My Kids Deserve Better features the book Public Schools, Public Menance by Joel Turtel.
This book is a summer must read for parents.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
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.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
State lawmakers' pension jackpot
This story below appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. Hat tip to the folks at The Family Taxpayers Foundation.
Just an FYI. Teachers and administrators can collect their full pensions and work part-time. They can also work full time in other states and collect their pension from Illinois. Every time you vote yes for a referendum you condone this avaricious behavior on the part of your legislators, school employees and government employees.
State lawmakers' pension jackpot
April 6, 2003
BY TIM NOVAK STAFF REPORTER
Advertisement
Art Berman hit the pension jackpot.
The retired state senator's pension is $164,612 a year, almost three times higher than his final salary with the state.
Berman finagled state laws to land a pension that is larger than the pension of any other retired elected official in Illinois, including the past three governors.
His pension is, in fact, $14,000 higher than Gov. Blagojevich's salary.
Berman, who retired in 2001, is among the latest former legislators to jack up their pensions by basing it on a much higher salary from another government job. It's a loophole available only to about 200 current and past legislators elected before 1995, including Blagojevich and Mayor Daley.
But that's just one of several pension sweeteners legislators have given themselves over the years, allowing them to live large in retirement while so many others must scrimp to get by. Most government workers don't get anything close to such generous pensions. Nor do most of the people who must pay for them--the taxpayers.
Berman's pension is based on his $140,416 salary with the Chicago Board of Education, a job he got the day after he left the Senate and held for just 20 months. But rather than collecting a pension based on just 85 percent of that school salary, as provided by state law, Berman got an extra 33 percent boost because he worked in the Legislature longer than necessary to get a top pension. That gave him a $164,612 pension--more than his actual salary.
On top of that, Berman's pension automatically rises 3 percent each year to keep up with inflation.
And, on top of that, he never really retired anyway. Immediately after quitting his schools job--so he could start collecting his big pension--he went right back to work for the schools under an outside consulting contract that pays him $80,000 a year.
"I think that the bottom line is that I worked very, very hard for 31 years in the Legislature,'' said Berman, 67, a Chicago Democrat. "What I receive in pension is what the law provides for me.''
Berman paid $109,292 into the state pension plan in his 31 years in the Senate, but even allowing for the interest earned on that money, he's already recouped it all. From here on out, the state's financially strapped retirement system and tax-payers will finance his retirement.
"These public pensions are much more generous than most people experience,'' said Lawrence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, which monitors government spending. "There needs to be discipline attached to the benefits, such as tying increases to the rate of inflation, rather than an arbitrary level, and setting a maximum level of benefits.''
Generous government pensions--all guaranteed by taxpayers--abound across Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, according to a Chicago Sun-Times analysis of 15 retirement plans with more than 200,000 retirees. If they live long enough, most beneficiaries will receive pensions that exceed their final salaries because of the automatic 3 percent raises every year.
All but two of the 15 retirement plans are set up in such a way that employees can merge their service from various government agencies, such as the city of Chicago, Cook County, the state of Illinois, and any school district. They can move their service into the most generous plan in which they worked so they can collect the highest pension possible. For example, teachers elected to the Legislature can transfer their teacher pension credits into the legislative plan, the most lucrative. All of these government retirement plans let employees begin collecting a pension as early as age 55, sometimes at age 50 with reduced benefits.
While Berman's pension is tops among elected officials, he trails many other government workers, particularly University of Illinois faculty, one of whom has a $305,007 pension, the state's largest. A retired U. of I. athletic coach gets more than $176,000. But, unlike Berman, these government workers don't get pensions that are larger than their final state salaries.
Such generous deals--unheard of in the private sector, where most workers save for retirement through 401(k)s--have left government pension officials wondering whether they can make ends meet. The huge payouts strain many retirement funds that are woefully undercapitalized. Their investments, particularly in stocks, have plunged in value and many governments--especially the state--have failed to contribute their share of pension costs.
Among the 15 funds, the legislators retirement fund is the worst funded, with just 29 percent of the money needed to pay these pensions. And, adding to the problem, it's difficult for pension fund managers to know how much money the fund should have because legislators constantly find ways to jack up their pensions, just before they retire, far above their salaries.
"Government is the last bastion of rich pensions,'' said Mike Johnston, a pension expert for Hewitt Associates, a human resource consultant in north suburban Lincolnshire. "Private companies have reviewed their pension plans. They've cut their pension plans. They've put in 401(k)s. But government has done nothing.''
