Those seeking tax increases will never have enough
By Jim Peschke
They didn't even wait for the ink to dry on their property tax increases. Barely one week after browbeating homeowners into new taxes, Advance 300 joins Huntley's tax-n-spend crowd to demand even more of your money. The state, not the county collector, will do their dirty work this time.
The plan follows the same formula used to get your property taxes. A "citizens group" is being formed to provide the illusion that the plan is the result of community input. In reality, the plan has already been determined. I'll save residents the trouble of attending their meetings (Google "Delphi Technique") by explaining what they plan to do.
The plan, often called HB-750, is the work of Ralph Martire from the union-funded Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. It has many variations, but its central theme is to raise state taxes with a promise to reduce property taxes.
It is euphemistically called a "tax swap." In reality, the tax increases always outweigh the tax cuts, typically between four to eight billion dollars per year. Under this plan, the new taxes and education spending levels would be guaranteed by law. However, the property tax cuts are not.
Supporters of HB-750 spin eloquent yet flawed arguments as to why this is such a good idea, but cannot escape the simple reality that HB-750 represents an enormous tax increase with no accountability. District 300's recent tax increase will cost homeowners hundreds of millions. Where does it end? Will they ever be satisfied?!
BEST and Advance 300 had better hurry. Once residents feel the pain of their recent property tax increases, a state tax increase will become an even harder sell.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Friday, April 14, 2006
Laws for special interests groups by special interests groups.
The following article appeared in the Northwest Herald.
This is a perfect example of how special interests groups have boarded the public education gravy train. This legislation was initially proposed by of all people surprise surprise a legislator who is a dentist. It is time for Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes (CRAFT) to propose a law that all students must purchase one CRAFT chocolate chip cookie each month for the teacher union price of 10 dollars each. CRAFT would make a killing. This law shows yet again how must legislation is to benefit special interests groups and not the children. This is yet again taking parental care out of parents hands in putting in the hands of special interests groups and the public education system.
Deadline for children's dental exam looms
[published on Fri, Apr 14, 2006]
By ELIZABETH SABRIO
esabrio@nwherald.com
If your child has not been to the dentist in the last 18 months, you may need to schedule an appointment before May 15.
Children in kindergarten, 2nd and 6th grades are required to have a dental exam by May 15 of their school year, or present proof that one will occur in the 60 days after that date, following an Illinois law that went into effect last summer. The exam may have been completed within 18 months prior to the May 15 deadline.
Children may qualify for a waiver from the requirement if their parents or guardians can demonstrate an undue burden or lack of access to the dentist.
Securing dental health at a young age is vital to secure overall health in the future, Illinois State Dental Society President Dr. Joseph Hagenbruch said.
"The back teeth, or molars, usually erupt during 2nd and 6th grades, allowing dentists the opportunity to apply dental sealants following the exam and helping to prevent future cavities," Hagenbruch said. "It is so important for kids to start seeing their dentist for regular checkups at an early age."
Though the state suggested withholding report cards as one consequence of missing the deadline, Woodstock School District 200 decided against that measure.
"It is not that much of a deterrent," District 200 lead nurse Barb Matlak said.
About two thirds of the children in Mary Endres Elementary, where Matlak works, have presented proof of dental exams, she said.
To help parents comply with the new law, District 200 sent out letters last spring with their registration packets, reminded parents about dental exam opportunities over the summer, and even brought a dentist into schools to perform exams with parent permission in February and March. They mailed more reminders to parents before spring break, Matlak said.
All parents also get a copy of the school handbook at the start of the school year, which includes info on immunization and other health deadlines, such as the new dental law, District 200 Director of Community Services Barbara Banker said. The information is also available on the district's Web site.
For the rest of the story go to Northwest Herald.
