. Please see the Milton Friedman Foundation for more.
Low Standards: In far too many schools, especially in our cities, there are crushingly low standards for our children. A common refrain is "they can't!" when describing what poor or minority students can or can't do. This mindset helps the staff of ineffective schools get to work each day, but it does nothing to prepare our kids.
Lack of Discipline: In far too many schools, behavior standards are rare or nonexistent. We've taught in schools where the routine nature of uncivilized conduct made teaching and learning all but impossible. Should the students be blamed for this? Of course not, they are just acting within the boundaries--or lack thereof--established by the adults of the school. The flip side of this is also a problem. "Zero Tolerance" policies are also due to the adults' lack of discipline!
Fuzzy Curriculum: One of the biggest reasons our students are performing poorly relates to our poor choice of curricula. Math appreciation is taught under the NCTM's New New Math, reading appreciation is taught under Balanced Literacy and Whole Language, and culture appreciation is taught in soft-core social studies. And don't get us started on the political correctness which has usurped science.
In more than a few cities, the specific curriculum was tossed in favor of a bare-bones "curriculum frameworks"--frameworks which were famous for their vagueness. This was done in the hopes that a "constructivist pedagogy will inform teachers' choices in the classroom" or other drivel.
Teacher Indoctrination: One sound bite the general public hears is "we need more certified teachers!" Yet no one asks what teachers learn in their certification courses. And people don't ask if certified teachers have been proven to be more effective than non-certified ones. What may shock people is that the best private schools in the U.S. refuse to hire certified teachers! That should tell you something. Which leads us to...
Theory over Practice: This is the primary message teachers receive in their 2-years of brainwashing teacher certification classes. If someone wanted to learn how to grow corn in Iowa, or build a bridge over a windy channel, or navigate a corporation through the waters of Chapter 11, or design a really absorbent diaper ... the first step would be to speak to the people who've been successful at those very things!
The site has a section titled Education Reform Blueprint. To view the complete blueprint click here.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Camera found in D-2 school bathroom
CRAFT received an email about the incident below on January 2nd, 2006. The writer had asked the school board and superintendent about this incident. Why does it have to take involved parents to bring incidents like this to light. If this parent had not spoken up would the school officials still be sitting on this information? Parents should have received notice of this incident shortly after it happened. More proof that schools are more concerned about their image than actually protecting the children that they serve.
The article below appeared in the January 4 edition of the Northwest Herald.
Camera found in D-2 school bathroom
Video inside
[published on Wed, Jan 4, 2006]
RICHMOND – Nippersink District 2 suspended one of its employees last month after a teacher found a hidden wireless camera in a staff bathroom at Richmond Grade School, Superintendent Paul Hain said Tuesday.
Hain said students, who return from winter break today, are in no danger.
District officials would not name the employee but said the person was not a teacher.
"We are trying to do this as legally and dutifully as we can right now," Hain said. "If there is any truth to this, the school board will fire in a heartbeat anybody who has done that."
Richmond Police Chief Rich Contant said the department had a suspect but had not filed any charges in connection with the incident.
A male teacher used the bathroom Dec. 13 to change his clothes after finding all the bathrooms near the gymnasium full. As the teacher bent over to collect his things, he noticed the small camera under the sink, Hain said.
"It was pointed at the toilet," Hain said.
The bathroom, which is behind the school's kitchen, is used by kitchen staff, maintenance workers, and occasionally teachers. It is a private bathroom, without a stall, that can be used by either men or women.
CBS 2 Video
Richmond police started their investigation Dec. 14 but did not search the rest of the bathrooms until Dec. 19 and Dec. 20.
Winter break started Dec. 21, one week after the camera was found.
Contant said they did not find any more cameras in other bathrooms.
"Parents should not be concerned for their kids at this point," Contant said. "The camera was found in a bathroom, but not one used by children."
Hain said police seized some of the school's equipment, including a computer, as evidence, but he said he did not know whether any images were recovered.
"They are checking to see if any of it was used or if there were any latent images," Hain said.
Contant said he was waiting for a forensics lab to tell him what they have and said he will check with the state attorney's office to see if they have another evidence to press charges.
Hain said the school board will fire the employee if there is credible evidence, even if charges are never filed.
"We don't have to have that same standard of evidence in order to take an action," he said.
By JEFF GARD
jgard@nwherald.com
The article below appeared in the January 4 edition of the Northwest Herald.
Camera found in D-2 school bathroom
Video inside
[published on Wed, Jan 4, 2006]
RICHMOND – Nippersink District 2 suspended one of its employees last month after a teacher found a hidden wireless camera in a staff bathroom at Richmond Grade School, Superintendent Paul Hain said Tuesday.
Hain said students, who return from winter break today, are in no danger.
District officials would not name the employee but said the person was not a teacher.
"We are trying to do this as legally and dutifully as we can right now," Hain said. "If there is any truth to this, the school board will fire in a heartbeat anybody who has done that."