Government workers justify their higher pensions by pointing out that, for the most part, they are barred from participating in the Social Security system.
Dozens of government workers have significantly boosted their incomes by collecting a pension from one agency while working for another. Among them are former Chicago Police Supt. LeRoy Martin, Cook County Judge Nancy Drew Sheehan, state Sen. Lou Viverito and Secretary of State Jesse White. The Sun-Times will report that part of the story in Monday's paper.
And hundreds of retirees get at least two government pensions. These include former Cook County Judge John Beatty, former Cook County Board President George Dunne, former state Sen. Beverly Fawell and former state Rep. William Laurino.
*****
Legislators aren't the only public officials taking advantage of lucrative pension loopholes. Like Berman, several DuPage and Will county elected officials are receiving pensions based on their last day's pay. That loophole is open to scores of elected county officials who held office between 1994 and 2001.
Berman said he was surprised to hear his pension is tops for all legislators. But he doesn't think his former constituents will object. "I think they'll be surprised," he said. "But would they turn the clock back 31 years and not have Art Berman serve at all? I don't think so.''
Almost half of the 249 retired lawmakers now collecting pensions receive checks that exceed their final salary as a legislator, state records show. Illinois legislators, who set all government pension laws in the state, have given themselves the best benefits.
Legislators with 20 years of government service can get a pension equal to 85 percent of their final day's pay, which can come from virtually any job in a city, county or state agency. After several used the loophole to strike it rich, the Legislature closed the loophole for those elected after 1995.
Under another loophole that one lawmaker wants to plug, legislators who serve more than 20 years--the total needed for a top pension--get a 3 percent boost in their pension for each extra year of service. The only catch is that they must be retired for a year to get that bump. Thanks to that rule, former Gov. George Ryan's pension will soar 39 percent next year.
Berman used both loopholes.
When Berman left the state Senate on Jan. 2, 2000, his salary was $59,657. That entitled him to a pension of $50,708, which would have jumped to $67,442 a year later because he had 11 extra years of service. But he rejected that option.
Instead, Berman went to work the very next day as the Chicago Board of Education's director of labor mediation services, hired by an old friend, Chicago Public Schools Supt. Paul Vallas. Berman retired from that post on Aug. 31, 2001, at which point his state pension could now be based on his $140,516 salary from the schools.
That gave Berman an initial pension of $119,440, which soared to $164,612 last year when his extra years of service in the Legislature were taken into account.
But all the while, Berman never stopped working as the school's director of labor mediation services. He went from a regular employee earning $140,516 to a contractual worker earning $80,000 annually.
"I have to keep 26 labor unions happy and the Board of Education happy,'' Berman said. "That's only part of my
responsibilities here. I sit in on legislative agenda meetings. I serve on three statewide commissions dealing with education policy and funding, and I'm constantly in touch with my fellow legislators and policymakers. "I fight for education and children,'' he said.
"I would have made a lot more money by not going to work for the Board of Education, going back to my law firm, and just drawing my pension based on my legislative salary.''
Just an FYI. Teachers and administrators can collect their full pensions and work part-time. They can also work full time in other states and collect their pension from Illinois. Every time you vote yes for a referendum you condone this avaricious behavior on the part of your legislators, school employees and government employees.
State lawmakers' pension jackpot
April 6, 2003
BY TIM NOVAK STAFF REPORTER
Advertisement
Art Berman hit the pension jackpot.
The retired state senator's pension is $164,612 a year, almost three times higher than his final salary with the state.
Berman finagled state laws to land a pension that is larger than the pension of any other retired elected official in Illinois, including the past three governors.
His pension is, in fact, $14,000 higher than Gov. Blagojevich's salary.
Berman, who retired in 2001, is among the latest former legislators to jack up their pensions by basing it on a much higher salary from another government job. It's a loophole available only to about 200 current and past legislators elected before 1995, including Blagojevich and Mayor Daley.
But that's just one of several pension sweeteners legislators have given themselves over the years, allowing them to live large in retirement while so many others must scrimp to get by. Most government workers don't get anything close to such generous pensions. Nor do most of the people who must pay for them--the taxpayers.
Berman's pension is based on his $140,416 salary with the Chicago Board of Education, a job he got the day after he left the Senate and held for just 20 months. But rather than collecting a pension based on just 85 percent of that school salary, as provided by state law, Berman got an extra 33 percent boost because he worked in the Legislature longer than necessary to get a top pension. That gave him a $164,612 pension--more than his actual salary.