This is a perfect example of how special interests groups have boarded the public education gravy train. This legislation was initially proposed by of all people surprise surprise a legislator who is a dentist. It is time for Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes (CRAFT) to propose a law that all students must purchase one CRAFT chocolate chip cookie each month for the teacher union price of 10 dollars each. CRAFT would make a killing. This law shows yet again how must legislation is to benefit special interests groups and not the children. This is yet again taking parental care out of parents hands in putting in the hands of special interests groups and the public education system.
Deadline for children's dental exam looms
[published on Fri, Apr 14, 2006]
By ELIZABETH SABRIO
esabrio@nwherald.com
If your child has not been to the dentist in the last 18 months, you may need to schedule an appointment before May 15.
Children in kindergarten, 2nd and 6th grades are required to have a dental exam by May 15 of their school year, or present proof that one will occur in the 60 days after that date, following an Illinois law that went into effect last summer. The exam may have been completed within 18 months prior to the May 15 deadline.
Children may qualify for a waiver from the requirement if their parents or guardians can demonstrate an undue burden or lack of access to the dentist.
Securing dental health at a young age is vital to secure overall health in the future, Illinois State Dental Society President Dr. Joseph Hagenbruch said.
"The back teeth, or molars, usually erupt during 2nd and 6th grades, allowing dentists the opportunity to apply dental sealants following the exam and helping to prevent future cavities," Hagenbruch said. "It is so important for kids to start seeing their dentist for regular checkups at an early age."
Though the state suggested withholding report cards as one consequence of missing the deadline, Woodstock School District 200 decided against that measure.
"It is not that much of a deterrent," District 200 lead nurse Barb Matlak said.
About two thirds of the children in Mary Endres Elementary, where Matlak works, have presented proof of dental exams, she said.
To help parents comply with the new law, District 200 sent out letters last spring with their registration packets, reminded parents about dental exam opportunities over the summer, and even brought a dentist into schools to perform exams with parent permission in February and March. They mailed more reminders to parents before spring break, Matlak said.
All parents also get a copy of the school handbook at the start of the school year, which includes info on immunization and other health deadlines, such as the new dental law, District 200 Director of Community Services Barbara Banker said. The information is also available on the district's Web site.
For the rest of the story go to Northwest Herald.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
President to rest of board: 'Keep quiet'
The following article appeared in the Daily Southtown and on the Student's First website on April 13th. We at CRAFT are glad to see the press covering this story. We have had complaints of this happening from taxpayers and board members in school districts across the state.
President to rest of board: 'Keep quiet'
4/13/2006 By Michael Drakulich Daily Southtown
Monday's meeting of the Orland District 135 school board erupted into a shouting match several times after the board president tried to prevent opposing board members from making comments.
Early in the meeting, board president John Paul admonished some board members for publicly embarrassing outgoing Supt. Linda Anast-May and hinted that they tried to hurt the district's chances of hiring a new superintendent.
So, he's not letting them talk. For Monday's meeting, Paul removed a section of the agenda that allowed for board member comments.
In his speech, Paul did not name any board member but his comments appeared to be aimed at Kathy Svabek and Suzanne Cachey, who've clashed with the board majority and at the March 9 meeting revealed that Cook County prosecutors had requested a copy of Anast-May's contract.
Because the state's attorney's request was made in October, Paul questioned the timing of Cachey and Svabek's comments, saying it nearly ruined the district's chances of attracting qualified candidates to replace Anast-May.
"Do you realize how close we came to blowing this? Do you realize how close we came, with all this garbage that was written about this district? The fact (is) that we could have ended up in a situation where we wouldn't have had any candidates to choose from. Thank God, we were lucky there," Paul said.
When they tried to speak, Paul repeatedly interrupted Cachey, Svabek and board member Tom Cunningham.
But Cunningham managed to voice some criticism of Paul, saying Paul had "sandbagged" other board member's attempts to rebut his comments and accusing Paul of often withholding information from board members.
"This is insane. Too many times I've come to the table here and not known a thing about what we're voting on," Cunningham said.