Richmond Police Chief Rich Contant said the department had a suspect but had not filed any charges in connection with the incident.
A male teacher used the bathroom Dec. 13 to change his clothes after finding all the bathrooms near the gymnasium full. As the teacher bent over to collect his things, he noticed the small camera under the sink, Hain said.
"It was pointed at the toilet," Hain said.
The bathroom, which is behind the school's kitchen, is used by kitchen staff, maintenance workers, and occasionally teachers. It is a private bathroom, without a stall, that can be used by either men or women.
CBS 2 Video
Richmond police started their investigation Dec. 14 but did not search the rest of the bathrooms until Dec. 19 and Dec. 20.
Winter break started Dec. 21, one week after the camera was found.
Contant said they did not find any more cameras in other bathrooms.
"Parents should not be concerned for their kids at this point," Contant said. "The camera was found in a bathroom, but not one used by children."
Hain said police seized some of the school's equipment, including a computer, as evidence, but he said he did not know whether any images were recovered.
"They are checking to see if any of it was used or if there were any latent images," Hain said.
Contant said he was waiting for a forensics lab to tell him what they have and said he will check with the state attorney's office to see if they have another evidence to press charges.
Hain said the school board will fire the employee if there is credible evidence, even if charges are never filed.
"We don't have to have that same standard of evidence in order to take an action," he said.
By JEFF GARD
jgard@nwherald.com
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Teachers' Pets
Teachers' Pets
The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal groups last year
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.
We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
Many of the organization's disbursements--$30,000 to the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching Quality--at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.
The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took effect this year. "What wasn't clear before is how much of a part the teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic Party," says Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. "They're like some philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest groups."
There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.
When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their union chieftains did their political thinking for them, by going to www.union-reports.dol.gov , where the Labor Department has posted the details.
Union officials claim that they favored such transparency all along, but the truth is they fought the new rules hard in both Congress and the courts. Originally, the AFL-CIO said detailed disclosures were too expensive, citing compliance costs in excess of $1 billion. The final bill turned out to be $54,000, or half of what the unions spent on litigation fighting the new requirements. When Secretary Chao refused to back down, the unions took her to court, and lost.
It's well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union's rank-and-file stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money that comes out of their pockets.
The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal groups last year
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.
We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
Many of the organization's disbursements--$30,000 to the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching Quality--at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.
The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took effect this year. "What wasn't clear before is how much of a part the teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic Party," says Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. "They're like some philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest groups."
There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.
When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their union chieftains did their political thinking for them, by going to www.union-reports.dol.gov , where the Labor Department has posted the details.
Union officials claim that they favored such transparency all along, but the truth is they fought the new rules hard in both Congress and the courts. Originally, the AFL-CIO said detailed disclosures were too expensive, citing compliance costs in excess of $1 billion. The final bill turned out to be $54,000, or half of what the unions spent on litigation fighting the new requirements. When Secretary Chao refused to back down, the unions took her to court, and lost.
It's well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union's rank-and-file stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money that comes out of their pockets.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Letting Literacy Slip
The opinion below appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
OUR OPINION
Letting literacy slip
Marked decline checks in as students are swamped with test-taking tips — and the latest electronic toys
Published on: 12/30/05
At every level of education, Americans are faltering in their ability to grasp a newspaper story or a passage in a book.
This skill is known as prose literacy, and it's declining even among well-educated Americans. The latest sampling of adult literacy by the National Center for Education Statistics found a 10 percentage point drop in graduate students who tested proficient in prose literacy in 2003 compared to the last time it was measured in 1992.
There was also a marked slip among college students testing proficient; 40 percent in 1992 and 31 percent in 2003.
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy gauges Americans' fluency in reading text and documents such as maps and labels. It also looks at quantitative literacy, a person's ability to understand tax forms, tables or bank statements.
To be ranked proficient, an adult has to be able to read and extract information from complex materials, such as legal documents. "No group, not even those with the highest levels of formal education, had an average in the proficient level on any of the scales," says National Center for Education Statistics commissioner Mark Schneider.
The sampling found that 13 percent of adults demonstrated "below basic prose literacy." According to Schneider, that translates to 30 million Americans who "could not do much more than sign a form or search a simple document to find out what they are allowed to drink before a medical test."
What's hard to understand is how literacy is falling at the same time that schools are making reading their top priority.
The poor showing on the national literacy assessment even among college grads ought to generate discussion at both state and federal levels about whether test-driven reform is creating better test-takers rather than better readers. As schools concentrate more resources on teaching kids how to bubble in the correct answers on standardized tests, less time is available to develop critical thinking skills.
If a generation of test drilling produces adults unable to decipher nutrition labels, then education will have failed miserably.
But it's not only schools that need to re-examine their tactics. How many children received video games, IPods and DVDs for Christmas rather than any books or board games? Among the must-have items this holiday season for kids were the Xbox 360, I-Dog, an electronic dog that hooks up to a digital music player, and ChatNow, a two-way radio.