On top of that, Berman's pension automatically rises 3 percent each year to keep up with inflation.
And, on top of that, he never really retired anyway. Immediately after quitting his schools job--so he could start collecting his big pension--he went right back to work for the schools under an outside consulting contract that pays him $80,000 a year.
"I think that the bottom line is that I worked very, very hard for 31 years in the Legislature,'' said Berman, 67, a Chicago Democrat. "What I receive in pension is what the law provides for me.''
Berman paid $109,292 into the state pension plan in his 31 years in the Senate, but even allowing for the interest earned on that money, he's already recouped it all. From here on out, the state's financially strapped retirement system and tax-payers will finance his retirement.
"These public pensions are much more generous than most people experience,'' said Lawrence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, which monitors government spending. "There needs to be discipline attached to the benefits, such as tying increases to the rate of inflation, rather than an arbitrary level, and setting a maximum level of benefits.''
Generous government pensions--all guaranteed by taxpayers--abound across Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, according to a Chicago Sun-Times analysis of 15 retirement plans with more than 200,000 retirees. If they live long enough, most beneficiaries will receive pensions that exceed their final salaries because of the automatic 3 percent raises every year.
All but two of the 15 retirement plans are set up in such a way that employees can merge their service from various government agencies, such as the city of Chicago, Cook County, the state of Illinois, and any school district. They can move their service into the most generous plan in which they worked so they can collect the highest pension possible. For example, teachers elected to the Legislature can transfer their teacher pension credits into the legislative plan, the most lucrative. All of these government retirement plans let employees begin collecting a pension as early as age 55, sometimes at age 50 with reduced benefits.
While Berman's pension is tops among elected officials, he trails many other government workers, particularly University of Illinois faculty, one of whom has a $305,007 pension, the state's largest. A retired U. of I. athletic coach gets more than $176,000. But, unlike Berman, these government workers don't get pensions that are larger than their final state salaries.
Such generous deals--unheard of in the private sector, where most workers save for retirement through 401(k)s--have left government pension officials wondering whether they can make ends meet. The huge payouts strain many retirement funds that are woefully undercapitalized. Their investments, particularly in stocks, have plunged in value and many governments--especially the state--have failed to contribute their share of pension costs.
Among the 15 funds, the legislators retirement fund is the worst funded, with just 29 percent of the money needed to pay these pensions. And, adding to the problem, it's difficult for pension fund managers to know how much money the fund should have because legislators constantly find ways to jack up their pensions, just before they retire, far above their salaries.
"Government is the last bastion of rich pensions,'' said Mike Johnston, a pension expert for Hewitt Associates, a human resource consultant in north suburban Lincolnshire. "Private companies have reviewed their pension plans. They've cut their pension plans. They've put in 401(k)s. But government has done nothing.''
Government workers justify their higher pensions by pointing out that, for the most part, they are barred from participating in the Social Security system.
Dozens of government workers have significantly boosted their incomes by collecting a pension from one agency while working for another. Among them are former Chicago Police Supt. LeRoy Martin, Cook County Judge Nancy Drew Sheehan, state Sen. Lou Viverito and Secretary of State Jesse White. The Sun-Times will report that part of the story in Monday's paper.
And hundreds of retirees get at least two government pensions. These include former Cook County Judge John Beatty, former Cook County Board President George Dunne, former state Sen. Beverly Fawell and former state Rep. William Laurino.
*****
Legislators aren't the only public officials taking advantage of lucrative pension loopholes. Like Berman, several DuPage and Will county elected officials are receiving pensions based on their last day's pay. That loophole is open to scores of elected county officials who held office between 1994 and 2001.
Berman said he was surprised to hear his pension is tops for all legislators. But he doesn't think his former constituents will object. "I think they'll be surprised," he said. "But would they turn the clock back 31 years and not have Art Berman serve at all? I don't think so.''
Almost half of the 249 retired lawmakers now collecting pensions receive checks that exceed their final salary as a legislator, state records show. Illinois legislators, who set all government pension laws in the state, have given themselves the best benefits.
Legislators with 20 years of government service can get a pension equal to 85 percent of their final day's pay, which can come from virtually any job in a city, county or state agency. After several used the loophole to strike it rich, the Legislature closed the loophole for those elected after 1995.
