The following editorial appeared in the Northwest Herald newspaper on June 5th. When are educators going to start taking the education of our children seriously? 130 Juniors have to retake the test because testers could not follow instructions. The administrators are compensated well and have the luxury of retiring at 55 with pensions larger than most incomes of Harvard residents. The Northwest Herald was too forgiving of Ms. Mc Reynolds error. Than again the Northwest Herald all to often shows its bias towards schools and school employees. Trying hard is not enough when the future of these children's lives is in the hands of school administrators.
Start time cuts students short
[published on Mon, Jun 5, 2006]
Taking the ACT test is not fun. It is hours of hard, mentally and physically draining work.
More than 130 juniors at Harvard High school are among more than 600 statewide who will have to take the test again.
Not to improve their scores. But because their schools failed their students and the testing program.
Students took the test April 27. It was supposed to begin at 9 a.m., a new ACT Inc. rule. Tests did not begin at Harvard High School until between 9:42 a.m. and 9:52 a.m. because students were offered breakfast.
The intention was good; the result was bad. ACT did not score the tests because of the late start. High school Principal Michelle McReynolds found out May 16. Parents were not notified until the next week. It wasn't until Thursday that school officials met with parents.
It might not have solved the problem, but school administrators at least took responsibility for the error, and they apologized.
The state requires high school juniors to take the test. Many of them have studied long and hard to prepare for it because of its importance in college applications.
But Harvard High School counselors found help at two other schools, even though the registration deadline passed. About 60 Harvard juniors might luck out on June 10, the next date for testing. Woodstock High School might have 25 to 50 openings, and Rockford College might have 25. Crystal Lake South High School also might have some openings. Otherwise, students will have to wait until the next round of tests Sept. 16.
District 50 will reimburse students who retake the test. Students who needed the test simply to meet the state requirement do not have to take it again.
For others, college depends on it. Maybe some will do better the second time around. Then again, maybe not.
District 50 officials have done what they could to make things right. They made an unfortunate mistake.
But they found openings for some students to take the test June 10. We hope that it works out for all of them planning to attend college.
To view the article go to Northwest Herald.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Board members gets Dist. 158 job with $101,000 salary
The following article appeared in the Daily Herald. If you do not subscribe to the newspaper you should. Mr. Gaunt has always done an excellent job when reporting about schools. It would be well worth your while to go back and read his articles how school districts tax more than promised and his bond series.
This story highlights the patronage and corruption that exists in our public schools. If you look at the board of your school district you will find that board members are often related to school employees. This is a great article. Nice payback to Mr. Stewart for being a yes man. Any chance they would have made the same exceptions for Mr. Snow or any other citizen if they had wanted the position? How about getting rid of tenure and teaching certificates, schools could then hire the best people for teaching jobs. Perhaps hiring real chemists and physicists, etc to teach these subjects would best aid student performance. How about getting rid of the requirement that administrators be certified as school administrators so they can hire more MBA's.
Public schools are nothing more than government schools that are plagued with waste, fraud, corruption and patronage just like other forms of government.
Board members gets Dist. 158 job with $101,000 salary
BY JEFFREY GAUNT
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, June 22, 2006
Huntley District 158 board members hired one of their own Wednesday night to fill a newly created, top administrative position.
Board member Glen Stewart will take over July 1 as the district's chief operations officer, a position created after the March resignation of assistant superintendent Mike Kortemeyer.
Stewart, who will receive a starting salary of $101,000, will be responsible for overseeing the district's transportation, food service, operations and maintenance and health services departments.
He will also serve as the district's liaison to village governments and home developers on growth issues.
"I feel confident that Glen has the capabilities to perform the job adequately and in the best interest of the school district," board President Mike Skala said.
Stewart, who has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering, last worked as a general manager for a tool and die company. He has been out of work since March.
"I looked at that job description and said, 'That's a job I can do,'æ" Stewart said. "Instead of doing this as a part-time job, I can serve the district full-time, and that's pretty cool."
Board member Larry Snow, the only person on the seven-member board to vote against the appointment, lambasted the district for hiring one of its elected representatives.
"It's just political patronage," Snow said. "Friends giving a friend a high-paying job because he's out of work.
"I simply can't believe there's not another, more qualified candidate that applied for the position," Snow said. "This hiring policy is a sham."
In response, Steward said Snow objects to everything involving Stewart. "We're here to focus on the future," he said.
Stewart abstained from voting and Skala said he was not involved in any of the closed discussions on the position.
Stewart will have to resign his board seat before starting his new job.
District officials say he was the best person for the position out of the 14 who applied.
"One thing that Glen has demonstrated as a board member is his total commitment to the community and the students," said Human Resources Director Lauren Smith, who was on the committee that recommended Stewart for the position. "There's no question about what his motives will be in joining the district."
Smith said Stewart's 20 years of management experience, familiarity with the district and successful history as a project manager will serve him well in his new post.
But she also added: "The ability to lead and project manage, those are elementary compared to some of the visionary requirements and leadership skills. That's what Glen is going to be able to do."
Skala also defended the board's actions in light of Snow's criticism, saying it's up to district officials - and the superintendent in particular - to recommend the best people for the job.
"They still have to perform the job," Skala said. "If they're not performing the job, I would expect the superintendent not to recommend them for rehire."
Stewart has never been employed by a school district. But Skala said that wasn't a prerequisite.
In fact, board members changed the job title from assistant superintendent to chief operations officer so candidates wouldn't have to be certified as a school administrator. That way the district could attract applicants with business backgrounds, Skala said.
jgaunt@dailyherald.com
Headline spec: 2 col; 28pt NewBskvll SeBd BT Regular
Hire: District says official best candidate for the jo
This story highlights the patronage and corruption that exists in our public schools. If you look at the board of your school district you will find that board members are often related to school employees. This is a great article. Nice payback to Mr. Stewart for being a yes man. Any chance they would have made the same exceptions for Mr. Snow or any other citizen if they had wanted the position? How about getting rid of tenure and teaching certificates, schools could then hire the best people for teaching jobs. Perhaps hiring real chemists and physicists, etc to teach these subjects would best aid student performance. How about getting rid of the requirement that administrators be certified as school administrators so they can hire more MBA's.
Public schools are nothing more than government schools that are plagued with waste, fraud, corruption and patronage just like other forms of government.
Board members gets Dist. 158 job with $101,000 salary
BY JEFFREY GAUNT
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, June 22, 2006
Huntley District 158 board members hired one of their own Wednesday night to fill a newly created, top administrative position.
Board member Glen Stewart will take over July 1 as the district's chief operations officer, a position created after the March resignation of assistant superintendent Mike Kortemeyer.
Stewart, who will receive a starting salary of $101,000, will be responsible for overseeing the district's transportation, food service, operations and maintenance and health services departments.
He will also serve as the district's liaison to village governments and home developers on growth issues.
"I feel confident that Glen has the capabilities to perform the job adequately and in the best interest of the school district," board President Mike Skala said.
Stewart, who has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering, last worked as a general manager for a tool and die company. He has been out of work since March.
"I looked at that job description and said, 'That's a job I can do,'æ" Stewart said. "Instead of doing this as a part-time job, I can serve the district full-time, and that's pretty cool."
Board member Larry Snow, the only person on the seven-member board to vote against the appointment, lambasted the district for hiring one of its elected representatives.
"It's just political patronage," Snow said. "Friends giving a friend a high-paying job because he's out of work.
"I simply can't believe there's not another, more qualified candidate that applied for the position," Snow said. "This hiring policy is a sham."
In response, Steward said Snow objects to everything involving Stewart. "We're here to focus on the future," he said.
Stewart abstained from voting and Skala said he was not involved in any of the closed discussions on the position.
Stewart will have to resign his board seat before starting his new job.
District officials say he was the best person for the position out of the 14 who applied.
"One thing that Glen has demonstrated as a board member is his total commitment to the community and the students," said Human Resources Director Lauren Smith, who was on the committee that recommended Stewart for the position. "There's no question about what his motives will be in joining the district."
Smith said Stewart's 20 years of management experience, familiarity with the district and successful history as a project manager will serve him well in his new post.
But she also added: "The ability to lead and project manage, those are elementary compared to some of the visionary requirements and leadership skills. That's what Glen is going to be able to do."
Skala also defended the board's actions in light of Snow's criticism, saying it's up to district officials - and the superintendent in particular - to recommend the best people for the job.
"They still have to perform the job," Skala said. "If they're not performing the job, I would expect the superintendent not to recommend them for rehire."
Stewart has never been employed by a school district. But Skala said that wasn't a prerequisite.
In fact, board members changed the job title from assistant superintendent to chief operations officer so candidates wouldn't have to be certified as a school administrator. That way the district could attract applicants with business backgrounds, Skala said.
jgaunt@dailyherald.com
Headline spec: 2 col; 28pt NewBskvll SeBd BT Regular
Hire: District says official best candidate for the jo
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Schools support free speech ----- sometimes!
When reading the story below we are focusing on the free speech issue not conservatism vs. liberalism. We put these stories up with caution, as we want the focus to be on free speech for all.
Take a look at the two stories below. The first appeared in the Las Vegas Review - Journal.com.
Jun. 17, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
District pulls plug on speech
Foothill valedictorian criticizes decision to censor her proclamation of faith
By ANTONIO PLANAS
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb is pictured at her Henderson home on Friday. McComb's speech at the high school's graduation ceremony on Thursday was cut short because officials said its religious references crossed over into proselytizing.
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.
But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also
deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.
In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.
"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.
"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."
McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said.
"Those are my opinions.
"It's what I believe."
End of Reveiw-Journal article.
When viewing the information below think if the girl above wanted to talk about how her homosexual lover supporting her through school and without her she could not have become valedictorian. I am sure the ACLU lawyers would have supported her. This is about free speech for all. Schools want diversity as long as it is not intellectual diversity and you do not disagree with their point of view. How about free speech for all groups even those who believe in God? If this person were praising Allah would the school have supported the speech? Probably the ACLU often supports the Muslim community over the Christian community. Schools support students promoting referenda on school time but would they allow students who oppose referenda the same access? No they would not. Schools should not be pushing a liberal or a conservative agenda they should be educating children. Free speech should be for all and not some.
The letter below was sent to us from a parent in another school district.
June 19, 2006
National Education Association Set to Endorse Homosexual Marriage
Teacher's union begins plans to promote homosexual marriage in public schools
The National Education Association is set to endorse homosexual marriage at their convention coming up in Orlando June 29 through July 6.
The new NEA proposal essentially says schools should support and actively promote homosexual marriage and other forms of marriage (two men and one woman, three women, two women and three men, etc.) in their local schools.
The new proposal, expected to pass overwhelmingly, is found under the B-8 Diversity paragraph:
The Association... believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals.
The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.
Translated, that means the NEA will promote homosexual marriage in every avenue they have available, including textbooks, to all children at all age levels and without the permission or knowledge of parents. Their plans will include every public school in America.
Take a look at the two stories below. The first appeared in the Las Vegas Review - Journal.com.
Jun. 17, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
District pulls plug on speech
Foothill valedictorian criticizes decision to censor her proclamation of faith
By ANTONIO PLANAS
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb is pictured at her Henderson home on Friday. McComb's speech at the high school's graduation ceremony on Thursday was cut short because officials said its religious references crossed over into proselytizing.