Too many children have also cleared their bookshelves of books to accommodate televisions. A survey commissioned last year by the National Sleep Foundation found that 43 percent of school-age children, 30 percent of preschoolers and 18 percent of toddlers now have televisions in their bedrooms.
Consider a new poll of public high-school students by the city of Boston. Released by the city a week ago, the survey found that half of the teens devoted three or more hours each night to watching television and that four out of 10 spent that same amount of time on the Internet or playing computer games.
The real quest of schools and parents is not to cram children full of facts, but to teach them how to gather and evaluate information. Literacy is the requisite first step to that goal.
The below was sent to us by our friend Joyce Morrison of News With Views.
"Now the Print Media Is Getting Worried"
by Donna Garner
Jan. 1, 2006
It is so ironic to me that the print media has led the fight to inundate our country in multiculturalism and to de-emphasize our country's historical foundation in Western civilization. With that has come a resistance in our schools toward teaching primary historical documents and the traditional classics which immerse students in deep vocabulary and higher-level thinking skills -- the very skills which the Atlanta-Constitution editorial board now lament have been lost by a large percentage of Americans (please see article posted below).
When whole language was exposed after damaging at least two generations of students and lowering their reading levels, the print media along with concerned Americans should have insisted that the public schools teach children to read through research-based methods and then to make sure that students are immersed in high-quality literature. Instead, the media has aligned themselves with the very organizations which have promoted the dumbing down of America (e.g., NEA, NCEE, NCTE, IRA, NCTM, NBPTS, NCATE, etc.). It is only recently that the print media has come to realize they are losing their readership; now they are getting worried.
Where were they when we classroom teachers who wrote the Texas Alternative Document (TAD -- http://www.educationnews.org/new_home_for_the_texas_alternati.htm) tried to bring back quality literature to the children in our state? I don't remember the media fighting alongside us to force the education establishment to respond to the TAD's attempts to implement the time-honored classics into our state's standards.
With the power to persuade which the print media has utilized for many years, if the TAD had had the print media's full support, every child in our Texas public schools would now be reading quality literature and historical documents which would provide that much-needed foundational knowledge that helps children increase their skills and reading levels each year. Instead, our students are reading multicultural, politically correct drivel which has been chosen because of its social agenda and the ethnicity of the author instead of being chosen based upon the author's superior writing skills. Our textbooks are filled with distracting graphics which de-emphasize the written word, and students are wasting away their precious classroom minutes by playing on computers rather than on reading the time-honored literary pieces of the world.
The result will be an ever-growing slump in reading abilities which will eventually have dire ramifications for the future of our nation. It will also mean that the print media, to stay in business, will be forced to lower the reading level of its articles. This will mean shallower coverage, more bias, shorter articles, non-engaging depth, more sound bites, and less sophisticated writing style in their articles. If the print media were smart, they would use their tremendous ability to influence the public; and they would lead in the fight to get the public schools to require students to read the cherished works which have linked each generation of Americans with past generations. Instead, multicultural/politically correct pabulum reigns supreme in most public schools; and the print media will continue to lose its readership.
OUR OPINION
Letting literacy slip
Marked decline checks in as students are swamped with test-taking tips — and the latest electronic toys
Published on: 12/30/05
At every level of education, Americans are faltering in their ability to grasp a newspaper story or a passage in a book.
This skill is known as prose literacy, and it's declining even among well-educated Americans. The latest sampling of adult literacy by the National Center for Education Statistics found a 10 percentage point drop in graduate students who tested proficient in prose literacy in 2003 compared to the last time it was measured in 1992.
There was also a marked slip among college students testing proficient; 40 percent in 1992 and 31 percent in 2003.
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy gauges Americans' fluency in reading text and documents such as maps and labels. It also looks at quantitative literacy, a person's ability to understand tax forms, tables or bank statements.
To be ranked proficient, an adult has to be able to read and extract information from complex materials, such as legal documents. "No group, not even those with the highest levels of formal education, had an average in the proficient level on any of the scales," says National Center for Education Statistics commissioner Mark Schneider.
The sampling found that 13 percent of adults demonstrated "below basic prose literacy." According to Schneider, that translates to 30 million Americans who "could not do much more than sign a form or search a simple document to find out what they are allowed to drink before a medical test."
What's hard to understand is how literacy is falling at the same time that schools are making reading their top priority.
The poor showing on the national literacy assessment even among college grads ought to generate discussion at both state and federal levels about whether test-driven reform is creating better test-takers rather than better readers. As schools concentrate more resources on teaching kids how to bubble in the correct answers on standardized tests, less time is available to develop critical thinking skills.
If a generation of test drilling produces adults unable to decipher nutrition labels, then education will have failed miserably.
But it's not only schools that need to re-examine their tactics. How many children received video games, IPods and DVDs for Christmas rather than any books or board games? Among the must-have items this holiday season for kids were the Xbox 360, I-Dog, an electronic dog that hooks up to a digital music player, and ChatNow, a two-way radio.