Under another loophole that one lawmaker wants to plug, legislators who serve more than 20 years--the total needed for a top pension--get a 3 percent boost in their pension for each extra year of service. The only catch is that they must be retired for a year to get that bump. Thanks to that rule, former Gov. George Ryan's pension will soar 39 percent next year.
Berman used both loopholes.
When Berman left the state Senate on Jan. 2, 2000, his salary was $59,657. That entitled him to a pension of $50,708, which would have jumped to $67,442 a year later because he had 11 extra years of service. But he rejected that option.
Instead, Berman went to work the very next day as the Chicago Board of Education's director of labor mediation services, hired by an old friend, Chicago Public Schools Supt. Paul Vallas. Berman retired from that post on Aug. 31, 2001, at which point his state pension could now be based on his $140,516 salary from the schools.
That gave Berman an initial pension of $119,440, which soared to $164,612 last year when his extra years of service in the Legislature were taken into account.
But all the while, Berman never stopped working as the school's director of labor mediation services. He went from a regular employee earning $140,516 to a contractual worker earning $80,000 annually.
"I have to keep 26 labor unions happy and the Board of Education happy,'' Berman said. "That's only part of my
responsibilities here. I sit in on legislative agenda meetings. I serve on three statewide commissions dealing with education policy and funding, and I'm constantly in touch with my fellow legislators and policymakers. "I fight for education and children,'' he said.
"I would have made a lot more money by not going to work for the Board of Education, going back to my law firm, and just drawing my pension based on my legislative salary.''
Friday, June 02, 2006
Two pensions and a county job at 91
This story below appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. Hat tip to the folks at The Family Taxpayers Foundation.
Just an FYI. Teachers and administrators can collect their full pensions and work part-time. They can also work full time in other states and collect their pension from Illinois. Every time you vote yes for a referendum you condone this avaricious behavior on the part of your legislators, school employees and government employees.
Two pensions and a county job at 91
BY TIM NOVAK STAFF REPORTER
Erwin "Red'' Weiner may be the oldest double dipper in Illinois.
At 91, Weiner has two government pensions and a job with the Cook County Forest Preserve District, which would give him an annual income of $188,873.
But Weiner has been on disability leave for the past 18 months so he's only been getting half of his $73,263 salary along with pension checks worth $115,610. His disability payments run out in May.
Weiner could not be reached for comment. He is a close friend of Cook County Board President John Stroger, who runs the forest preserve district.
Weiner is a maintenance superintendent for the forest preserve. He gets an $84,233 pension as a retired county employee, and a $31,377 pension from the Chicago Park District.
After 40 years at the parks, Weiner retired in 1969 as general superintendent, the top job. He began collecting a pension in 1970 when he landed a county job. He was the county's human resources chief when he retired again in 1993. He started at the forest preserve in January 1995.
Just an FYI. Teachers and administrators can collect their full pensions and work part-time. They can also work full time in other states and collect their pension from Illinois. Every time you vote yes for a referendum you condone this avaricious behavior on the part of your legislators, school employees and government employees.
Two pensions and a county job at 91
BY TIM NOVAK STAFF REPORTER
Erwin "Red'' Weiner may be the oldest double dipper in Illinois.
At 91, Weiner has two government pensions and a job with the Cook County Forest Preserve District, which would give him an annual income of $188,873.
But Weiner has been on disability leave for the past 18 months so he's only been getting half of his $73,263 salary along with pension checks worth $115,610. His disability payments run out in May.
Weiner could not be reached for comment. He is a close friend of Cook County Board President John Stroger, who runs the forest preserve district.
Weiner is a maintenance superintendent for the forest preserve. He gets an $84,233 pension as a retired county employee, and a $31,377 pension from the Chicago Park District.
After 40 years at the parks, Weiner retired in 1969 as general superintendent, the top job. He began collecting a pension in 1970 when he landed a county job. He was the county's human resources chief when he retired again in 1993. He started at the forest preserve in January 1995.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
John Dewey’s Theories of Education on Marxists Archive - Notable AFT Figure.
By W. F. Warde (George Novack)
John Dewey’s Theories of Education
Written: 1960
Source: International Socialist Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 1960.
Transcription/Editing: 2005 by Daniel Gaido
HTML Markup: 2005 by David Walters
Public Domain:George Novak Internet Archive 2005; This work is completely free. In any reproduction, we ask that you cite this Internet address and the publishing information above.
October 20, 1959 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of John Dewey’s birthday. This eminent thinker of the Progressive movement was the dominant figure in American education. His most valuable and enduring contribution to our culture came from the ideas and methods he fathered in this field.