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.
But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also
deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.
In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.
"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.
"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."
McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said.
"Those are my opinions.
"It's what I believe."
End of Reveiw-Journal article.
When viewing the information below think if the girl above wanted to talk about how her homosexual lover supporting her through school and without her she could not have become valedictorian. I am sure the ACLU lawyers would have supported her. This is about free speech for all. Schools want diversity as long as it is not intellectual diversity and you do not disagree with their point of view. How about free speech for all groups even those who believe in God? If this person were praising Allah would the school have supported the speech? Probably the ACLU often supports the Muslim community over the Christian community. Schools support students promoting referenda on school time but would they allow students who oppose referenda the same access? No they would not. Schools should not be pushing a liberal or a conservative agenda they should be educating children. Free speech should be for all and not some.
The letter below was sent to us from a parent in another school district.
June 19, 2006
National Education Association Set to Endorse Homosexual Marriage
Teacher's union begins plans to promote homosexual marriage in public schools
The National Education Association is set to endorse homosexual marriage at their convention coming up in Orlando June 29 through July 6.
The new NEA proposal essentially says schools should support and actively promote homosexual marriage and other forms of marriage (two men and one woman, three women, two women and three men, etc.) in their local schools.
The new proposal, expected to pass overwhelmingly, is found under the B-8 Diversity paragraph:
The Association... believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals.
The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.
Translated, that means the NEA will promote homosexual marriage in every avenue they have available, including textbooks, to all children at all age levels and without the permission or knowledge of parents. Their plans will include every public school in America.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Peyton Wolcott - Helping Parents And Taxpayers Implode Education, Inc.
The following is a link to Peyton Wolcott's website.
These are some of the quotes I have taken directly from her site.
"Education, Inc. and the Big Pot o'Money"
"Education, Inc. is the name I give to the messy intersection of education and
business, the place where noble values collide with greed and ambition--and the
easy grab at life's comforts."
She has a great site with a lot of information on the abuses of schools and the problems that plagues public schools. One of the must reads on this site is an article titled "ERDI Superintendents get $2,000 consulting fees to hobnob with vendors. " A few Illinois superintendents went to this conference.
To view more great information on this site click here.
These are some of the quotes I have taken directly from her site.
"Education, Inc. and the Big Pot o'Money"
"Education, Inc. is the name I give to the messy intersection of education and
business, the place where noble values collide with greed and ambition--and the
easy grab at life's comforts."
She has a great site with a lot of information on the abuses of schools and the problems that plagues public schools. One of the must reads on this site is an article titled "ERDI Superintendents get $2,000 consulting fees to hobnob with vendors. " A few Illinois superintendents went to this conference.
To view more great information on this site click here.
Monday, June 19, 2006
The Hidden Costs of Tenure
This is a reminder to readers to visit the website The Hidden Costs of Tenure. Scott Reader and the Small Newspaper Group did an excellent job of exposing the problems of tenure in our K - 12 system. It would be great to see a book by Mr. Reeder. Newspapers across America should do thorough investigative reporting of our public schools just as the Small Newspaper Group.
The article titles include but are not limited to the following titles.
Tenure frustrates drive for teacher accountability
School boards lose power to fire poor teachers
Student pregnant, DNA points to assistant principal; no firing
Impact of poor teachers cripples students for years
Teacher unions' clout keeps tenure strong
Schools resort to secret buyouts to get rid of teachers
Copyright ©2005 Small Newspaper Group
The article titles include but are not limited to the following titles.
Tenure frustrates drive for teacher accountability
School boards lose power to fire poor teachers
Student pregnant, DNA points to assistant principal; no firing
Impact of poor teachers cripples students for years
Teacher unions' clout keeps tenure strong
Schools resort to secret buyouts to get rid of teachers
Copyright ©2005 Small Newspaper Group
Sunday, June 18, 2006
D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently
The following piece appeared on HumanEventsOnline.com.
D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently
Posted Mar 23, 2006
The District of Columbia spends far more money per student in its public elementary and secondary schools each year than the tuition costs at many private elementary schools, or even college-preparatory secondary schools. Yet, District 8th-graders ranked dead last in 2005 in national reading and math tests.
D.C.'s public elementary and secondary schools spent a total of $16,334 per student in the 2002-2003 school year, according to a Department of Education study. That compares to the $10,520 tuition at St. John's College High School, a District Catholic school that sends almost all its graduates to four-year colleges.
Last year, however, only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math.
Not one U.S. state can boast that a majority of the 8th-graders in its public schools last year had achieved grade-level proficiency or better in either reading or math.
How much money did your state spend per pupil while failing to adequately educate in reading and math the majority of students in its public schools? The answers are in the chart below.
They eloquently make the case for school choice.
The state spending figures below are the total median expenditure per student as reported in "Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2002-03," published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005.
To view the rest of the story and the chart associated with this story go to HumanEventsOnline.com.
D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently
Posted Mar 23, 2006
The District of Columbia spends far more money per student in its public elementary and secondary schools each year than the tuition costs at many private elementary schools, or even college-preparatory secondary schools. Yet, District 8th-graders ranked dead last in 2005 in national reading and math tests.
D.C.'s public elementary and secondary schools spent a total of $16,334 per student in the 2002-2003 school year, according to a Department of Education study. That compares to the $10,520 tuition at St. John's College High School, a District Catholic school that sends almost all its graduates to four-year colleges.
Last year, however, only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math.
Not one U.S. state can boast that a majority of the 8th-graders in its public schools last year had achieved grade-level proficiency or better in either reading or math.
How much money did your state spend per pupil while failing to adequately educate in reading and math the majority of students in its public schools? The answers are in the chart below.
They eloquently make the case for school choice.
The state spending figures below are the total median expenditure per student as reported in "Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2002-03," published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005.
To view the rest of the story and the chart associated with this story go to HumanEventsOnline.com.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
My Kids Deserve Better
My Kids Deserve Better features the book Public Schools, Public Menance by Joel Turtel.
This book is a summer must read for parents.
This book is a summer must read for parents.
Friday, June 16, 2006
ARE GOVERNMENT FAILURES THE RESULT OF THE WRONG PEOPLE RUNNING IT?
The following is the final in our series by Michael Cloud c 2006 titled ARE GOVERNMENT FAILURES THE RESULT OF THE WRONG PEOPLE RUNNING IT?. While reading this article keep in mind that public schools are government schools. Should the education of our children be in the hands of the government or parents and the free market? Would you prefer to only go shopping at only one government run grocery store? Why should we be forced to send our children to one government school.
ARE GOVERNMENT FAILURES THE RESULT OF THE WRONG PEOPLE RUNNING IT?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
"Tonight's News will show exactly who caused the failures of disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina's victims."
"The reason we're not making more progress in Iraq is the Secretary of Defense," says a critic. "We need to put someone in charge who knows how to bring together Iraqi factions."
"We need no nonsense, tough teachers and administrators in our public schools to shore up poor math and science skills," says a candidate.
"We've got to get the right people in charge of Social Security - so we can secure it for Baby Boomers," says a talk radio host.
These claims and hundreds like them rest on one unchallenged premise: that Big Government programs can regularly and reliably deliver the positive results their backers promised.
But Big Government programs repeatedly fail. Why? Their defenders respond, "1. These programs fail because the wrong people are in charge. 2. Big Government programs will succeed when we put the right people in charge."
If you believe this, you will focus your efforts on firing the incompetent bums running Big Government programs - and hiring competent, high quality leaders and managers to take their places.
Read the opinions, discussions, and debates at websites and on blogs. Listen to them on talk radio or cable TV. Most of the sound and fury centers on why a person in charge of a Big Government program is right or wrong for the job. Or why someone else has the right stuff and could straighten things out.
That's why most mainstream political debates focus on who's in charge.
But what if it's not a people problem?
What if it's the nature of government itself that causes the problems? What if it's a design characteristic of government itself that causes the problems - and makes them unavoidable and unfixable? What if "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne is right?
Do a thought experiment.
What if YOU were in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency? You're subject to the same laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality as the person currently holding the job. Can YOU make this Big Government program work?
Why or why not?
What if Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises were alive - and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. He's subject to today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Could Ludwig von Mises make the IRS collect the money while NOT damaging their lives - or the economy?
What if Charles Murray were put in charge of Welfare. He's subject to today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Could the author of "Losing Ground" make welfare effective?
Pick the brightest and wisest free market economist or libertarian to run any Big Government program you choose. Remember that he's subject to the nature of government, as well as today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Can HE make Big Government work?
Of course not.
Fire burns, water's wet, and gravity doesn't play favorites.
Big Government programs turn out the way they do because of the nature of government.
There are 5 Iron Laws of Big Government
I. Big Government Programs Don't Work.
II. Big Government Programs often make things worse for the very people they're intended to help.
III. Big Government Programs create new problems.
IV. Big Government Programs are costly and wasteful.
V. Big Government Programs divert money and energy from positive, productive uses.
So, when you hear political debates that focus on who's in charge - and who should be in charge - bring the conversation to the real cause of the repeated and massive failures -- Big Government itself.
ARE GOVERNMENT FAILURES THE RESULT OF THE WRONG PEOPLE RUNNING IT?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
"Tonight's News will show exactly who caused the failures of disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina's victims."
"The reason we're not making more progress in Iraq is the Secretary of Defense," says a critic. "We need to put someone in charge who knows how to bring together Iraqi factions."
"We need no nonsense, tough teachers and administrators in our public schools to shore up poor math and science skills," says a candidate.
"We've got to get the right people in charge of Social Security - so we can secure it for Baby Boomers," says a talk radio host.
These claims and hundreds like them rest on one unchallenged premise: that Big Government programs can regularly and reliably deliver the positive results their backers promised.
But Big Government programs repeatedly fail. Why? Their defenders respond, "1. These programs fail because the wrong people are in charge. 2. Big Government programs will succeed when we put the right people in charge."
If you believe this, you will focus your efforts on firing the incompetent bums running Big Government programs - and hiring competent, high quality leaders and managers to take their places.
Read the opinions, discussions, and debates at websites and on blogs. Listen to them on talk radio or cable TV. Most of the sound and fury centers on why a person in charge of a Big Government program is right or wrong for the job. Or why someone else has the right stuff and could straighten things out.
That's why most mainstream political debates focus on who's in charge.
But what if it's not a people problem?
What if it's the nature of government itself that causes the problems? What if it's a design characteristic of government itself that causes the problems - and makes them unavoidable and unfixable? What if "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne is right?
Do a thought experiment.
What if YOU were in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency? You're subject to the same laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality as the person currently holding the job. Can YOU make this Big Government program work?
Why or why not?
What if Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises were alive - and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. He's subject to today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Could Ludwig von Mises make the IRS collect the money while NOT damaging their lives - or the economy?
What if Charles Murray were put in charge of Welfare. He's subject to today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Could the author of "Losing Ground" make welfare effective?
Pick the brightest and wisest free market economist or libertarian to run any Big Government program you choose. Remember that he's subject to the nature of government, as well as today's mandates, laws, regulations, budget, constraints, and political reality. Can HE make Big Government work?
Of course not.