Too many children have also cleared their bookshelves of books to accommodate televisions. A survey commissioned last year by the National Sleep Foundation found that 43 percent of school-age children, 30 percent of preschoolers and 18 percent of toddlers now have televisions in their bedrooms.
Consider a new poll of public high-school students by the city of Boston. Released by the city a week ago, the survey found that half of the teens devoted three or more hours each night to watching television and that four out of 10 spent that same amount of time on the Internet or playing computer games.
The real quest of schools and parents is not to cram children full of facts, but to teach them how to gather and evaluate information. Literacy is the requisite first step to that goal.
The below was sent to us by our friend Joyce Morrison of News With Views.
"Now the Print Media Is Getting Worried"
by Donna Garner
Jan. 1, 2006
It is so ironic to me that the print media has led the fight to inundate our country in multiculturalism and to de-emphasize our country's historical foundation in Western civilization. With that has come a resistance in our schools toward teaching primary historical documents and the traditional classics which immerse students in deep vocabulary and higher-level thinking skills -- the very skills which the Atlanta-Constitution editorial board now lament have been lost by a large percentage of Americans (please see article posted below).
When whole language was exposed after damaging at least two generations of students and lowering their reading levels, the print media along with concerned Americans should have insisted that the public schools teach children to read through research-based methods and then to make sure that students are immersed in high-quality literature. Instead, the media has aligned themselves with the very organizations which have promoted the dumbing down of America (e.g., NEA, NCEE, NCTE, IRA, NCTM, NBPTS, NCATE, etc.). It is only recently that the print media has come to realize they are losing their readership; now they are getting worried.
Where were they when we classroom teachers who wrote the Texas Alternative Document (TAD -- http://www.educationnews.org/new_home_for_the_texas_alternati.htm) tried to bring back quality literature to the children in our state? I don't remember the media fighting alongside us to force the education establishment to respond to the TAD's attempts to implement the time-honored classics into our state's standards.
With the power to persuade which the print media has utilized for many years, if the TAD had had the print media's full support, every child in our Texas public schools would now be reading quality literature and historical documents which would provide that much-needed foundational knowledge that helps children increase their skills and reading levels each year. Instead, our students are reading multicultural, politically correct drivel which has been chosen because of its social agenda and the ethnicity of the author instead of being chosen based upon the author's superior writing skills. Our textbooks are filled with distracting graphics which de-emphasize the written word, and students are wasting away their precious classroom minutes by playing on computers rather than on reading the time-honored literary pieces of the world.
The result will be an ever-growing slump in reading abilities which will eventually have dire ramifications for the future of our nation. It will also mean that the print media, to stay in business, will be forced to lower the reading level of its articles. This will mean shallower coverage, more bias, shorter articles, non-engaging depth, more sound bites, and less sophisticated writing style in their articles. If the print media were smart, they would use their tremendous ability to influence the public; and they would lead in the fight to get the public schools to require students to read the cherished works which have linked each generation of Americans with past generations. Instead, multicultural/politically correct pabulum reigns supreme in most public schools; and the print media will continue to lose its readership.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Taxpayers deserve better from Dist. 203
This appeared as a letter to the editor in the January 1, 2006 issue of the Daily Herald. Imagine the millions of taxpayer dollars that could be saved if we had more responsible school board members like Mike Davitt.
Taxpayers deserve better from Dist. 203
Thanks to reporting by the Daily Herald, taxpayers discovered that many school districts were taking advantage of referendums through a loophole in the tax law (a loophole legislators are now scrambling to correct). Nevertheless, District 203 collected somewhere between $24 million to $36 million more than what was originally projected by the 2002 referendum.////
I made a motion to reduce our 2005 levy by $5.8 million (3 percent of our $200 million budget). My rationale was since we over collected $24 million to $36 million more than what voters authorized in 2002, returning some of it was the simply the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the majority of the board didn’t think we could afford to give any of the money back and voted 5-2 to keep it all. It was the same 5-2 vote that reasoned we could afford to give teachers a 5.2 percent raise for the next three years following six years of 6 percent raises.
Our operating budget has tripled in 15 years (from $69 million in 1990 to $200 million today). Has your home tripled in value? Taxpayers cannot be expected to sustain this level of spending growth.
If only taxpayers could borrow a page from the Naperville Unit Education Association play book and hold parents and students hostage with the threat of a strike perhaps they would have more leverage.
Merry Christmas, Naperville taxpayers.
Mike Davitt
Naperville
Taxpayers deserve better from Dist. 203
Thanks to reporting by the Daily Herald, taxpayers discovered that many school districts were taking advantage of referendums through a loophole in the tax law (a loophole legislators are now scrambling to correct). Nevertheless, District 203 collected somewhere between $24 million to $36 million more than what was originally projected by the 2002 referendum.////
I made a motion to reduce our 2005 levy by $5.8 million (3 percent of our $200 million budget). My rationale was since we over collected $24 million to $36 million more than what voters authorized in 2002, returning some of it was the simply the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the majority of the board didn’t think we could afford to give any of the money back and voted 5-2 to keep it all. It was the same 5-2 vote that reasoned we could afford to give teachers a 5.2 percent raise for the next three years following six years of 6 percent raises.