Cunningham, Svabek and Cachey all asked for the portion of the agenda allowing board member comments to be reinstated, but Paul refused, telling the three that "when you know how to use (it), we will put (it) back in."
Svabek said Tuesday that she was not surprised by Paul's attempts to prevent the three board members from speaking.
"Unfortunately, for the past year with him as president, it's been common practice," she said. "It (Monday) was one of the most sophomoric displays of bullying by a school board member I've seen."
The growing division within the District 135 board prompted former board member Priscilla Galgan to read a prepared statement Monday, saying she was disappointed by the board's recent behavior and urged members to start behaving better toward each other.
"The business of educating these children is the community's business and should be conducted in front of the community," Galgan said. "The board should give the community a voice. Your work should be transparent, professional and above reproach."
She thanked Cachey and Svabek for "attempting to keep the board's actions legal and public. They are working in the public's best interest while trying to do what's best for our children."
President to rest of board: 'Keep quiet'
4/13/2006 By Michael Drakulich Daily Southtown
Monday's meeting of the Orland District 135 school board erupted into a shouting match several times after the board president tried to prevent opposing board members from making comments.
Early in the meeting, board president John Paul admonished some board members for publicly embarrassing outgoing Supt. Linda Anast-May and hinted that they tried to hurt the district's chances of hiring a new superintendent.
So, he's not letting them talk. For Monday's meeting, Paul removed a section of the agenda that allowed for board member comments.
In his speech, Paul did not name any board member but his comments appeared to be aimed at Kathy Svabek and Suzanne Cachey, who've clashed with the board majority and at the March 9 meeting revealed that Cook County prosecutors had requested a copy of Anast-May's contract.
Because the state's attorney's request was made in October, Paul questioned the timing of Cachey and Svabek's comments, saying it nearly ruined the district's chances of attracting qualified candidates to replace Anast-May.
"Do you realize how close we came to blowing this? Do you realize how close we came, with all this garbage that was written about this district? The fact (is) that we could have ended up in a situation where we wouldn't have had any candidates to choose from. Thank God, we were lucky there," Paul said.
When they tried to speak, Paul repeatedly interrupted Cachey, Svabek and board member Tom Cunningham.
But Cunningham managed to voice some criticism of Paul, saying Paul had "sandbagged" other board member's attempts to rebut his comments and accusing Paul of often withholding information from board members.
"This is insane. Too many times I've come to the table here and not known a thing about what we're voting on," Cunningham said.
Cunningham, Svabek and Cachey all asked for the portion of the agenda allowing board member comments to be reinstated, but Paul refused, telling the three that "when you know how to use (it), we will put (it) back in."
Svabek said Tuesday that she was not surprised by Paul's attempts to prevent the three board members from speaking.
"Unfortunately, for the past year with him as president, it's been common practice," she said. "It (Monday) was one of the most sophomoric displays of bullying by a school board member I've seen."
The growing division within the District 135 board prompted former board member Priscilla Galgan to read a prepared statement Monday, saying she was disappointed by the board's recent behavior and urged members to start behaving better toward each other.
"The business of educating these children is the community's business and should be conducted in front of the community," Galgan said. "The board should give the community a voice. Your work should be transparent, professional and above reproach."
She thanked Cachey and Svabek for "attempting to keep the board's actions legal and public. They are working in the public's best interest while trying to do what's best for our children."
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Do teachers really want you to know what is happening in the classroom?
John Stossel sent out the following email.
Last week I wrote you to say that this week I would teach school.
Last month, 500 angry schoolteachers assembled outside my office. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) was furious that "Stupid in America" suggested that some union teachers were lazy. Randi Weingarten, head of New York City's union, took the microphone and hollered, "Just teach for a week!" She said I could select from many schools. "We got high schools, we got elementary schools, we got junior high schools!"