Dewey won a greater international following for his educational reforms than for his instrumentalist philosophy. Between the two World Wars, where previously backward countries were obliged to catch up quickly with the most modern methods, as in Turkey, Japan, China, the Soviet Union and Latin America, the reshapers of the educational system turned toward Dewey’s innovations for guidance.
Most broadly considered, Dewey’s work consummated the trends in education below the university level initiated by pioneer pedagogues animated by the impulses of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This was especially clear in his views on child education which built on ideas first brought forward by Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel in Western Europe and by kindred reformers in the United States.
In its course of development on a world scale the democratic movement forced consideration of the needs and claims of one section of the oppressed after another. Out of the general cause of “rights of the people” there sprouted specific demands voicing the grievances of peasants, wage workers, the religiously persecuted, slaves, women, paupers, the aged, the disabled, prisoners, the insane, the racially oppressed.
The movement to reform child education must be viewed in this historical context. Children as such are not usually included among the oppressed. Yet they necessarily compose one of the weakest, most dependent and defenseless sections of the population. Each generation of children is not only helped but hindered and hurt by the elders who exercise direct control over them.
To view the rest of the story go to Marxists Internet Archive.
The American Federation of Teachers has always counted John Dewey as one of its notable figures.
John Dewey’s Theories of Education
Written: 1960
Source: International Socialist Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 1960.
Transcription/Editing: 2005 by Daniel Gaido
HTML Markup: 2005 by David Walters
Public Domain:George Novak Internet Archive 2005; This work is completely free. In any reproduction, we ask that you cite this Internet address and the publishing information above.
October 20, 1959 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of John Dewey’s birthday. This eminent thinker of the Progressive movement was the dominant figure in American education. His most valuable and enduring contribution to our culture came from the ideas and methods he fathered in this field.
Dewey won a greater international following for his educational reforms than for his instrumentalist philosophy. Between the two World Wars, where previously backward countries were obliged to catch up quickly with the most modern methods, as in Turkey, Japan, China, the Soviet Union and Latin America, the reshapers of the educational system turned toward Dewey’s innovations for guidance.
Most broadly considered, Dewey’s work consummated the trends in education below the university level initiated by pioneer pedagogues animated by the impulses of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This was especially clear in his views on child education which built on ideas first brought forward by Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel in Western Europe and by kindred reformers in the United States.
In its course of development on a world scale the democratic movement forced consideration of the needs and claims of one section of the oppressed after another. Out of the general cause of “rights of the people” there sprouted specific demands voicing the grievances of peasants, wage workers, the religiously persecuted, slaves, women, paupers, the aged, the disabled, prisoners, the insane, the racially oppressed.
The movement to reform child education must be viewed in this historical context. Children as such are not usually included among the oppressed. Yet they necessarily compose one of the weakest, most dependent and defenseless sections of the population. Each generation of children is not only helped but hindered and hurt by the elders who exercise direct control over them.
To view the rest of the story go to Marxists Internet Archive.
The American Federation of Teachers has always counted John Dewey as one of its notable figures.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
SAT scores dropped significantly this year. Blame the schools, not the test.
The following piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
How Low Can We Go?
SAT scores dropped significantly this year. Blame the schools, not the test.
BY DAVID S. KAHN
Friday, May 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Colleges across the country are reporting a drop in SAT scores this year. I've been tutoring students in New York City for the SAT since 1989, and I have watched the numbers rise and fall. This year, though, the scores of my best students dropped about 50 points total in the math and verbal portions of the test (each on a scale of 200 to 800). Colleges and parents are wondering: Is there something wrong with the new test? Or are our children not being taught what they should know?
Before 1994, the verbal section of the SAT was about 65% vocabulary (55 out of 85 questions) and 35% reading comprehension. Then the Educational Testing Service shortened and reworked the test, devoting half of the 78 questions to each area. Last year ETS changed the test again, and now it is heavily skewed toward reading: 49 of the 68 items require students to read, synthesize and answer questions.
In such a way, ETS has increased the penalty for not reading throughout one's school years. Studying vocabulary lists before the test--a long-favored shortcut to lifting scores--just won't cut it anymore. Students who read widely and often throughout their elementary and high-school years develop the kinds of reading skills measured by the new SAT. Students who avoid reading don't--and can't develop them in a cram course.