Our operating budget has tripled in 15 years (from $69 million in 1990 to $200 million today). Has your home tripled in value? Taxpayers cannot be expected to sustain this level of spending growth.
If only taxpayers could borrow a page from the Naperville Unit Education Association play book and hold parents and students hostage with the threat of a strike perhaps they would have more leverage.
Merry Christmas, Naperville taxpayers.
Mike Davitt
Naperville
Friday, December 30, 2005
Putting tenure on trial
The below story was sent to us from a friend in Harvard and can be found by clicking on the title above or at www.townhall.com.
Putting tenure on trial
By Burt Prelutsky
Dec 30, 2005
An ongoing problem I have is that I am, at heart, a crusader, but, by temperament, a couch potato. To be really good at altering the status quo, you have to be ready to join with others in a mission, and I don’t happen to like group activities. Even when a group consists of people I like as individuals, as soon as they organize, some bossy person is handing out marching orders, and somebody else is putting me to sleep reading the minutes of the last meeting.
Ideally, the way it should work is that I come up with great ideas and then get to lie down on the sofa and take a nap while other people run off and do the heavy lifting.
My latest campaign is to do away with tenure. If there’s a dumber idea floating around than the guarantee of lifetime employment I’m not sure I want to hear about it. A person can take only so much stupidity in a single lifetime and I believe I’ve just about reached my quota.
So far as I’m aware, the only two groups that receive tenure in our society are Supreme Court justices and teachers. The theory is that these people need to be protected from undue political pressure. Well, these days, as we’re all very much aware, there is as much or more blatant politicking involved in a Supreme Court appointment than in a presidential election. For the life of me, I don’t see why a duly-elected president can only serve eight years, but a justice can serve thirty or forty.
It makes even less sense that professors are guaranteed a job for life. Guys on the assemblyline don’t have tenure. Gardeners and waitresses don’t get tenure. Why should professors who already work short hours for good money be treated like English royalty?
I have heard the argument that, without such guarantees, they might be fired for political reasons. The fact of the matter is that, as more and more colleges and universities are infested with leftwing radicals, professors are far more likely to be hired because of their politics.
As for the risk that a professor of any political stripe might be shown the exit because the administration disapproves of his leanings, the question should be moot. Even if his field of study happens to be history, philosophy or even the Republican party in the 21st century, no professor worth his salt has any business dragging his own politics into the classroom. But suggest that to a leftwing academic, and he starts yelling about censorship, as if the job description includes proselytizing.
To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: those who can, teach; those who can’t, indoctrinate.
Instead of tenure, I’d give these academics with their childish Che Guevara posters the gate.
Putting tenure on trial
By Burt Prelutsky
Dec 30, 2005
An ongoing problem I have is that I am, at heart, a crusader, but, by temperament, a couch potato. To be really good at altering the status quo, you have to be ready to join with others in a mission, and I don’t happen to like group activities. Even when a group consists of people I like as individuals, as soon as they organize, some bossy person is handing out marching orders, and somebody else is putting me to sleep reading the minutes of the last meeting.
Ideally, the way it should work is that I come up with great ideas and then get to lie down on the sofa and take a nap while other people run off and do the heavy lifting.
My latest campaign is to do away with tenure. If there’s a dumber idea floating around than the guarantee of lifetime employment I’m not sure I want to hear about it. A person can take only so much stupidity in a single lifetime and I believe I’ve just about reached my quota.
So far as I’m aware, the only two groups that receive tenure in our society are Supreme Court justices and teachers. The theory is that these people need to be protected from undue political pressure. Well, these days, as we’re all very much aware, there is as much or more blatant politicking involved in a Supreme Court appointment than in a presidential election. For the life of me, I don’t see why a duly-elected president can only serve eight years, but a justice can serve thirty or forty.
It makes even less sense that professors are guaranteed a job for life. Guys on the assemblyline don’t have tenure. Gardeners and waitresses don’t get tenure. Why should professors who already work short hours for good money be treated like English royalty?
I have heard the argument that, without such guarantees, they might be fired for political reasons. The fact of the matter is that, as more and more colleges and universities are infested with leftwing radicals, professors are far more likely to be hired because of their politics.
As for the risk that a professor of any political stripe might be shown the exit because the administration disapproves of his leanings, the question should be moot. Even if his field of study happens to be history, philosophy or even the Republican party in the 21st century, no professor worth his salt has any business dragging his own politics into the classroom. But suggest that to a leftwing academic, and he starts yelling about censorship, as if the job description includes proselytizing.