I accepted. I even said I'd let the union pick the school. I thought I'd learn more about how difficult teaching is. Above all, it was a chance to get our cameras into schools--something the N.Y. bureaucracy had forbidden -- so we could show you what was really going on.
But like most of our dealings with the union, nothing was easy. It took weeks of phone calls to make any sort of progress. I suspect this will not surprise public-school parents.
Finally, the union picked a school: Beacon High. Unfortunately, it's not a typical public school--it's "special." Beacon doesn't have the full incentives or flexibility of a private school: It can't go out of business, and it is burdened by bureaucratic rules and a union contract. But Beacon offers a limited form of what the union opposes: school choice. As with a private school, you don't have to go there, and they don't have to take you. Applicants must submit portfolios, and if too few chose Beacon, it wouldn't be able to remain special. To remain what it is, it must compete.
Beacon students have taken field trips to France, South Africa, and tellingly, Venezuela and Cuba. Beacon has rooms filled with computers. Ninety percent of Beacon's students graduate, while the average graduation rate for New York City public schools is only 53 percent.
I guess they didn't want me to look at a normal public school.
But this is the school the UFT picked, and I was up for the challenge. Who knows what I might have learned by teaching?
My producers went to a meeting at the school. The union representative didn't come, so we were told no decisions could be made. Lots of people came to a second meeting at the school: four people from the union, one person from the city Department of Education, and administrators and teachers from Beacon. They decided I might teach history classes and "media studies," but they would have to talk to more people.
You would think my teaching had been my crazy idea.
I prepped for my history classes. We had more meetings. The school principal had me sit in on a class with a "superstar" teacher. It was supposed to a history class, but he seemed to teach "victimhood in racist America." On the class door he posted a New York Times column denouncing the president for spending too much money on war. Can we say "left-wing"?
Then there were more meetings. Finally, after I sent last week's e-mail, they canceled. They said that it might "set a precedent" that would open their doors to other reporters.
Too bad. Letting cameras into schools would be a good thing. Taxpayers might finally get to see how more than $200,000 per classroom of their money was being spent. Maybe that's not something the government school monopoly wants people to see.
Last week I wrote you to say that this week I would teach school.
Last month, 500 angry schoolteachers assembled outside my office. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) was furious that "Stupid in America" suggested that some union teachers were lazy. Randi Weingarten, head of New York City's union, took the microphone and hollered, "Just teach for a week!" She said I could select from many schools. "We got high schools, we got elementary schools, we got junior high schools!"
I accepted. I even said I'd let the union pick the school. I thought I'd learn more about how difficult teaching is. Above all, it was a chance to get our cameras into schools--something the N.Y. bureaucracy had forbidden -- so we could show you what was really going on.
But like most of our dealings with the union, nothing was easy. It took weeks of phone calls to make any sort of progress. I suspect this will not surprise public-school parents.
Finally, the union picked a school: Beacon High. Unfortunately, it's not a typical public school--it's "special." Beacon doesn't have the full incentives or flexibility of a private school: It can't go out of business, and it is burdened by bureaucratic rules and a union contract. But Beacon offers a limited form of what the union opposes: school choice. As with a private school, you don't have to go there, and they don't have to take you. Applicants must submit portfolios, and if too few chose Beacon, it wouldn't be able to remain special. To remain what it is, it must compete.
Beacon students have taken field trips to France, South Africa, and tellingly, Venezuela and Cuba. Beacon has rooms filled with computers. Ninety percent of Beacon's students graduate, while the average graduation rate for New York City public schools is only 53 percent.
I guess they didn't want me to look at a normal public school.
But this is the school the UFT picked, and I was up for the challenge. Who knows what I might have learned by teaching?
My producers went to a meeting at the school. The union representative didn't come, so we were told no decisions could be made. Lots of people came to a second meeting at the school: four people from the union, one person from the city Department of Education, and administrators and teachers from Beacon. They decided I might teach history classes and "media studies," but they would have to talk to more people.