Fire burns, water's wet, and gravity doesn't play favorites.
Big Government programs turn out the way they do because of the nature of government.
There are 5 Iron Laws of Big Government
I. Big Government Programs Don't Work.
II. Big Government Programs often make things worse for the very people they're intended to help.
III. Big Government Programs create new problems.
IV. Big Government Programs are costly and wasteful.
V. Big Government Programs divert money and energy from positive, productive uses.
So, when you hear political debates that focus on who's in charge - and who should be in charge - bring the conversation to the real cause of the repeated and massive failures -- Big Government itself.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
The Danger of the Easy by Michael Cloud c 2006
This is dedicated to all of those who speak out against education mediocrity and warning to those in District 158 and District 300 who did not speak out. Yet another article in our series this week by Michael Cloud c 2006 titled The Danger of the Easy.
The Danger of the Easy
by Michael Cloud c 2006
In the last few weeks, you probably read an inspiring and moving pro-liberty essay. You know several friends and family members who would be receptive to it. It would have taken just moments to email forward it.
But you didn't.
In the last few months, you probably went to a social event where a few people complained about Big Government. They sounded open to small government ideas. It would have taken you less than 3 minutes to find out how responsive they were to our ideas.
But you didn't.
In the last few years, you received numerous letters from small government and tax-cutting organizations. They told you what they are doing to reduce taxes and roll back Big Government, how it will benefit you and those you love, and then asked you to help. It would have taken you just minutes to make an affordable donation to help with their work.
But you didn't.
Why?
Because each thing was easy.
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do," wrote Jim Rohn.
It's easy to email forward that persuasive small government essay. It's easy NOT to forward it.
It's easy to ask the people at the social event whether they'd like to hear some ideas on cutting Big Government down to size. It's easy NOT to ask.
It's easy to make an affordable donation to that deserving organization that asked you to help. It's easy NOT to give them a hand.
But there's more to Jim Rohn's elegant insight.
What's easy to begin -- is easy NOT to begin.
It's easy to begin reading your copy of "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt or "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. It's easy NOT to begin.
It's easy to begin practicing communication tips and techniques from my "Persuasion Power Points" Column. It's easy NOT to begin.
What's easy to stop -- is easy NOT to stop.
It's easy to turn off the TV after your favorite program. It's easy NOT to turn it off.
It's easy to stop going to your favorite bar after work -- and go home to your spouse and kids. It's easy NOT to stop.
What can be done anytime -- can be NOT done anytime. Can be left undone again and again and again.
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do."
It's a tempting and seductive siren call. One that beckons us every day and week and month.
But there are ways over, under, around, and through the danger of the easy.
1. Do it now. Strike when the iron is hot. As soon as the "easy-to-do" thought occurs to you, do it. Don't deliberate. Do it. Don't put it off for another time. Do it. It's easy. Do it now.
2. Do it first. Life is priorities. Do 2 easy things to advance liberty before you do hard stuff.
3. Do it daily. Put 2 easy things on your "To Do" list each day. Do them each day.
4. Log it daily. Write down your easy deeds each day. Every day. At the same time. So it will become a habit. Simply recording these "easy-to-do" things will help transform them into enjoyable and effective action habits.
That's all it takes. Easy, isn't it?
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do," wrote Jim Rohn.
Doing the easy is relentless and reliable. It is the effortless, enjoyable, and effective personal path to small government, much lower taxes, and freedom.
The Danger of the Easy
by Michael Cloud c 2006
In the last few weeks, you probably read an inspiring and moving pro-liberty essay. You know several friends and family members who would be receptive to it. It would have taken just moments to email forward it.
But you didn't.
In the last few months, you probably went to a social event where a few people complained about Big Government. They sounded open to small government ideas. It would have taken you less than 3 minutes to find out how responsive they were to our ideas.
But you didn't.
In the last few years, you received numerous letters from small government and tax-cutting organizations. They told you what they are doing to reduce taxes and roll back Big Government, how it will benefit you and those you love, and then asked you to help. It would have taken you just minutes to make an affordable donation to help with their work.
But you didn't.
Why?
Because each thing was easy.
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do," wrote Jim Rohn.
It's easy to email forward that persuasive small government essay. It's easy NOT to forward it.
It's easy to ask the people at the social event whether they'd like to hear some ideas on cutting Big Government down to size. It's easy NOT to ask.
It's easy to make an affordable donation to that deserving organization that asked you to help. It's easy NOT to give them a hand.
But there's more to Jim Rohn's elegant insight.
What's easy to begin -- is easy NOT to begin.
It's easy to begin reading your copy of "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt or "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. It's easy NOT to begin.
It's easy to begin practicing communication tips and techniques from my "Persuasion Power Points" Column. It's easy NOT to begin.
What's easy to stop -- is easy NOT to stop.
It's easy to turn off the TV after your favorite program. It's easy NOT to turn it off.
It's easy to stop going to your favorite bar after work -- and go home to your spouse and kids. It's easy NOT to stop.
What can be done anytime -- can be NOT done anytime. Can be left undone again and again and again.
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do."
It's a tempting and seductive siren call. One that beckons us every day and week and month.
But there are ways over, under, around, and through the danger of the easy.
1. Do it now. Strike when the iron is hot. As soon as the "easy-to-do" thought occurs to you, do it. Don't deliberate. Do it. Don't put it off for another time. Do it. It's easy. Do it now.
2. Do it first. Life is priorities. Do 2 easy things to advance liberty before you do hard stuff.
3. Do it daily. Put 2 easy things on your "To Do" list each day. Do them each day.
4. Log it daily. Write down your easy deeds each day. Every day. At the same time. So it will become a habit. Simply recording these "easy-to-do" things will help transform them into enjoyable and effective action habits.
That's all it takes. Easy, isn't it?
"What's easy to do -- is easy NOT to do," wrote Jim Rohn.
Doing the easy is relentless and reliable. It is the effortless, enjoyable, and effective personal path to small government, much lower taxes, and freedom.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Personal Responsibility Sets Us Free - by Michael Cloud c 2002
Continuing our series with Michael Cloud. When he speaks of the government below think of your public schools. Public schools are government schools. In government schools you will find corruption, waste, fraud and patronage. Are you going to get involved in controlling the spending and waste in public schools? Or will you continue to let them raise your taxes so you do not have to make any effort? When will it stop? How much money are you willing to give up while continuing to get poor results and lower standards from our schools? As a parent I believe my responsibility is to leave a better world for my child. Leaving a large tax burden with little accountability on the part of our public schools does not make a better world for my child or any child.
Personal Responsibility Sets Us Free Michael Cloud c 2002
Personal responsibility sets us free. Personal responsibility makes us
self-reliant. Self-supporting. Thoughtful. Productive. Personal
responsibility makes us prosperous and civil.
Yet everywhere in America, government responsibility advances, while
personal responsibility retreats.
Government responsibility expands, while personal responsibility shrivels
and shrinks.
Government responsibility grows stronger, while personal responsibility
grows weaker and weaker.
Why?
Because too many people have been taught that personal responsibility is a
hard and painful burden.
Too many have been taught that personal responsibility means blame and
punishment.
Too many people have been taught that personal responsibility is just one
more thankless task.
So individuals surrender their responsibility to government. And Big
Government is happy to take it.
Because Big Government grows by assuming responsibility.
But Government responsibility doesn't work.
Government responsibility makes things worse.
Government responsibility creates new problems.
Government responsibility means programs that squander and waste.
Government responsibility diverts money and energy from positive and
productive uses.
Government responsibility IS the problem.
Personal responsibility is the solution.
Health Care? Federal, state, and local politicians vote and lobby for more
government responsibility. They drive us toward a single-payer, Big
Government Health Care monopoly. One big VA hospital for America. That's
government responsibility in Health Care.
Education? Federal, state and local politicians vote for more government
responsibility. More government authority. More government control. More
government involvement. Government-run public schools are obscenely
expensive and teaching disabled. That's government responsibility in
Education.
The Family? Politicians make politically correct votes for the children, for
family leave, and family planning. Their votes destroy the authority and
responsibility of parents. Their votes make more government rules and
regulations, restrictions and requirements, mandates and demands ... decided
and guided by bureaucrats and politicians. That's government responsibility
for Families.
Welfare? Disaster relief? Retirement? Business? Jobs? Area after area, time
after time, government responsibility makes things worse.
Government responsibility is the problem. Personal responsibility is the
solution.
It's time to take back personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility is the price of liberty. Personal responsibility
sets us free. Personal responsibility leaves us with the freedom and
resources to support our families, raise and educate our children, plan our
careers, and save for our own retirements.
Personal responsibility is only possible with small government. And small
government is possible only with personal responsibility.
Government responsibility or personal responsibility? Which do you want?
Government authority or personal authority? Which do you want?
Government control or personal control? Which do you want?
Big Government or small government? Which do you want?
It's your choice. Your responsibility.
You can pay the price of achieving small government, individual liberty, and
personal responsibility.
Or keep paying the costs of Big Government, government authority, and
government responsibility.
Personal Responsibility Sets Us Free Michael Cloud c 2002
Personal responsibility sets us free. Personal responsibility makes us
self-reliant. Self-supporting. Thoughtful. Productive. Personal
responsibility makes us prosperous and civil.
Yet everywhere in America, government responsibility advances, while
personal responsibility retreats.
Government responsibility expands, while personal responsibility shrivels
and shrinks.
Government responsibility grows stronger, while personal responsibility
grows weaker and weaker.
Why?
Because too many people have been taught that personal responsibility is a
hard and painful burden.
Too many have been taught that personal responsibility means blame and
punishment.
Too many people have been taught that personal responsibility is just one
more thankless task.
So individuals surrender their responsibility to government. And Big
Government is happy to take it.
Because Big Government grows by assuming responsibility.
But Government responsibility doesn't work.
Government responsibility makes things worse.
Government responsibility creates new problems.
Government responsibility means programs that squander and waste.
Government responsibility diverts money and energy from positive and
productive uses.
Government responsibility IS the problem.
Personal responsibility is the solution.
Health Care? Federal, state, and local politicians vote and lobby for more
government responsibility. They drive us toward a single-payer, Big
Government Health Care monopoly. One big VA hospital for America. That's
government responsibility in Health Care.
Education? Federal, state and local politicians vote for more government
responsibility. More government authority. More government control. More
government involvement. Government-run public schools are obscenely
expensive and teaching disabled. That's government responsibility in
Education.
The Family? Politicians make politically correct votes for the children, for
family leave, and family planning. Their votes destroy the authority and
responsibility of parents. Their votes make more government rules and
regulations, restrictions and requirements, mandates and demands ... decided
and guided by bureaucrats and politicians. That's government responsibility
for Families.
Welfare? Disaster relief? Retirement? Business? Jobs? Area after area, time
after time, government responsibility makes things worse.
Government responsibility is the problem. Personal responsibility is the
solution.
It's time to take back personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility is the price of liberty. Personal responsibility
sets us free. Personal responsibility leaves us with the freedom and
resources to support our families, raise and educate our children, plan our
careers, and save for our own retirements.
Personal responsibility is only possible with small government. And small
government is possible only with personal responsibility.
Government responsibility or personal responsibility? Which do you want?
Government authority or personal authority? Which do you want?