The math section of the test also got more challenging. The SAT used to test algebra, geometry and arithmetic. Students weren't allowed to use calculators on the original SAT, so some of those problems were simply difficult arithmetical calculations (fractions, decimals and percentages). In 1994, calculators were allowed, and the questions got a bit easier--and I watched my students' math scores jump. But last year ETS made it harder by adding pre-calculus questions, and my students have struggled.
Now there are also fewer math questions--each of which counts for more. The 54 math questions count for 11 points each now (on the 200 to 800 scale); before, there were 60 questions that counted for 10 each. So if a student gets 20 questions wrong, he effectively loses 222 points instead of the former 200.
Quite simply, this is not the same SAT. Students, anxious parents and college admissions officers can't really equate this new test with those of previous years--or their results. We need to adjust our expectations accordingly. It used to be that a 650 was a really high score. After a batch of adjustments, 700 became a really high score. Now it's probably around 670. Or to use the new SAT scale--a scale that includes a writing sample graded for another possible 800 points--you've done pretty well if you eke out a score of 2000, out of a possible 2400.
Some colleges attribute the drop in numbers to the fact that the test is longer--the writing sample has added about an hour to the test's time. If so, then students should do worse on the last sections of the test than they do on the earlier parts. (There are 10 sections to the new SAT.) That hasn't been the case for my (admittedly small) sample of students.
The colleges also think that the lowering of average test scores may have something to do with the cost of taking the test. It is now $41.50, up from $28 in 2004, and so they suggest that fewer students are taking the test twice (which generally results in a slightly higher score). But that theory is weak. Colleges also report that potential students are sending them more applications than ever before, from an average of five per student to 10 or more. Given that college applications usually cost between $50 and $75 per school, the colleges are saying that students are paying an extra $250 and more to apply to additional colleges but won't pay to take the SAT a second time because the price of the test has gone up $13. I'm skeptical.
The explanation is much more straightforward. The average American receives a pretty mediocre education. The average SAT score drifted down from 1000 in the 1960s to 880 in 1993. Education activists attributed this plummet to cultural factors, a change in the testing pool and other matters. The blame was placed everywhere but on schools. That the quality of education in America declined from the 1960s to the 1990s was hardly noted in debates over the SAT.
And then the test was "recentered." Thanks to the change in the SAT scale and the change in the kinds of questions that were asked on the test, scores went up and people were able to ignore the fact that most students are not well-educated. Indeed, parents compared their children's scores with their own and concluded that their children were brilliant. Now ETS has made it a little harder to get away with not knowing your three R's.
People complain that the SAT is biased and that the bias explains why students don't do well. That's true--it is biased. It's biased against people who aren't well-educated. The test isn't causing people to have bad educations, it's merely reflecting the reality. And if you don't like your reflection, that doesn't mean that you should smash the mirror.
That the new SAT tests more reading comprehension than the old test did is a good thing. Colleges complain that their incoming students don't have sufficient skills to read and analyze the kind of material that their professors will assign them. I hope that the new SAT's emphasis will make students realize that you can't get much of an education if you can't read.
Maybe the decline in SAT scores will force people to notice that their children are not getting good educations. If your children don't read or do math, why would you think that they would do well on the SAT? I would love to get into a time machine and go back to 1960 and give this new SAT to high-school students back then. I suspect that they would do much better than today's students. If we want people to get good scores on the SAT, I have a suggestion. Stop complaining about how unfair the test is and do your homework.
How Low Can We Go?
SAT scores dropped significantly this year. Blame the schools, not the test.
BY DAVID S. KAHN
Friday, May 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Colleges across the country are reporting a drop in SAT scores this year. I've been tutoring students in New York City for the SAT since 1989, and I have watched the numbers rise and fall. This year, though, the scores of my best students dropped about 50 points total in the math and verbal portions of the test (each on a scale of 200 to 800). Colleges and parents are wondering: Is there something wrong with the new test? Or are our children not being taught what they should know?
Before 1994, the verbal section of the SAT was about 65% vocabulary (55 out of 85 questions) and 35% reading comprehension. Then the Educational Testing Service shortened and reworked the test, devoting half of the 78 questions to each area. Last year ETS changed the test again, and now it is heavily skewed toward reading: 49 of the 68 items require students to read, synthesize and answer questions.
In such a way, ETS has increased the penalty for not reading throughout one's school years. Studying vocabulary lists before the test--a long-favored shortcut to lifting scores--just won't cut it anymore. Students who read widely and often throughout their elementary and high-school years develop the kinds of reading skills measured by the new SAT. Students who avoid reading don't--and can't develop them in a cram course.