You would think my teaching had been my crazy idea.
I prepped for my history classes. We had more meetings. The school principal had me sit in on a class with a "superstar" teacher. It was supposed to a history class, but he seemed to teach "victimhood in racist America." On the class door he posted a New York Times column denouncing the president for spending too much money on war. Can we say "left-wing"?
Then there were more meetings. Finally, after I sent last week's e-mail, they canceled. They said that it might "set a precedent" that would open their doors to other reporters.
Too bad. Letting cameras into schools would be a good thing. Taxpayers might finally get to see how more than $200,000 per classroom of their money was being spent. Maybe that's not something the government school monopoly wants people to see.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
A response to Time magazine's "Dropout Nation"
Dear Time Magazine:
I am surprised at the shallowness of the analysis in your “Dropout Nation”
article in which you lay the blame for our high dropout rate on high schools and their students. The fact that a child can legally bolt for the first time at age 16 does not mean that his/her problems started in high school.
Our public schools have taught us to blame educational failure on the child. If Johnny can’t read and consequently has behavior problems, his school will more likely drug him and hire a remedial specialist than ask whether his regular classroom teacher might be inept. In keeping with this paradigm, our legislators propose to solve our dropout problem by penalizing dropouts or forcing them to “graduate” by making it illegal to drop out. No thought is given to the possibility that perhaps the problem isn’t with the children.
What if our elementary and middle schools are the true source of the failure? During the past century, the “progressive” education ideologues that control our teachers’ colleges have been training elementary school teachers to eliminate virtually every shred of useful curriculum content. Many elementary schools no longer teach the skills that a child needs in order to enjoyably read a book or write a coherent paper. Most of our teachers use inept reading instruction techniques and suffer an aversion to teaching handwriting, punctuation, grammar, arithmetic and other basics, rendering the typical elementary school graduate both functionally and mathematically illiterate. No wonder high school is a bore.
Our dropouts are probably mostly just tired of being in the company of adults who are wasting their time. Decades of unionization and “progressivism” have reduced most of our elementary and middle schools to nothing more than overrated day-care facilities, where achievement and excellence are not only unrewarded but often reviled. Why would any intelligent kid want to spend a few more years in such a place?
So here’s a suggestion: let’s ditch the system that fails to inspire scholarly aspirations in our children and replace it with a system of school choice, where mostly only competent schools and educators will survive. If we keep wringing our hands and leaving our kids in the schools we have now, things can only get worse.
David Ziffer
Batavia, IL
REFERENCES
1. Most elementary schools are inept at teaching reading: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been reporting since 1992 that approximately 40% of our fourth-graders are “below basic” (i.e. functionally illiterate) and an additional 30% are “below proficient” (i.e. struggling) in reading, for a total failure rate of 70%. Please refer to National Center for Education Statistics.
Ninety percent of American children are in public schools. Proven curricula and methods were available and in widespread use until the dawn of the “progressive” era in the 1930s. Even better curricula are available today, but few schools use them read Project Follow Through, then return to the table of contents for the issue containing this article and read the rest of the publication.
1. “Progressive” aversion to basics: two excellent books on the progressives’ devastation of our schools are:
1. “Left Back” by Diane Ravitch:
2. “Ed School Follies”
by Rita Kramer:
1. Excellence reviled in our schools: the heroes honored by our teachers’ colleges are people who have made a name for themselves by convincing teachers that the conventional wisdoms held by most sensible people are, in fact wrong. Sadly, teachers seem to subscribe to these notions without question (perhaps it boosts their self-esteem to hold what they believe to be superior knowledge). The ideas are lunacy: Rewards are punishments. Teachers shouldn’t teach. Grades are “degrading.” If you think I’m making this up, visit the web site of one of our teachers’ favorite heroes, Alfie Kohn: and click on “topics.”
Yes, this is what your kids’ teachers probably actually believe.