Government control or personal control? Which do you want?
Big Government or small government? Which do you want?
It's your choice. Your responsibility.
You can pay the price of achieving small government, individual liberty, and
personal responsibility.
Or keep paying the costs of Big Government, government authority, and
government responsibility.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
"Deficit" or "Overspending": the Difference One Word Makes - Copyright 2005 by Michael Cloud
In the article below replace federal government with public eduacation the same principle applies to both the federal government and the public education system. Public education is government education. As with the government you will find waste, fraud, corruption and patronage in the public education system.
The below article is the second article in our series this week. The article is "Deficit" or "Overspending":
the Difference One Word Makes by Michael Cloud
Does the Federal Government have a Deficit Problem or an Overspending Problem?
Your answer to this question makes a profound difference in how you think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
Almost all politicians, news outlets, and political commentators agree that it's a deficit problem.
Here are the words and phrases they use to describe the gap between government income and spending: "deficit," "budget deficit," "expanding budget deficit," "face a large deficit," "solve the deficit problem," "bridge the deficit gap," "close the deficit," "cut the deficit," "projected deficits," "deficit reduction," "running a deficit," and even "deficits as far as the eye can see."
"What can we do about the federal deficit?" they ask.
Deficit Assumptions
"Deficit" is defined as "the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount." It indicates a lack, a shortage, or deficiency. Not enough money.
"Deficit" rests on the premise that the proposed budget is the standard of judgment.
"Deficit" means that proposed government spending is right, but income is too low.
"Deficit" assumes and takes for granted that the proposed government budget is necessary, and that we have a tax shortfall.
"Deficit" implies that we are under-taxed. That perhaps taxpayers are stingy, selfish - and not paying their fair share.
Overspending Assumptions
"Overspending" is defined as "spending in excess of one's income." It indicates unwarranted, unnecessary, or too much spending.
"Overspending" rests on the premise that income is the standard of judgment.
"Overspending" means that government is trying to live beyond its means.
"Overspending" assumes and takes for granted that government has a spending problem, not an income problem.
"Overspending" implies that the elected officials are irresponsible, reckless, extravagant money wasters.
Deficit VS Overspending Questions
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers," wrote Thomas Pynchon.
But what if we can get Americans asking the right questions?
Compare deficit questions to overspending questions.
"How do we solve the federal deficit problem?" VS
"How do we solve the federal overspending problem?"
"What should we do about this year's federal deficit?" VS
"What should we do about this year's federal overspending?"
"How can we resolve the budget shortfall?" VS
"Where should we cut back the government overspending?"
"How can we make up the $XXX Billion revenue deficiency?" VS
"Where can we best reduce and remove these $XXX Billions in overspending?"
From "Deficit" to "Overspending"
Suppose you're in a political conversation with someone. She brings up this year's federal "deficit". Just say, "Before we get too far into this conversation, can we get clear on the difference between government 'deficits' and government 'overspending'?"
Most people will ask: "What's the difference?"
Tell her the Deficit Assumptions and Overspending Assumptions. Then ask, "Which word best describes the way you think we should think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures - 'deficit' or 'overspending'?"
Many people will stop and think about it. Some will ask questions. Some won't. Some will be receptive. Some won't.
You can use the "overspending" questions above with receptive listeners. Have a lively discussion!
Whether your conversation is short or long, you've just planted these new questions in your listener's mind. And if we can get people asking the right questions, we don't have to worry about the answers.
That's all it takes to set the process in motion.
The Impact of One Word
As long as the word "deficit" dominates and monopolizes the way that Americans think about and talk about government budgets, Big Government will keep growing.
But once we introduce the distinction between "deficit" and "overspending," Americans have a choice in how they think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
As more and more Americans insist that we think about, talk about, and act on the basis of the "overspending" distinction, more of us will choose to reduce government spending.
And that's one crucial step toward small government.
Copyright 2005 by Michael Cloud
The below article is the second article in our series this week. The article is "Deficit" or "Overspending":
the Difference One Word Makes by Michael Cloud
Does the Federal Government have a Deficit Problem or an Overspending Problem?
Your answer to this question makes a profound difference in how you think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
Almost all politicians, news outlets, and political commentators agree that it's a deficit problem.
Here are the words and phrases they use to describe the gap between government income and spending: "deficit," "budget deficit," "expanding budget deficit," "face a large deficit," "solve the deficit problem," "bridge the deficit gap," "close the deficit," "cut the deficit," "projected deficits," "deficit reduction," "running a deficit," and even "deficits as far as the eye can see."
"What can we do about the federal deficit?" they ask.
Deficit Assumptions
"Deficit" is defined as "the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount." It indicates a lack, a shortage, or deficiency. Not enough money.
"Deficit" rests on the premise that the proposed budget is the standard of judgment.
"Deficit" means that proposed government spending is right, but income is too low.
"Deficit" assumes and takes for granted that the proposed government budget is necessary, and that we have a tax shortfall.
"Deficit" implies that we are under-taxed. That perhaps taxpayers are stingy, selfish - and not paying their fair share.
Overspending Assumptions
"Overspending" is defined as "spending in excess of one's income." It indicates unwarranted, unnecessary, or too much spending.
"Overspending" rests on the premise that income is the standard of judgment.
"Overspending" means that government is trying to live beyond its means.
"Overspending" assumes and takes for granted that government has a spending problem, not an income problem.
"Overspending" implies that the elected officials are irresponsible, reckless, extravagant money wasters.
Deficit VS Overspending Questions
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers," wrote Thomas Pynchon.
But what if we can get Americans asking the right questions?
Compare deficit questions to overspending questions.
"How do we solve the federal deficit problem?" VS
"How do we solve the federal overspending problem?"
"What should we do about this year's federal deficit?" VS
"What should we do about this year's federal overspending?"
"How can we resolve the budget shortfall?" VS
"Where should we cut back the government overspending?"
"How can we make up the $XXX Billion revenue deficiency?" VS
"Where can we best reduce and remove these $XXX Billions in overspending?"
From "Deficit" to "Overspending"
Suppose you're in a political conversation with someone. She brings up this year's federal "deficit". Just say, "Before we get too far into this conversation, can we get clear on the difference between government 'deficits' and government 'overspending'?"
Most people will ask: "What's the difference?"
Tell her the Deficit Assumptions and Overspending Assumptions. Then ask, "Which word best describes the way you think we should think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures - 'deficit' or 'overspending'?"
Many people will stop and think about it. Some will ask questions. Some won't. Some will be receptive. Some won't.
You can use the "overspending" questions above with receptive listeners. Have a lively discussion!
Whether your conversation is short or long, you've just planted these new questions in your listener's mind. And if we can get people asking the right questions, we don't have to worry about the answers.
That's all it takes to set the process in motion.
The Impact of One Word
As long as the word "deficit" dominates and monopolizes the way that Americans think about and talk about government budgets, Big Government will keep growing.
But once we introduce the distinction between "deficit" and "overspending," Americans have a choice in how they think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
As more and more Americans insist that we think about, talk about, and act on the basis of the "overspending" distinction, more of us will choose to reduce government spending.
And that's one crucial step toward small government.
Copyright 2005 by Michael Cloud
Monday, June 12, 2006
THE SOBEREST DRUNK IN THE BAR: COMPARING GOVERNMENTS - Copyright 2006 by Michael Cloud
Dear Friends,
This week we will be featuring the work of Michael Cloud of the Center for Small Government.
The following piece appeared at Free Market News Network and was written by Michael Cloud.
THE SOBEREST DRUNK IN THE BAR: COMPARING GOVERNMENTS
Friday, June 09, 2006
"We have the highest SAT scores of any public school system in America," boasts a high school principal.
"Property tax rates in our town are the lowest in the state," says the newspaper editorial.
"Our welfare system is ranked in the top 10%," beams a government official.
"Our state-funded affordable housing is the best…"
"Local government construction projects are the most cost-efficient…"
Again and again, government-funded, government-run programs are touted as the lowest cost, most economical, highest value, and highest ranked.
And they truly are - IF we make sure we compare them only to other governments.
Why?
Because somebody is always the soberest drunk in the bar.
This Friday night, after work, go to a bar. Pick a good bar. One where they welcome serious drinking. A bar where they drink to celebrate, to forget, to remember, or for no reason at all.
Grab a stool. Nurse a few beers. The social drinkers and amateurs have left. Nobody's there but you, the bartender and the determined drinkers.
Keep your eyes wide open. You'll see men and women bend elbows, drain their cups, pound 'em back, and swill it down. They'll binge and booze it up. Some will get pickled, stewed, smashed, sloshed, and blotto.
They'll blow by the legal limit for intoxication. Some might get falling down drunk or even pass out.
Say there are 50 hard-core boozers in the bar.
One will be the soberest drunk in the bar. Five will be the 10% most clear-headed drunks in the group.
Want to catch a ride home with the soberest drunk in the bar?
Would you hand the car keys to the most clear-headed 10% of the drunks?
Would you want any of these drunks on the road?
Would you praise any for sobriety or self-restraint?
No?
Why? Because you don't grade on the curve. You don't rank drunks against drunker drunks.
You compare them to people who are stone-cold sober.
So, too, with government spending, efficiency, results, and ranking.
Don't rate or rank, evaluate or judge one government against another. Nor one government program against other government programs.
Because one will always be the soberest drunk in the bar.
If we don't compare governments or government programs against each other, what do we judge them against?
Private enterprise. Privately-funded, privately-run businesses and projects.
NOT government-regulated, government-mandated, or government-funded businesses.
Real private enterprise. Privately owned businesses, operating in an open and competitive marketplace.
Private enterprise is the standard of judgment. Private enterprise is financial sobriety as opposed to the tax-intoxicated spending of government.
How much does it cost competitive, private businesses to produce the results we desire?
How much per year does it cost a home schooling family to educate one child?
How much per year does it cost a competitive private or parochial school to educate one child?
How much per year does it cost your tax-funded, government-run public school to educate one child?
Now compare the costs and results of each.
Do the same with tax-funded, government-run welfare. Compare it to private charity.
Or tax-funded, government-run "affordable" housing or housing projects. Compare them to "Habitat for Humanity" housing or low-cost efficiency apartments and multi-family units.
How about tax-funded, government-sponsored or government-run job training programs? Compare them to On-the-Job training - or business and charitable sponsored job training programs.
Compare Government to Private Enterprise. Costs and results.
For example, when you assess the costs of building a college dormitory for a tax-supported university, compare them to the costs of a similar apartment building. (A college dormitory is nothing but an on-campus apartment building for students.)
Compare tax-funded to privately-funded. Compare government-run to privately-run. Compare government costs and results to private enterprise costs and results.
Rate or rank, evaluate or judge government's costs and results against private enterprise's.
Stop settling for the soberest drunk in the bar.
Copyright 2006 by Michael Cloud
This week we will be featuring the work of Michael Cloud of the Center for Small Government.
The following piece appeared at Free Market News Network and was written by Michael Cloud.
THE SOBEREST DRUNK IN THE BAR: COMPARING GOVERNMENTS
Friday, June 09, 2006
"We have the highest SAT scores of any public school system in America," boasts a high school principal.
"Property tax rates in our town are the lowest in the state," says the newspaper editorial.