To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: those who can, teach; those who can’t, indoctrinate.
Instead of tenure, I’d give these academics with their childish Che Guevara posters the gate.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Why American Students Know So Little American History and What We Can Do About It
Today's entry was sent to us by our friend Joyce Morrison of News With Views. This story is posted on Education News.Org.
Why American Students Know So Little American History and What We Can Do About It
Sandra Stotsky
Commonwealth Education Organization
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
October 6, 2005
Introduction to the sources of the problem
The study of US history in K-12 has traditionally served two significant purposes, one academic, the other civic. It has been the major source for civic education, promoting both knowledge of this country's political principles, processes, and institutions and allegiance to them-i.e., the basis for US citizenship. Over the past 100 years, however, there has been a steady decline in the teaching of history through the grades. To view the rest of the story click here.
Why American Students Know So Little American History and What We Can Do About It
Sandra Stotsky
Commonwealth Education Organization
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
October 6, 2005
Introduction to the sources of the problem
The study of US history in K-12 has traditionally served two significant purposes, one academic, the other civic. It has been the major source for civic education, promoting both knowledge of this country's political principles, processes, and institutions and allegiance to them-i.e., the basis for US citizenship. Over the past 100 years, however, there has been a steady decline in the teaching of history through the grades. To view the rest of the story click here.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Getting Honest About Grad Rates.
The Education Trust is a great website. The information below is part of the press release from The Education Trust to view the whole press release go to the education trust website. To view the complete report click here.
June 23, 2005
CONTACT: Nicolle Grayson
(202) 293-1217, ext. 351
Getting Honest About Grad Rates: Too Many States Hide Behind False Data
(Washington, DC) – The Education Trust released a report today that sharply criticizes the way states calculate and report graduation statistics. The analysis, entitled “Getting Honest About Grad Rates: How States Play the Numbers and Students Lose,” also rebukes the U.S. Department of Education for failing to exert leadership by demanding that states get honest about graduation rates.
The Ed Trust analysis reveals disturbing patterns: Some states rely on ludicrous definitions of graduation rates. Others make little effort to accurately account for students who drop out of school. And others still provide no data at all. The final result: Extremely unreliable graduation-rate information that erodes public confidence in schools and their leadership and threatens to undermine the important work of high school reform.
June 23, 2005
CONTACT: Nicolle Grayson
(202) 293-1217, ext. 351
Getting Honest About Grad Rates: Too Many States Hide Behind False Data
(Washington, DC) – The Education Trust released a report today that sharply criticizes the way states calculate and report graduation statistics. The analysis, entitled “Getting Honest About Grad Rates: How States Play the Numbers and Students Lose,” also rebukes the U.S. Department of Education for failing to exert leadership by demanding that states get honest about graduation rates.
The Ed Trust analysis reveals disturbing patterns: Some states rely on ludicrous definitions of graduation rates. Others make little effort to accurately account for students who drop out of school. And others still provide no data at all. The final result: Extremely unreliable graduation-rate information that erodes public confidence in schools and their leadership and threatens to undermine the important work of high school reform.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Don't Keep School Tax
The letters below appeared in the Rockford Register Star. Schools are not going to listen until more taxpayers and parents speak up. Bravo to these two Rockford residents for speaking up. McHenry District 15 residents do not forget that the school district is not going to return taxes they promised to return. Can you trust them to do the right thing with new revenues if the spring referendum passes?
Published: December 27, 2005
Letters to the Editor
Don’t keep school tax
Wake up, Rockford School District taxpayers.
The School Board asks that we vote to make a temporary tax permanent. Any time we vote for a temporary tax, it seems the taxing body gets used to it and cannot live without it.
I urge every taxpayer to vote no next spring. Many of us are just making ends meet and the reduction in taxes is considerable if this tax is not extended.
We pay some of the highest school taxes and have not received a lot in return. Yes, there have been improvements. The board wants us to believe that they are good stewards of our tax dollars.
I do not question their motives, but why is it that other districts are doing great without nearly that amount of taxes levied?
The School Board is hoping that you are used to paying and will want you to think, “I am already paying it, so it is not so bad.” Stop and think about that kind of reasoning.
We, as taxpayers, have the power to stop a tax from being continued.
Now is the time to start talking to your neighbors and urge them to vote no.
— David Draper, Rockford
Published: December 26, 2005
Letters to the Editor
Focus on education
Are junk food vending machines the schools’ most pressing issue?
The governor is concerned. I agree, as most parents would, that junk food isn’t the best for our kids. My concern is: Are we spending too much time and resources on this issue, when there are more serious ones facing our schools?
We need the focus to be education of our students, not just whether they eat a bag of chips for lunch.
— Diane Walz, Rockford
Published: December 27, 2005
Letters to the Editor
Don’t keep school tax
Wake up, Rockford School District taxpayers.
The School Board asks that we vote to make a temporary tax permanent. Any time we vote for a temporary tax, it seems the taxing body gets used to it and cannot live without it.