The math section of the test also got more challenging. The SAT used to test algebra, geometry and arithmetic. Students weren't allowed to use calculators on the original SAT, so some of those problems were simply difficult arithmetical calculations (fractions, decimals and percentages). In 1994, calculators were allowed, and the questions got a bit easier--and I watched my students' math scores jump. But last year ETS made it harder by adding pre-calculus questions, and my students have struggled.
Now there are also fewer math questions--each of which counts for more. The 54 math questions count for 11 points each now (on the 200 to 800 scale); before, there were 60 questions that counted for 10 each. So if a student gets 20 questions wrong, he effectively loses 222 points instead of the former 200.
Quite simply, this is not the same SAT. Students, anxious parents and college admissions officers can't really equate this new test with those of previous years--or their results. We need to adjust our expectations accordingly. It used to be that a 650 was a really high score. After a batch of adjustments, 700 became a really high score. Now it's probably around 670. Or to use the new SAT scale--a scale that includes a writing sample graded for another possible 800 points--you've done pretty well if you eke out a score of 2000, out of a possible 2400.
Some colleges attribute the drop in numbers to the fact that the test is longer--the writing sample has added about an hour to the test's time. If so, then students should do worse on the last sections of the test than they do on the earlier parts. (There are 10 sections to the new SAT.) That hasn't been the case for my (admittedly small) sample of students.
The colleges also think that the lowering of average test scores may have something to do with the cost of taking the test. It is now $41.50, up from $28 in 2004, and so they suggest that fewer students are taking the test twice (which generally results in a slightly higher score). But that theory is weak. Colleges also report that potential students are sending them more applications than ever before, from an average of five per student to 10 or more. Given that college applications usually cost between $50 and $75 per school, the colleges are saying that students are paying an extra $250 and more to apply to additional colleges but won't pay to take the SAT a second time because the price of the test has gone up $13. I'm skeptical.
The explanation is much more straightforward. The average American receives a pretty mediocre education. The average SAT score drifted down from 1000 in the 1960s to 880 in 1993. Education activists attributed this plummet to cultural factors, a change in the testing pool and other matters. The blame was placed everywhere but on schools. That the quality of education in America declined from the 1960s to the 1990s was hardly noted in debates over the SAT.
And then the test was "recentered." Thanks to the change in the SAT scale and the change in the kinds of questions that were asked on the test, scores went up and people were able to ignore the fact that most students are not well-educated. Indeed, parents compared their children's scores with their own and concluded that their children were brilliant. Now ETS has made it a little harder to get away with not knowing your three R's.
People complain that the SAT is biased and that the bias explains why students don't do well. That's true--it is biased. It's biased against people who aren't well-educated. The test isn't causing people to have bad educations, it's merely reflecting the reality. And if you don't like your reflection, that doesn't mean that you should smash the mirror.
That the new SAT tests more reading comprehension than the old test did is a good thing. Colleges complain that their incoming students don't have sufficient skills to read and analyze the kind of material that their professors will assign them. I hope that the new SAT's emphasis will make students realize that you can't get much of an education if you can't read.
Maybe the decline in SAT scores will force people to notice that their children are not getting good educations. If your children don't read or do math, why would you think that they would do well on the SAT? I would love to get into a time machine and go back to 1960 and give this new SAT to high-school students back then. I suspect that they would do much better than today's students. If we want people to get good scores on the SAT, I have a suggestion. Stop complaining about how unfair the test is and do your homework.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Taxpayer advocacy group plans to file suit.
More Questions Arise as Suit is Being Finalized!
(Updated 05/20/06)
While compiling the list of documentation supporting our claims of questionable practices surrounding our new schools, additional facts were discovered that raise even more questions about the validity of this project. Some of the questions we hope to get answers to during the course of litigation are as follows.
1. Did the state approve enough repairs to allow our district to legally sell bonds?
2. If the contracts specified same size buildings, why are the new buildings 30-40% larger?
3. Why would the regional superintendent give these buildings passing grades on annual inspections, then sign off on destroying them based on unsupported claims of serious safety concerns?
To view the rest of the story visit the Coalition For Public Awareness website.
We have often said investigate and you will find waste, corruption, patronage and/or fraud. That is exactly what the Coalition For Public Awareness
is uncovering. This site serves as an example for others to follow.