"Our welfare system is ranked in the top 10%," beams a government official.
"Our state-funded affordable housing is the best…"
"Local government construction projects are the most cost-efficient…"
Again and again, government-funded, government-run programs are touted as the lowest cost, most economical, highest value, and highest ranked.
And they truly are - IF we make sure we compare them only to other governments.
Why?
Because somebody is always the soberest drunk in the bar.
This Friday night, after work, go to a bar. Pick a good bar. One where they welcome serious drinking. A bar where they drink to celebrate, to forget, to remember, or for no reason at all.
Grab a stool. Nurse a few beers. The social drinkers and amateurs have left. Nobody's there but you, the bartender and the determined drinkers.
Keep your eyes wide open. You'll see men and women bend elbows, drain their cups, pound 'em back, and swill it down. They'll binge and booze it up. Some will get pickled, stewed, smashed, sloshed, and blotto.
They'll blow by the legal limit for intoxication. Some might get falling down drunk or even pass out.
Say there are 50 hard-core boozers in the bar.
One will be the soberest drunk in the bar. Five will be the 10% most clear-headed drunks in the group.
Want to catch a ride home with the soberest drunk in the bar?
Would you hand the car keys to the most clear-headed 10% of the drunks?
Would you want any of these drunks on the road?
Would you praise any for sobriety or self-restraint?
No?
Why? Because you don't grade on the curve. You don't rank drunks against drunker drunks.
You compare them to people who are stone-cold sober.
So, too, with government spending, efficiency, results, and ranking.
Don't rate or rank, evaluate or judge one government against another. Nor one government program against other government programs.
Because one will always be the soberest drunk in the bar.
If we don't compare governments or government programs against each other, what do we judge them against?
Private enterprise. Privately-funded, privately-run businesses and projects.
NOT government-regulated, government-mandated, or government-funded businesses.
Real private enterprise. Privately owned businesses, operating in an open and competitive marketplace.
Private enterprise is the standard of judgment. Private enterprise is financial sobriety as opposed to the tax-intoxicated spending of government.
How much does it cost competitive, private businesses to produce the results we desire?
How much per year does it cost a home schooling family to educate one child?
How much per year does it cost a competitive private or parochial school to educate one child?
How much per year does it cost your tax-funded, government-run public school to educate one child?
Now compare the costs and results of each.
Do the same with tax-funded, government-run welfare. Compare it to private charity.
Or tax-funded, government-run "affordable" housing or housing projects. Compare them to "Habitat for Humanity" housing or low-cost efficiency apartments and multi-family units.
How about tax-funded, government-sponsored or government-run job training programs? Compare them to On-the-Job training - or business and charitable sponsored job training programs.
Compare Government to Private Enterprise. Costs and results.
For example, when you assess the costs of building a college dormitory for a tax-supported university, compare them to the costs of a similar apartment building. (A college dormitory is nothing but an on-campus apartment building for students.)
Compare tax-funded to privately-funded. Compare government-run to privately-run. Compare government costs and results to private enterprise costs and results.
Rate or rank, evaluate or judge government's costs and results against private enterprise's.
Stop settling for the soberest drunk in the bar.
Copyright 2006 by Michael Cloud
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Teenagers are not lazy
The letter to the editor from this bright young student appeared in the Northwest Herald.
Thank you to Emily for the heads up I will be sure to encourage my daughter to attend Civil Air Patrol when she is older.
The response below is to a letter to the Editor titled Too Many Lazy Kids which appeared in the Northwest Herald. The sad part is that Ray Mathis is a District 156 employee. Good teachers motivate, bad teachers give excuses. A summer must watch is a movie called Stand and Deliver about a teacher named Jaime Escalante. Mr. Escalante was able to educate and motivate a group of poor hispanic students that others thought could not be educated. Mr. Mathis's attitude in his letter to the editor is a major problem that plagues our public schools. Tenure protects people like Mathis not allowing school districts to hire more people like Mr. Escalante.
Teenagers are not lazy
[published on Sun, Jun 11, 2006]
To the Editor:
As a teenager, I would like to defend myself. Some adults say that we are being lazy and irresponsible, but adults are just as lazy perhaps by believing that they have done enough and the future is up to us.
I attend the Civil Air Patrol, where you will find teenagers who are smart, dedicated and respectful – the best group of people you ever will meet. I've gone to the McHenry County Composite Squadron for a little more than two years and working with the cadets has changed my life.
I am a much better person and leader now than I was three years ago. I have gone to encampments where it is all run by cadets and will tell you now: No one was being lazy at those encampments. The cadets are incredibly tough and eager for the challenge and leadership experience.
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer organization and the auxiliary of the Air Force. Visit www.ilcap.org to learn more. This is a wonderful program where there are good examples of kids from 12 to 21 years of age. Before you make a hard generalization about teenagers go, to one of the meetings.
Emily Medina
Harvard
For more on Jamie Escalante you may want to read Jaime Escalante: Sensational Teacher by Ann Byers
Thank you to Emily for the heads up I will be sure to encourage my daughter to attend Civil Air Patrol when she is older.
The response below is to a letter to the Editor titled Too Many Lazy Kids which appeared in the Northwest Herald. The sad part is that Ray Mathis is a District 156 employee. Good teachers motivate, bad teachers give excuses. A summer must watch is a movie called Stand and Deliver about a teacher named Jaime Escalante. Mr. Escalante was able to educate and motivate a group of poor hispanic students that others thought could not be educated. Mr. Mathis's attitude in his letter to the editor is a major problem that plagues our public schools. Tenure protects people like Mathis not allowing school districts to hire more people like Mr. Escalante.
Teenagers are not lazy
[published on Sun, Jun 11, 2006]
To the Editor:
As a teenager, I would like to defend myself. Some adults say that we are being lazy and irresponsible, but adults are just as lazy perhaps by believing that they have done enough and the future is up to us.
I attend the Civil Air Patrol, where you will find teenagers who are smart, dedicated and respectful – the best group of people you ever will meet. I've gone to the McHenry County Composite Squadron for a little more than two years and working with the cadets has changed my life.
I am a much better person and leader now than I was three years ago. I have gone to encampments where it is all run by cadets and will tell you now: No one was being lazy at those encampments. The cadets are incredibly tough and eager for the challenge and leadership experience.
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer organization and the auxiliary of the Air Force. Visit www.ilcap.org to learn more. This is a wonderful program where there are good examples of kids from 12 to 21 years of age. Before you make a hard generalization about teenagers go, to one of the meetings.
Emily Medina
Harvard
For more on Jamie Escalante you may want to read Jaime Escalante: Sensational Teacher by Ann Byers
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Dist. 158 board member calls for forensic auditor - 2 million dollars discrepancy who cares it is taxpayer money.
How much money is missing in your school and does anyone care? Probably not that is why voters blindly continue to vote yes on referenda. The following piece appeared in the Daily Herald.
Dist. 158 board member calls for forensic auditor
Posted Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Here we go again?
In light of concerns brought to light in an audit of Huntley District 158, board member Larry Snow said this week he plans to renew calls for a forensic audit of the district’s finances to determine whether district officials engaged in illegal activity.
Snow first called for a forensic auditor last year after all of the trouble caused by the district’s bid for a 55-cent tax-rate increase, and subsequent reports that the district’s financial team had bungled all manner of state documents.
Now, Snow said the time may again be right after reading the recent report produced by auditing firm William F. Gurrie.
In short, the report says the district needs to establish a procedure for tracking expenditures and reconciling the money spent with the district’s bank statements.
It took months for Gurrie representatives to complete the latest report, because there was a more than $2 million
discrepancy between the bank statements and the district’s own ledgers.
Board members have placed most of the blame on former fiscal services director Paul Halverson and his staff.
And although Snow has repeatedly said he hopes the district earns a clean bill of health from any forensic auditor, he also says it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Last time, calls for a forensic audit fizzled. We’ll see if this latest report adds fuel to the fire.
On the flip side: Board member Kim Skaja says Snow is something of a glass-is-half-empty guy.
Rather than focus on the negatives — and constantly blowing them out of proportion — Skaja said Snow should pay more attention to all of the good coming out of District 158.
To view the rest of the article go to the Daily Herald.
Jeffrey Gaunt covers school districts 300 and 158. He can be reached at (847) 608-2719 or by e-mail at jgaunt@dailyherald.com.
Dist. 158 board member calls for forensic auditor
Posted Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Here we go again?
In light of concerns brought to light in an audit of Huntley District 158, board member Larry Snow said this week he plans to renew calls for a forensic audit of the district’s finances to determine whether district officials engaged in illegal activity.
Snow first called for a forensic auditor last year after all of the trouble caused by the district’s bid for a 55-cent tax-rate increase, and subsequent reports that the district’s financial team had bungled all manner of state documents.
Now, Snow said the time may again be right after reading the recent report produced by auditing firm William F. Gurrie.
In short, the report says the district needs to establish a procedure for tracking expenditures and reconciling the money spent with the district’s bank statements.
It took months for Gurrie representatives to complete the latest report, because there was a more than $2 million
discrepancy between the bank statements and the district’s own ledgers.
Board members have placed most of the blame on former fiscal services director Paul Halverson and his staff.
And although Snow has repeatedly said he hopes the district earns a clean bill of health from any forensic auditor, he also says it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Last time, calls for a forensic audit fizzled. We’ll see if this latest report adds fuel to the fire.
On the flip side: Board member Kim Skaja says Snow is something of a glass-is-half-empty guy.
Rather than focus on the negatives — and constantly blowing them out of proportion — Skaja said Snow should pay more attention to all of the good coming out of District 158.
To view the rest of the article go to the Daily Herald.
Jeffrey Gaunt covers school districts 300 and 158. He can be reached at (847) 608-2719 or by e-mail at jgaunt@dailyherald.com.
Friday, June 09, 2006
D-50 decides against accepting bid to outsource jobs
The piece below appeared in the Northwest Herald on June 7th. The difference between the two bids below is about 50,000 dollars. In a small district like Harvard 50,000 dollars goes a long way. There has been much in the news lately of new spending (primarily staff related) in District 50 but there has yet to be news about the purchase of new textbooks. Old textbooks were part of the plea for a yes vote when promoting the referenda in past elections. The primary interests of the District 50 board should first be the students and taxpayers. Have the children been thrown under the bus to please the employees once again. Kudos for the concessions but perhaps they did not go far enough. Northwest Herald.
D-50 decides against accepting bid to outsource jobs
Publication Northwest Herald
Date June 07, 2006
By JENN WIANT
jwiant@nwherald.com
HARVARD - The custodial, maintenance and grounds workers of Harvard School District 50 no longer face a July 1 job-loss date.
The school board has voted not to accept a bid to outsource them.
The 18 district employees affected were notified in April that their employment with the district would end in June. That decision was reversed June 1.
The school board decided that the annual savings to be achieved by outsourcing the work would not be worth it after the union agreed to concessions.
The lowest bid to outsource the custodial and maintenance jobs came in at $725,820. The district plans to spend $774,283 on the services in 2006-07, Clow said.
"The dollar difference was not enough there to outsource, unlike the food service, which just came in at a tremendous savings," board member Diana Bird said this week.
The board voted to outsource the district's food service at a meeting May 22, saying the move would save the district about $390,000 over the next three years.