I urge every taxpayer to vote no next spring. Many of us are just making ends meet and the reduction in taxes is considerable if this tax is not extended.
We pay some of the highest school taxes and have not received a lot in return. Yes, there have been improvements. The board wants us to believe that they are good stewards of our tax dollars.
I do not question their motives, but why is it that other districts are doing great without nearly that amount of taxes levied?
The School Board is hoping that you are used to paying and will want you to think, “I am already paying it, so it is not so bad.” Stop and think about that kind of reasoning.
We, as taxpayers, have the power to stop a tax from being continued.
Now is the time to start talking to your neighbors and urge them to vote no.
— David Draper, Rockford
Published: December 26, 2005
Letters to the Editor
Focus on education
Are junk food vending machines the schools’ most pressing issue?
The governor is concerned. I agree, as most parents would, that junk food isn’t the best for our kids. My concern is: Are we spending too much time and resources on this issue, when there are more serious ones facing our schools?
We need the focus to be education of our students, not just whether they eat a bag of chips for lunch.
— Diane Walz, Rockford
Monday, December 26, 2005
Band, sports ready to return
The article below appeared in the Sunday, December 25th edition of the Northwest Herald. Harvard had asked for 7 referenda in a row that all failed. A referendum never passed and the school board managed to balance the budget. Bravo to the Harvard school board. But one must ask oneself did they really need the money in the past and what was the money going to be used for at that time.
Band, sports ready to return as board reinstates programs
[published on Sun, Dec 25, 2005]
By GENEVA WHITE
gwhite@nwherald.com
HARVARD – Linda Russ was pleased to hear recently that some of the items cut by District 50 were approved by the school board to be reinstated.
But the mother of two fourth-graders at Jefferson Elementary School found herself asking why the cuts ever were made.
"I have to wonder how they can afford to bring them back now," she said. "The cuts never should have been made. Some of the teachers that they've let go should have never been let go."
The school board announced last month that it would look into bringing back its most recent cuts, which included junior high jazz band, freshman sports at Harvard High School, and the high school scholastic bowl.
The school board has approved a list of recommended items to reinstate. In addition to the above programs, these include a junior high reading specialist, art consultants, a high school math teacher, and an elementary librarian.
Bringing back those programs and staff would cost the district about $195,000, District 50 spokesman Bill Clow said.
District officials this fall began meeting with groups such as the Harvard High School Booster Club and HARMONY, a nonprofit group formed two years ago to promote music and stage-performance activities.
"They were wanting to at least have the board consider this," said Superintendent Randy Gross, who recommended the list to the board, whose members approved it Monday.
"This is a good example that the board is listening to the community and doing what it can within the financial constraints for the district," he said.
District officials have pointed to a balanced budget as the reason these programs could return. The district in September touted a $19.75 million budget showing that education-fund revenues would exceed spending by about $200,000.
Band, sports ready to return as board reinstates programs
[published on Sun, Dec 25, 2005]
By GENEVA WHITE
gwhite@nwherald.com
HARVARD – Linda Russ was pleased to hear recently that some of the items cut by District 50 were approved by the school board to be reinstated.
But the mother of two fourth-graders at Jefferson Elementary School found herself asking why the cuts ever were made.
"I have to wonder how they can afford to bring them back now," she said. "The cuts never should have been made. Some of the teachers that they've let go should have never been let go."
The school board announced last month that it would look into bringing back its most recent cuts, which included junior high jazz band, freshman sports at Harvard High School, and the high school scholastic bowl.
The school board has approved a list of recommended items to reinstate. In addition to the above programs, these include a junior high reading specialist, art consultants, a high school math teacher, and an elementary librarian.
Bringing back those programs and staff would cost the district about $195,000, District 50 spokesman Bill Clow said.
District officials this fall began meeting with groups such as the Harvard High School Booster Club and HARMONY, a nonprofit group formed two years ago to promote music and stage-performance activities.
"They were wanting to at least have the board consider this," said Superintendent Randy Gross, who recommended the list to the board, whose members approved it Monday.
"This is a good example that the board is listening to the community and doing what it can within the financial constraints for the district," he said.
District officials have pointed to a balanced budget as the reason these programs could return. The district in September touted a $19.75 million budget showing that education-fund revenues would exceed spending by about $200,000.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Union leaders need to learn to behave
The Education Intelligence Agency is a must see website for those fighting for true education reform and spending reform. Intercepts is Mike Antonucci's BLOG. Mr. Antonucci established the Education Intelligence Agency in June 1997. I first spotted this article on his BLOG this article was originally posted at Inside Bay Area.
Jim, some of of our other educating reform fighting friends and I, are all too familiar with this behavior. We experienced it in Harvard, Huntley and Winthrop Harbor among other places. We are wondering just what will happen at the District 300 presentations planned for early 2006.
The article below can also be viewed at www.insidebayarea.com.