Public schools are nothing more than government run schools. Like in the government you will find waste, fraud, corruption and patronage. The governor and legislators of Illinois our essentially beholden to the lobbyist of the public education system. This can be seen almost daily in the newspapers and the legislation that is granted in favor of the employees of these systems.
(Updated 05/20/06)
While compiling the list of documentation supporting our claims of questionable practices surrounding our new schools, additional facts were discovered that raise even more questions about the validity of this project. Some of the questions we hope to get answers to during the course of litigation are as follows.
1. Did the state approve enough repairs to allow our district to legally sell bonds?
2. If the contracts specified same size buildings, why are the new buildings 30-40% larger?
3. Why would the regional superintendent give these buildings passing grades on annual inspections, then sign off on destroying them based on unsupported claims of serious safety concerns?
To view the rest of the story visit the Coalition For Public Awareness website.
We have often said investigate and you will find waste, corruption, patronage and/or fraud. That is exactly what the Coalition For Public Awareness
is uncovering. This site serves as an example for others to follow.
Public schools are nothing more than government run schools. Like in the government you will find waste, fraud, corruption and patronage. The governor and legislators of Illinois our essentially beholden to the lobbyist of the public education system. This can be seen almost daily in the newspapers and the legislation that is granted in favor of the employees of these systems.
Monday, May 29, 2006
U.S. Army Spc, E-4, Eric D. Clark
Dear Friends and Readers,
We were out of town and also dealing with the loss of a good friend's son in the Iraq conflict. Memorial Day is May 29th. Please take a moment to say a prayer or if you do not pray take a moment to remember all those who have fought and died for our freedom.
We updated our Blog with posts for the following dates May 12th through May 25th.
We realize this is not an ordinary post however it is because of men like Eric D. Clark that we are a free country. Bravery of our soldiers allows us to fight for education reform and education spending reform.
United States Army Specialist E-4, Eric D. Clark, age 22, of Pleasant Prairie was killed while on active duty, serving his country at Camp Liberty, Baghdad, Iraq.
Born in Winfield, IL on July 14, 1983 and destined for great things, Eric was the first born to proud parents, Joanne Leipzig and Kevin Clark.
He attended St. Therese Elementary School, St. Joseph Jr. High School and was a 2001 graduate of Indian Trails Academy where his interest in multimedia expanded. While attending High School, Eric enjoyed working for Tinseltown, and enlisted in the U.S. Army while employed at Pizza Hut. His enlistment was a personal goal because Eric wanted to serve his country. He enrolled in an accelerated program, allowing him to achieve a higher military rank when he began his service career.
His faith was enhanced as a member of St. Anthony Catholic Church - his talent as a musician flourished as a member of the CYO Band where he played the flute and drums. But Eric’s life was really more about what he did for others that made such an impact. Considered an “Impressionist”, Eric could flawlessly assume the voice and character of actors as well as social and cultural dialects. He had a true passion for acting and aspired to one day influence the lives of children through a career as a teacher.
Aside from the selfless act of serving our country in the U.S. Army, Eric was an incredible person. He had the natural ability to lighten the mood, put a smile on your face, and add positive energy to any room. Wherever he went and whatever he did seemed to make a lasting impression on the lives of those he came in contact with. Young and old alike took to this young man full of life – touching people’s hearts and minds at every turn.
Eric’s military career spanned only a few short years, but included: Boot Camp at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, graduating in May 2003. He was then deployed to Korea, at Camp Hovey – 2-17th Artillery “Steel Battalion” Alpha Battery serving from June 2003 to July 2004. Eric achieved placement in 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York in July 2004, then was deployed to Iraq in August 2005.
He will always be remembered for unselfishly protecting the freedoms of his country, and remarkably influencing the lives of his family and friends.
Eric leaves to cherish his memory his mother and step-father, Joanne and Bob Marfechuk, of Pleasant Prairie; his father and step-mother, Kevin and Paula Clark, of Kenyon, MN; a sister, Jade Clark, a student at Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ; a brother Evan Clark at home; twin half-sisters Meg and Audra Clark; Maternal Grandmother, Mary Leipzig, of Kenosha; Paternal Grandparents, Dan and Yvonne Clark, of Pardeeville, WI; Maternal Step-Grandparents, Walter and Josephine Marfechuk, of Warren, MI; a step-brother Jared Buckingham; and a step-sister, Anna Buckingham.
He was preceded in death by his Maternal Grandfather, Harry Leipzig; and a brother, Eric Joseph, in infancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)