About 20 former food-service employees will have the chance to interview with the district's new food service provider, Arbor Management Inc., but they will not be guaranteed jobs, District Spokesman Bill Clow said.
He added that the union representing the custodial and maintenance workers agreed to take concessions so that workers could keep their jobs.
"Impact bargaining was able to close that gap sufficiently to make it worthwhile for the board to agree not to outsource," Clow said.
Lower costs negotiated with the local union, the Harvard Education Support Association, have not been calculated but will go into effect after the 2006-07 school year, Clow said.
The board signed a three-year contract with HESA on June 1 after two months of negotiations.
HESA Vice President Lee Peters, who is head custodian at Central School, said he was angry when he received the initial letter stating that he no longer would be employed with the district as of July 1.
To view the rest of the story go to the Northwest Herald.
D-50 decides against accepting bid to outsource jobs
Publication Northwest Herald
Date June 07, 2006
By JENN WIANT
jwiant@nwherald.com
HARVARD - The custodial, maintenance and grounds workers of Harvard School District 50 no longer face a July 1 job-loss date.
The school board has voted not to accept a bid to outsource them.
The 18 district employees affected were notified in April that their employment with the district would end in June. That decision was reversed June 1.
The school board decided that the annual savings to be achieved by outsourcing the work would not be worth it after the union agreed to concessions.
The lowest bid to outsource the custodial and maintenance jobs came in at $725,820. The district plans to spend $774,283 on the services in 2006-07, Clow said.
"The dollar difference was not enough there to outsource, unlike the food service, which just came in at a tremendous savings," board member Diana Bird said this week.
The board voted to outsource the district's food service at a meeting May 22, saying the move would save the district about $390,000 over the next three years.
About 20 former food-service employees will have the chance to interview with the district's new food service provider, Arbor Management Inc., but they will not be guaranteed jobs, District Spokesman Bill Clow said.
He added that the union representing the custodial and maintenance workers agreed to take concessions so that workers could keep their jobs.
"Impact bargaining was able to close that gap sufficiently to make it worthwhile for the board to agree not to outsource," Clow said.
Lower costs negotiated with the local union, the Harvard Education Support Association, have not been calculated but will go into effect after the 2006-07 school year, Clow said.
The board signed a three-year contract with HESA on June 1 after two months of negotiations.
HESA Vice President Lee Peters, who is head custodian at Central School, said he was angry when he received the initial letter stating that he no longer would be employed with the district as of July 1.
To view the rest of the story go to the Northwest Herald.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Proposition 82 rejected in California - Socialism rejected -
Universal preschool for all failed in California.
Voters reject Prop. 82
By Dana Hull
Mercury News
California voters soundly rejected Proposition 82 Tuesday, crushing the hopes of early childhood education advocates who hoped to make universal preschool public policy in the nation's most populous state.
Throughout much of the evening, returns showed that 60 percent of voters statewide opposed Prop. 82 while just 40 percent supported it, making it nearly impossible for the measure to ever get the simple majority it needed to pass.
``It doesn't look good,'' admitted Hollywood director Rob Reiner, who spoke to about 200 supporters at a Los Angeles hotel ballroom shortly after 10 p.m. But he vowed to fight on, saying that the push for universal preschool would not go away. ``This is important, and if it is not today the train has left the station.''
Though voter turnout was low across California, by 1 a.m. it appeared that Prop. 82 failed in every county except Alameda and San Francisco. It was evenly split in Imperial County.
Many San Jose area voters took their skepticism about the measure to the polls.
``Prop. 82 sounded really good, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized it was subject to shenanigans,'' said David Yomtov, a San Jose resident who said he voted against it. ``Kids should go to preschool, but it didn't sound like Prop. 82 would help the families who most needed the help.''
The ``No on 82'' campaign claimed victory shortly before midnight.
``We're grateful for this vote of confidence by California voters,'' said Pamela Zell Rigg, president of the California Montessori Council, which campaigned against the measure. ``In the meantime, the state education system can focus on serving K-12 students.''
Prop. 82 would have taxed the state's wealthiest residents to provide a free year of preschool to every 4-year-old. The tax-the-rich initiative, which had the support of Hollywood activists and labor unions, seemed a sure winner when it was first unveiled earlier this spring.
Proponents argued that making high-quality preschool available to the state's nearly 500,000 4-year-olds would be a huge boost to working families that struggle to pay for preschool, which often costs thousands of dollars a year.
Supporters also said investing in preschool would improve K-12 education by bridging the achievement gap separating wealthier children from their low-income counterparts.
Silicon Valley opposed
But Reiner and his campaign aides overestimated the breadth of their support -- and misjudged the depth of the opposition's.
Prop. 82 was attacked by anti-tax activists and Silicon Valley's vast venture capital community, which donated heavily to the ``No on 82'' campaign. Critics also warned that the measure would not do enough to help the state's poorest families.
Another salvo came from private preschools, notably many Montessori schools, over concerns that increased competition from a state-run program would threaten their business and their education philosophies.
The television commercials against Prop. 82 deftly capitalized on those fears, consistently warning it would do little to raise preschool enrollment while creating a ``preschool bureaucracy.'' The ads also urged California to fix K-12 schools before taking on the role of educating even younger children.
To view the rest of the story go to Mecury News newspaper.
Voters reject Prop. 82
By Dana Hull
Mercury News
California voters soundly rejected Proposition 82 Tuesday, crushing the hopes of early childhood education advocates who hoped to make universal preschool public policy in the nation's most populous state.
Throughout much of the evening, returns showed that 60 percent of voters statewide opposed Prop. 82 while just 40 percent supported it, making it nearly impossible for the measure to ever get the simple majority it needed to pass.
``It doesn't look good,'' admitted Hollywood director Rob Reiner, who spoke to about 200 supporters at a Los Angeles hotel ballroom shortly after 10 p.m. But he vowed to fight on, saying that the push for universal preschool would not go away. ``This is important, and if it is not today the train has left the station.''
Though voter turnout was low across California, by 1 a.m. it appeared that Prop. 82 failed in every county except Alameda and San Francisco. It was evenly split in Imperial County.
Many San Jose area voters took their skepticism about the measure to the polls.
``Prop. 82 sounded really good, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized it was subject to shenanigans,'' said David Yomtov, a San Jose resident who said he voted against it. ``Kids should go to preschool, but it didn't sound like Prop. 82 would help the families who most needed the help.''
The ``No on 82'' campaign claimed victory shortly before midnight.
``We're grateful for this vote of confidence by California voters,'' said Pamela Zell Rigg, president of the California Montessori Council, which campaigned against the measure. ``In the meantime, the state education system can focus on serving K-12 students.''
Prop. 82 would have taxed the state's wealthiest residents to provide a free year of preschool to every 4-year-old. The tax-the-rich initiative, which had the support of Hollywood activists and labor unions, seemed a sure winner when it was first unveiled earlier this spring.
Proponents argued that making high-quality preschool available to the state's nearly 500,000 4-year-olds would be a huge boost to working families that struggle to pay for preschool, which often costs thousands of dollars a year.
Supporters also said investing in preschool would improve K-12 education by bridging the achievement gap separating wealthier children from their low-income counterparts.
Silicon Valley opposed
But Reiner and his campaign aides overestimated the breadth of their support -- and misjudged the depth of the opposition's.
Prop. 82 was attacked by anti-tax activists and Silicon Valley's vast venture capital community, which donated heavily to the ``No on 82'' campaign. Critics also warned that the measure would not do enough to help the state's poorest families.
Another salvo came from private preschools, notably many Montessori schools, over concerns that increased competition from a state-run program would threaten their business and their education philosophies.
The television commercials against Prop. 82 deftly capitalized on those fears, consistently warning it would do little to raise preschool enrollment while creating a ``preschool bureaucracy.'' The ads also urged California to fix K-12 schools before taking on the role of educating even younger children.
To view the rest of the story go to Mecury News newspaper.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Agony of American Education - How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools
The following story appeared at Reason online Free Minds and Free Markets.
The Agony of American Education
How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools
Lisa Snell
Imagine a city with authentic public school choice—a place where the location of your home doesn’t determine your child’s school. The first place that comes to mind probably is not San Francisco. But that city boasts one of the most robust school choice systems in the nation.
Caroline Grannan, a public school advocate and super-involved parent, lobbied hard to wear down the San Francisco school district back in 1996 and get her son William, then an incoming kindergartner, out of his assigned neighborhood school, Miraloma Elementary, and into a “more desirable” alternative school called Lakeshore. In 1996 Miraloma had low test scores and a low-income student body bused in from other neighborhoods; its middle-class neighbors shunned it. Lakeshore had a better reputation and higher student performance.
Once, Grannan remembers, it was conventional wisdom in San Francisco that there were only five decent public schools in the city; if you couldn’t get your child into one of them, it was time to move to the suburbs or to find a private academy. But a lot has changed since 1996. Today Grannan could send her child to any school within the city. What’s more, she would happily send her kids to Miraloma, one of many elementary schools in San Francisco that now attract eager middle-class clients. Miraloma has a new principal with a parent-friendly attitude, has begun to raise its test scores, and is more diversified. Families now feel secure taking advantage of Miraloma’s longstanding positive attributes, including its small size and its sheltered and attractive setting.
Grannan’s more recent experience with her children’s middle school also reflects how San Francisco schools have changed. Her son William just graduated from Aptos Middle School, and her daughter Anna started sixth grade there this year. This school is now in high demand, but in 1996 parents considered it dirty, dangerous, and academically weak. Today it offers enriched language, arts, and music programs, and its test scores continue to improve.
Grannan is more than just a concerned parent. She is a founding member of the San Francisco chapter of Parents for Public Schools, a PTA board member, and a prolific writer whose articles about local schools appear in the San Francisco Examiner and other publications. She has argued passionately against both vouchers and charter schools, and would wince to be portrayed as a partisan of school choice. Yet she has become an avid supporter of the San Francisco system and the benefits it brings to San Francisco families.
To view the rest of the story go to Reason online Free Minds and Free Markets.
The Agony of American Education
How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools
Lisa Snell
Imagine a city with authentic public school choice—a place where the location of your home doesn’t determine your child’s school. The first place that comes to mind probably is not San Francisco. But that city boasts one of the most robust school choice systems in the nation.
Caroline Grannan, a public school advocate and super-involved parent, lobbied hard to wear down the San Francisco school district back in 1996 and get her son William, then an incoming kindergartner, out of his assigned neighborhood school, Miraloma Elementary, and into a “more desirable” alternative school called Lakeshore. In 1996 Miraloma had low test scores and a low-income student body bused in from other neighborhoods; its middle-class neighbors shunned it. Lakeshore had a better reputation and higher student performance.
Once, Grannan remembers, it was conventional wisdom in San Francisco that there were only five decent public schools in the city; if you couldn’t get your child into one of them, it was time to move to the suburbs or to find a private academy. But a lot has changed since 1996. Today Grannan could send her child to any school within the city. What’s more, she would happily send her kids to Miraloma, one of many elementary schools in San Francisco that now attract eager middle-class clients. Miraloma has a new principal with a parent-friendly attitude, has begun to raise its test scores, and is more diversified. Families now feel secure taking advantage of Miraloma’s longstanding positive attributes, including its small size and its sheltered and attractive setting.