Union leaders need to learn to behave
WHY do some Oakland teachers union leaders and members have to stoop to boorish behavior to draw attention to their demands?
It's one thing for the union to renew its threat of a strike if a new contract isn't crafted to its satisfaction. Negotiations have been bitter and emotions have run high since spring, when the union rejected the district's contract offer. So, talk of a strike in that context isn't shocking.
What's disturbing, though, were the antics some union members displayed at Wednesday night's school board meeting. One teacher went so far as to compare state School Administrator Randolph Ward to Hitler and to describe him as "a bourgeois black man" who has forgotten his roots. The teacher's comments were loudly cheered as others in the audience laughed and applauded.
We realize the great majority of district teachers, even if frustrated with the pace of contract talks, are civil and care more about their students' academic progress than demonizing Ward.
By all accounts, there are legitimate concerns about health benefits in the current contract talks. Teachers are worried their family health care costs could soar to $3,000 a year under the proposed "cap" on health benefits. Negotiating for teachers' benefits and rights should be serious business, and discussions should be handled seriously, not with sophomoric stunts.
Another low point came when a teacher tried to explain to the school board his plans for a new science and technology charter school in a partnership with NASA. Members of the audience berated the teacher, punctuating his presentation with noisy boos and jeers.
Where do these so-called educators get off demeaning and disrespecting a fellow teacher for daring to propose innovative ways to educate Oakland youths? There is always room for disagreement about methods and philosophy, but any differences should be focused on a specific issue rather than resorting to bullying and heckling out of a resentment against charter schools.
When they take to the podium to speak, would some of Wednesday night's hecklers want to be treated the same way — drowned out or made fun of?
We want to respect our teachers and support them. But when they use such juvenile tactics, it is hard to take them seriously. And what kind of role model are these teachers setting for their students? Will students learn, by observing their teachers, that the only way to express opinions is by being disruptive and disrespectful, outshouting any opposing viewpoints and resorting to derogatory name-calling to make their points?
It's time for the leaders of the teachers union to grow up, tone down the theatrics and work with the administration to find the best solutions to the myriad problems facing the district.
According to teachers union President Ben Visnick, the union "has been reasonable" at the bargaining table and is ready to reach a fair contract. He says the teachers have made concessions, and the district must do the same.
That all sounds fine. If only such civility could be extended to other public meetings, there might be more movement on all sides.
Jim, some of of our other educating reform fighting friends and I, are all too familiar with this behavior. We experienced it in Harvard, Huntley and Winthrop Harbor among other places. We are wondering just what will happen at the District 300 presentations planned for early 2006.
The article below can also be viewed at www.insidebayarea.com.
Union leaders need to learn to behave
WHY do some Oakland teachers union leaders and members have to stoop to boorish behavior to draw attention to their demands?
It's one thing for the union to renew its threat of a strike if a new contract isn't crafted to its satisfaction. Negotiations have been bitter and emotions have run high since spring, when the union rejected the district's contract offer. So, talk of a strike in that context isn't shocking.
What's disturbing, though, were the antics some union members displayed at Wednesday night's school board meeting. One teacher went so far as to compare state School Administrator Randolph Ward to Hitler and to describe him as "a bourgeois black man" who has forgotten his roots. The teacher's comments were loudly cheered as others in the audience laughed and applauded.
We realize the great majority of district teachers, even if frustrated with the pace of contract talks, are civil and care more about their students' academic progress than demonizing Ward.
By all accounts, there are legitimate concerns about health benefits in the current contract talks. Teachers are worried their family health care costs could soar to $3,000 a year under the proposed "cap" on health benefits. Negotiating for teachers' benefits and rights should be serious business, and discussions should be handled seriously, not with sophomoric stunts.
Another low point came when a teacher tried to explain to the school board his plans for a new science and technology charter school in a partnership with NASA. Members of the audience berated the teacher, punctuating his presentation with noisy boos and jeers.
Where do these so-called educators get off demeaning and disrespecting a fellow teacher for daring to propose innovative ways to educate Oakland youths? There is always room for disagreement about methods and philosophy, but any differences should be focused on a specific issue rather than resorting to bullying and heckling out of a resentment against charter schools.
When they take to the podium to speak, would some of Wednesday night's hecklers want to be treated the same way — drowned out or made fun of?
We want to respect our teachers and support them. But when they use such juvenile tactics, it is hard to take them seriously. And what kind of role model are these teachers setting for their students? Will students learn, by observing their teachers, that the only way to express opinions is by being disruptive and disrespectful, outshouting any opposing viewpoints and resorting to derogatory name-calling to make their points?
It's time for the leaders of the teachers union to grow up, tone down the theatrics and work with the administration to find the best solutions to the myriad problems facing the district.
According to teachers union President Ben Visnick, the union "has been reasonable" at the bargaining table and is ready to reach a fair contract. He says the teachers have made concessions, and the district must do the same.
That all sounds fine. If only such civility could be extended to other public meetings, there might be more movement on all sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)