Grannan’s more recent experience with her children’s middle school also reflects how San Francisco schools have changed. Her son William just graduated from Aptos Middle School, and her daughter Anna started sixth grade there this year. This school is now in high demand, but in 1996 parents considered it dirty, dangerous, and academically weak. Today it offers enriched language, arts, and music programs, and its test scores continue to improve.
Grannan is more than just a concerned parent. She is a founding member of the San Francisco chapter of Parents for Public Schools, a PTA board member, and a prolific writer whose articles about local schools appear in the San Francisco Examiner and other publications. She has argued passionately against both vouchers and charter schools, and would wince to be portrayed as a partisan of school choice. Yet she has become an avid supporter of the San Francisco system and the benefits it brings to San Francisco families.
To view the rest of the story go to Reason online Free Minds and Free Markets.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Why doesn't Blagojevich just sell the public school system?
The following piece appeared on Students First and in the in the Daily Herald.
Why doesn't Blagojevich just sell the public school system?
Monday, June 05, 2006
By Chuck Goudie
Source: Daily Herald Nobody asked any of us Illinoisans if we wanted our beloved lottery hung on the sale rack like a
melon-colored Nehru jacket.
It's not just the lottery either. The auction of the Skyway toll road wasn't put to a vote. The highway, dream child of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, was just sold off by his son as if it was a diamond pinky ring at his estate sale.
These may just represent a beginning of the pawning of public property to resolve short-term government cash flow problems, as the scheme seems to be gaining popularity among political leaders.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has announced his plan to sell control of the state lottery and then hand over some of the proceeds to Illinois' allegedly broke public schools.
Whether the financially flourishing lottery can possibly fetch $10 billion as Mr. Blagojevich's arithmetic presumes, maybe he is selling the wrong state treasure.
Instead of unloading the lottery to fund the schools, why doesn't Gov. Blagojevich just sell the public school system?
I am certain that some civic-minded, big-hearted, deep-pocketed company could turn around the schools in
a semester or two and still manage to turn a profit.
All of us who pay property taxes know that the amount of money coming into the schools isn't a problem and never has been. We're tapped out. So, the chronic quandary the schools face must be a result of how our property taxes are being spent after the bags of loot arrive at the school districts.
If the governor were to outsource administration of the public schools, the first thing that would happen is a complete review of the current administrators. This is what such a survey of State Board of Education files would reveal:
- There are more than 100 school district officials in Illinois who currently make more than the governor himself. More than 100 school officials are paid an annual salary of $200,000 or more. Three years ago there were only 15 making that much.
- All but a few of the 100 highest paid school administrators work for districts in the Chicago suburbs.
- They are not just district superintendents rolling in dough. Some are the district under bosses.
- According to state records for 2005, the highest paid Illinois public school district official is James Hintz, who worked in Lincolnshire's Stevenson High School District 125. Mr. Hintz' salary in 2005 was $361,146.
That was quite a feat, considering that Hintz was not even the superintendent. He worked as the assistant superintendent for business services, commonly known as the business manager. He made $100,000 more per year than the actual superintendent.
That wasn't always the case. Mr. Hintz' base salary ballooned as part of a lucrative retirement deal. Under the state retirement system, it is an employee's final year salary that is used to formulate pension benefits.
Therefore, since retiring at the end of last school year, Mr. Hintz has been receiving pension checks totaling $200,000 a year and will continue to do so until the day he dies.
How can this happen? John Bauman, the executive director of the State Teacher's Retirement system, told me that his personal opinion is Hintz' retirement package was "legal, but devious."
"That's his opinion," said Hintz, 56, who now works as an educational consultant in addition to collecting his $200,000 annual school pension. "Everything was done with the full knowledge of the school board and met all the provisions of the teacher retirement system."
Indeed, the practice of padding career-ending salaries to boost school administrators' pensions became so common that the Illinois General Assembly recently passed legislation capping pre-retirement pay increases at 6 percent.
But even that won't necessarily put an end to Hintz-style golden parachutes. Bauman says "in situations where school boards feel that they have a need to compensate extraordinary performance or reward an administrator for a job well done over a career of service to the district at rates above 6 percent, they may continue to do so at their expense."
Still, there are way too many highly paid "public" school bosses in Illinois. Even a one-eyed corporate hatchet man could easily cut down the number of superintendents, assistant superintendents, business managers, assistant business managers and assistants to the assistants.
Under a business plan, district managers' positions would be consolidated, second tier administrators would be eliminated and private sector executive pay would be scaled back and decreased to public service levels.
The money that would be saved on this alone could result in the hiring of hundreds of new teachers to carry out the core function of our schools: educate children. There might even be a few bucks left over to start a performance incentive program for teachers, which would link improved test scores to bonus checks.
Judging by the most recent results of statewide science testing, something needs to be done. Almost three-quarters of Illinois' fourth- and eighth-graders flunked the test on physical, life and earth sciences. The results were even lower than five years and worse than the national average.
Selling the Illinois Lottery might be an easy answer. It certainly would be politically expedient for the governor if it could be tied up with a neat ribbon before the November election. It would pump some fast money into the schools. But if the cash just ends up fattening administrators' wallets, why not leave the Lotto alone?
Why doesn't Blagojevich just sell the public school system?
Monday, June 05, 2006
By Chuck Goudie
Source: Daily Herald Nobody asked any of us Illinoisans if we wanted our beloved lottery hung on the sale rack like a
melon-colored Nehru jacket.
It's not just the lottery either. The auction of the Skyway toll road wasn't put to a vote. The highway, dream child of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, was just sold off by his son as if it was a diamond pinky ring at his estate sale.
These may just represent a beginning of the pawning of public property to resolve short-term government cash flow problems, as the scheme seems to be gaining popularity among political leaders.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has announced his plan to sell control of the state lottery and then hand over some of the proceeds to Illinois' allegedly broke public schools.
Whether the financially flourishing lottery can possibly fetch $10 billion as Mr. Blagojevich's arithmetic presumes, maybe he is selling the wrong state treasure.
Instead of unloading the lottery to fund the schools, why doesn't Gov. Blagojevich just sell the public school system?
I am certain that some civic-minded, big-hearted, deep-pocketed company could turn around the schools in
a semester or two and still manage to turn a profit.
All of us who pay property taxes know that the amount of money coming into the schools isn't a problem and never has been. We're tapped out. So, the chronic quandary the schools face must be a result of how our property taxes are being spent after the bags of loot arrive at the school districts.
If the governor were to outsource administration of the public schools, the first thing that would happen is a complete review of the current administrators. This is what such a survey of State Board of Education files would reveal:
- There are more than 100 school district officials in Illinois who currently make more than the governor himself. More than 100 school officials are paid an annual salary of $200,000 or more. Three years ago there were only 15 making that much.
- All but a few of the 100 highest paid school administrators work for districts in the Chicago suburbs.
- They are not just district superintendents rolling in dough. Some are the district under bosses.
- According to state records for 2005, the highest paid Illinois public school district official is James Hintz, who worked in Lincolnshire's Stevenson High School District 125. Mr. Hintz' salary in 2005 was $361,146.
That was quite a feat, considering that Hintz was not even the superintendent. He worked as the assistant superintendent for business services, commonly known as the business manager. He made $100,000 more per year than the actual superintendent.
That wasn't always the case. Mr. Hintz' base salary ballooned as part of a lucrative retirement deal. Under the state retirement system, it is an employee's final year salary that is used to formulate pension benefits.
Therefore, since retiring at the end of last school year, Mr. Hintz has been receiving pension checks totaling $200,000 a year and will continue to do so until the day he dies.
How can this happen? John Bauman, the executive director of the State Teacher's Retirement system, told me that his personal opinion is Hintz' retirement package was "legal, but devious."
"That's his opinion," said Hintz, 56, who now works as an educational consultant in addition to collecting his $200,000 annual school pension. "Everything was done with the full knowledge of the school board and met all the provisions of the teacher retirement system."
Indeed, the practice of padding career-ending salaries to boost school administrators' pensions became so common that the Illinois General Assembly recently passed legislation capping pre-retirement pay increases at 6 percent.
But even that won't necessarily put an end to Hintz-style golden parachutes. Bauman says "in situations where school boards feel that they have a need to compensate extraordinary performance or reward an administrator for a job well done over a career of service to the district at rates above 6 percent, they may continue to do so at their expense."
Still, there are way too many highly paid "public" school bosses in Illinois. Even a one-eyed corporate hatchet man could easily cut down the number of superintendents, assistant superintendents, business managers, assistant business managers and assistants to the assistants.
Under a business plan, district managers' positions would be consolidated, second tier administrators would be eliminated and private sector executive pay would be scaled back and decreased to public service levels.
The money that would be saved on this alone could result in the hiring of hundreds of new teachers to carry out the core function of our schools: educate children. There might even be a few bucks left over to start a performance incentive program for teachers, which would link improved test scores to bonus checks.
Judging by the most recent results of statewide science testing, something needs to be done. Almost three-quarters of Illinois' fourth- and eighth-graders flunked the test on physical, life and earth sciences. The results were even lower than five years and worse than the national average.
Selling the Illinois Lottery might be an easy answer. It certainly would be politically expedient for the governor if it could be tied up with a neat ribbon before the November election. It would pump some fast money into the schools. But if the cash just ends up fattening administrators' wallets, why not leave the Lotto alone?
Monday, June 05, 2006
Reckless Sale of State Assets By Senator Chris Lauzen
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” - attributed to Alexander Tytler, Scottish historian
The following is a letter from Senator Chris Lauzen click here to sign up for his news letter. Thanks to our friend Dave for the heads up on the above quote.
Reckless Sale of State Assets
By Senator Chris Lauzen
One of the saddest personal tragedies in life is to see a person addicted to alcohol, drugs, or gambling destroy the financial base upon which his family relies. The way it usually goes is an initial euphoria of hype as he doubles the mortgage debt to mask the problem. The next step is running all his credit cards so high that his credit rating is severely damaged. Eventually, he begins to sell his most marketable family assets at flea market prices. And, during all this time, he refuses to admit that he even has a problem.
The same is true about the current administration of the State of Illinois. Their addiction is to excess government spending. George Ryan, who was known as a prolific spender, increased state spending by $2.5B during his four years. Rod Blagojevich has increased spending by $3.5B-more than $1B more over four budgets. Both are in denial that they have done anything wrong. The reason why this is so important to all of us is that we will eventually have to pay back the mortgage, the credit cards, and will lack cash-producing assets that he sold cheaply.
Careful readers of this publication are already aware of the doubling of the state general obligation debt in the past four years to over $20B. You are aware of the accumulation of unpaid Medicaid provider bills that currently exceed a staggering $2 Billion that has New York credit rating company Fitch warning Illinois that they will downgrade our finances. Now we're starting to see the final desperate step in this "financial meltdown" pattern, i.e. the sale of state assets that have been paid for by generations of taxpayers and are now being offered at rummage sale prices.
For example, thank goodness that Attorney General Lisa Madigan stopped the ill-advised sale of the State of Illinois Building to a group of French investors about a year ago.
The state lottery is "on the blocks" as a bargaining chip in the negotiations to keep Reverend/Senator James Meeks from splitting the statewide Democrat vote in the current governor's race. Twenty years after the lottery was sold to unsuspecting state taxpayers on the false promise that "The lottery will go to education", apparently my friend Senator Meeks has fallen for that one again!
It is simply amazing to me that the Illinois Student Assistance Commission which holds a portfolio of $3,500,000,000 of student loans that you and I have paid our taxes to develop for decades, is being proportionately sold for $300M-$500M. If the portion-to-be-sold is practically given away for the equivalent of $350M, that transaction represents yard sale prices of a dime on the dollar (10¢ for what is clearly worth $1). This irresponsible fiscal decision is like selling a home that is worth $250,000 for $25,000. This isn't petty theft, its grand larceny! Don't be surprised when you see the investors who ultimately steal this asset show up on the list of "experts" who provided the incredibly low valuation and also show up on the Governor's campaign contribution reports.
But the real whopper is the sale of the tollway. This asset belongs to the people of this region and has been paid for by tollpayers for over a half century in nickels, dimes, and quarters. What right does an obviously reckless Governor have to sell this regional asset and distribute the money among political allies and to spend it around the rest of the state? This is a ransacking and pillaging of the Suburban region to benefit Chicago and Downstate.
On Wednesday of this week, I listened to more than two hours of testimony where one of the preliminary estimates was that the tollway is worth $15-$25B, according to the most prestigious investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. Yet, on May 8, 2006 in "Barron's Financial News On-Line", it was reported that investment banking firms "led by Goldman Sachs, are descending on state capitols" to buy up tollway opportunities. I learned painfully a long time ago not to play poker for money with people a lot smarter than me. As I applied the toll increases permitted under the Chicago Skyway sale of 7% per year for the first 11 years and approximately 5% for the remaining 64 years to the proposed 75-year Illinois Tollway Lease, my rough calculation for the discounted cash flow at a reasonable 5% internal rate of return yielded a lease price closer to $35B. We may not see the fangs and claws yet, but I feel like the three little piggies locked in the blood-thirsty glare of that big bad wolf! Let's not go there.
The result of personal addiction is despair, disappointment, and destruction. The result of public addiction to excessive spending and reckless sale of the state assets is further backbreaking tax increases.
The following is a letter from Senator Chris Lauzen click here to sign up for his news letter. Thanks to our friend Dave for the heads up on the above quote.
Reckless Sale of State Assets
By Senator Chris Lauzen
One of the saddest personal tragedies in life is to see a person addicted to alcohol, drugs, or gambling destroy the financial base upon which his family relies. The way it usually goes is an initial euphoria of hype as he doubles the mortgage debt to mask the problem. The next step is running all his credit cards so high that his credit rating is severely damaged. Eventually, he begins to sell his most marketable family assets at flea market prices. And, during all this time, he refuses to admit that he even has a problem.
The same is true about the current administration of the State of Illinois. Their addiction is to excess government spending. George Ryan, who was known as a prolific spender, increased state spending by $2.5B during his four years. Rod Blagojevich has increased spending by $3.5B-more than $1B more over four budgets. Both are in denial that they have done anything wrong. The reason why this is so important to all of us is that we will eventually have to pay back the mortgage, the credit cards, and will lack cash-producing assets that he sold cheaply.
Careful readers of this publication are already aware of the doubling of the state general obligation debt in the past four years to over $20B. You are aware of the accumulation of unpaid Medicaid provider bills that currently exceed a staggering $2 Billion that has New York credit rating company Fitch warning Illinois that they will downgrade our finances. Now we're starting to see the final desperate step in this "financial meltdown" pattern, i.e. the sale of state assets that have been paid for by generations of taxpayers and are now being offered at rummage sale prices.
For example, thank goodness that Attorney General Lisa Madigan stopped the ill-advised sale of the State of Illinois Building to a group of French investors about a year ago.
The state lottery is "on the blocks" as a bargaining chip in the negotiations to keep Reverend/Senator James Meeks from splitting the statewide Democrat vote in the current governor's race. Twenty years after the lottery was sold to unsuspecting state taxpayers on the false promise that "The lottery will go to education", apparently my friend Senator Meeks has fallen for that one again!
It is simply amazing to me that the Illinois Student Assistance Commission which holds a portfolio of $3,500,000,000 of student loans that you and I have paid our taxes to develop for decades, is being proportionately sold for $300M-$500M. If the portion-to-be-sold is practically given away for the equivalent of $350M, that transaction represents yard sale prices of a dime on the dollar (10¢ for what is clearly worth $1). This irresponsible fiscal decision is like selling a home that is worth $250,000 for $25,000. This isn't petty theft, its grand larceny! Don't be surprised when you see the investors who ultimately steal this asset show up on the list of "experts" who provided the incredibly low valuation and also show up on the Governor's campaign contribution reports.
But the real whopper is the sale of the tollway. This asset belongs to the people of this region and has been paid for by tollpayers for over a half century in nickels, dimes, and quarters. What right does an obviously reckless Governor have to sell this regional asset and distribute the money among political allies and to spend it around the rest of the state? This is a ransacking and pillaging of the Suburban region to benefit Chicago and Downstate.
On Wednesday of this week, I listened to more than two hours of testimony where one of the preliminary estimates was that the tollway is worth $15-$25B, according to the most prestigious investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. Yet, on May 8, 2006 in "Barron's Financial News On-Line", it was reported that investment banking firms "led by Goldman Sachs, are descending on state capitols" to buy up tollway opportunities. I learned painfully a long time ago not to play poker for money with people a lot smarter than me. As I applied the toll increases permitted under the Chicago Skyway sale of 7% per year for the first 11 years and approximately 5% for the remaining 64 years to the proposed 75-year Illinois Tollway Lease, my rough calculation for the discounted cash flow at a reasonable 5% internal rate of return yielded a lease price closer to $35B. We may not see the fangs and claws yet, but I feel like the three little piggies locked in the blood-thirsty glare of that big bad wolf! Let's not go there.
The result of personal addiction is despair, disappointment, and destruction. The result of public addiction to excessive spending and reckless sale of the state assets is further backbreaking tax increases.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Feds probe company over use of gift cards
CRAFT has always said investigate and you will find either corruption, patronage, waste and/or fraud in your schools. The Federal Government is now doing some investigations of their own. We can not stress enough you must investigate your schools before voting yes. The following article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on June 3rd. Buy a copy or several copies and send it to all your friends who do not have email or read the paper . School employees or spouses are getting kickbacks from companies doing deals with schools. Schools are big business and mean big money for those doing businesses with schools. According to the article in 1998 alone a company handed out 1.5 million dollars in gift cards. It would have been much better for the schools if these companies charged 1.5 million less for their products or gave 1.5 million dollars in donations. Essentially our taxes are higher because schools are getting kick backs. Hat tip to Cal Skinner of McHenry County Blog for pointing us to the article. Cal is the leader of investigative reporting. I have reposted the article here because of its importance.
This can not be said enough as pointed out in the article below "Officials with government entities are not allowed to accept money or gifts in return for doing business with companies." That includes teachers. If you find this is happening in your schools document everything and report the matter to the authorities.
Feds probe company over use of gift cards
June 3, 2006
BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter
Federal authorities are investigating a Des Plaines-based company after allegations surfaced that salespeople were handing out bribes in the form of gift certificates to secure contracts, court records show.
Individuals within the company, which the Sun-Times is not naming because it hasn't been charged, allegedly handed out $1.5 million worth of gift certificates in 1998 alone. The company was doing it to secure sales contracts, in some cases with schools or local municipalities, according to an FBI affidavit. Officials with government entities are not allowed to accept money or gifts in return for doing business with companies.
To evade suspicion, salespeople at the company would sometimes send the gift certificates to people's homes in the names of their spouses, according to the affidavit.
The Des Plaines company used Winners Choice gift certificates, which can be redeemed at any of a number of different stores, from Sears to Eddie Bauer to Sam's Club to Toys R Us. Salespeople allegedly used the gift certificates as a form of kickbacks, federal authorities allege, with the thought that they were less traceable than cash.
"[The company] was using these gift certificates to reward purchasing agents of public and private companies for awarding it contracts," an FBI agent states in the affidavit.
'Not traceable'
One cooperating witness told the FBI he accepted $2,000 worth of gift certificates in return for giving the company work with a school district. The amount of the gift certificates corresponded with the amount of the contract; one customer reportedly received $10,000 worth, according to records.
An FBI agent also worked undercover to record a conversation with one salesperson who told him that the gift certificates were "not traceable, and it's cash . . . you want to store them up for 10 years, they're still good."
Records show a second North Shore company helped process the gift certificates to the salespeople. An undercover FBI agent also recorded an executive of the North Shore company. In a conversation, the executive tells the undercover agent to give out gift certificates as kickbacks -- not cash.
"You get caught and you're gonna have those f---ing feds going over every . . . nickel and dime and checking account you got," the executive unwittingly told the federal agent. "That's all those bastards do."
No one has yet been charged in the investigation.
"We are cooperating with the government and will continue to do so," a representative of the Des Plaines company said.
The company reported sales of $420 million last year.
This can not be said enough as pointed out in the article below "Officials with government entities are not allowed to accept money or gifts in return for doing business with companies." That includes teachers. If you find this is happening in your schools document everything and report the matter to the authorities.
Feds probe company over use of gift cards
June 3, 2006
BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter
Federal authorities are investigating a Des Plaines-based company after allegations surfaced that salespeople were handing out bribes in the form of gift certificates to secure contracts, court records show.
Individuals within the company, which the Sun-Times is not naming because it hasn't been charged, allegedly handed out $1.5 million worth of gift certificates in 1998 alone. The company was doing it to secure sales contracts, in some cases with schools or local municipalities, according to an FBI affidavit. Officials with government entities are not allowed to accept money or gifts in return for doing business with companies.
To evade suspicion, salespeople at the company would sometimes send the gift certificates to people's homes in the names of their spouses, according to the affidavit.
The Des Plaines company used Winners Choice gift certificates, which can be redeemed at any of a number of different stores, from Sears to Eddie Bauer to Sam's Club to Toys R Us. Salespeople allegedly used the gift certificates as a form of kickbacks, federal authorities allege, with the thought that they were less traceable than cash.
"[The company] was using these gift certificates to reward purchasing agents of public and private companies for awarding it contracts," an FBI agent states in the affidavit.
'Not traceable'
One cooperating witness told the FBI he accepted $2,000 worth of gift certificates in return for giving the company work with a school district. The amount of the gift certificates corresponded with the amount of the contract; one customer reportedly received $10,000 worth, according to records.
An FBI agent also worked undercover to record a conversation with one salesperson who told him that the gift certificates were "not traceable, and it's cash . . . you want to store them up for 10 years, they're still good."
Records show a second North Shore company helped process the gift certificates to the salespeople. An undercover FBI agent also recorded an executive of the North Shore company. In a conversation, the executive tells the undercover agent to give out gift certificates as kickbacks -- not cash.
"You get caught and you're gonna have those f---ing feds going over every . . . nickel and dime and checking account you got," the executive unwittingly told the federal agent. "That's all those bastards do."
No one has yet been charged in the investigation.
"We are cooperating with the government and will continue to do so," a representative of the Des Plaines company said.
The company reported sales of $420 million last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)