I am surprised at the shallowness of the analysis in your “Dropout Nation”
article in which you lay the blame for our high dropout rate on high schools and their students. The fact that a child can legally bolt for the first time at age 16 does not mean that his/her problems started in high school.
Our public schools have taught us to blame educational failure on the child. If Johnny can’t read and consequently has behavior problems, his school will more likely drug him and hire a remedial specialist than ask whether his regular classroom teacher might be inept. In keeping with this paradigm, our legislators propose to solve our dropout problem by penalizing dropouts or forcing them to “graduate” by making it illegal to drop out. No thought is given to the possibility that perhaps the problem isn’t with the children.
What if our elementary and middle schools are the true source of the failure? During the past century, the “progressive” education ideologues that control our teachers’ colleges have been training elementary school teachers to eliminate virtually every shred of useful curriculum content. Many elementary schools no longer teach the skills that a child needs in order to enjoyably read a book or write a coherent paper. Most of our teachers use inept reading instruction techniques and suffer an aversion to teaching handwriting, punctuation, grammar, arithmetic and other basics, rendering the typical elementary school graduate both functionally and mathematically illiterate. No wonder high school is a bore.
Our dropouts are probably mostly just tired of being in the company of adults who are wasting their time. Decades of unionization and “progressivism” have reduced most of our elementary and middle schools to nothing more than overrated day-care facilities, where achievement and excellence are not only unrewarded but often reviled. Why would any intelligent kid want to spend a few more years in such a place?
So here’s a suggestion: let’s ditch the system that fails to inspire scholarly aspirations in our children and replace it with a system of school choice, where mostly only competent schools and educators will survive. If we keep wringing our hands and leaving our kids in the schools we have now, things can only get worse.
David Ziffer
Batavia, IL
REFERENCES
1. Most elementary schools are inept at teaching reading: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been reporting since 1992 that approximately 40% of our fourth-graders are “below basic” (i.e. functionally illiterate) and an additional 30% are “below proficient” (i.e. struggling) in reading, for a total failure rate of 70%. Please refer to National Center for Education Statistics.
Ninety percent of American children are in public schools. Proven curricula and methods were available and in widespread use until the dawn of the “progressive” era in the 1930s. Even better curricula are available today, but few schools use them read Project Follow Through, then return to the table of contents for the issue containing this article and read the rest of the publication.
1. “Progressive” aversion to basics: two excellent books on the progressives’ devastation of our schools are:
1. “Left Back” by Diane Ravitch:
2. “Ed School Follies”
by Rita Kramer:
1. Excellence reviled in our schools: the heroes honored by our teachers’ colleges are people who have made a name for themselves by convincing teachers that the conventional wisdoms held by most sensible people are, in fact wrong. Sadly, teachers seem to subscribe to these notions without question (perhaps it boosts their self-esteem to hold what they believe to be superior knowledge). The ideas are lunacy: Rewards are punishments. Teachers shouldn’t teach. Grades are “degrading.” If you think I’m making this up, visit the web site of one of our teachers’ favorite heroes, Alfie Kohn: and click on “topics.”
Yes, this is what your kids’ teachers probably actually believe.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Reforming education - By Mitt Romney
This is a great piece by the Governor of Massachusetts that appeared in the Washington Times. Sent to us via email.
For more on Mitt Romney click here.
Reforming education
By Mitt Romney
April 10, 2006 - Washington Times OpEd
I was in high school when Sputnik happened. Russia's lead in space frightened us. It also woke us up. President Kennedy issued a call to boost science and math education, to produce more engineers. His vision: Put a man on the moon. America, as always, rose to the occasion.
One could argue that there have been quite a few Sputniks lately, but that we haven't noticed. Tom Friedman's flat world is tilting toward Asia, taking investment and jobs. Of 120 new chemical plants worldwide with over $1 billion in capital, 50 are planned for China, only one for the United States. Bill Gates says Microsoft's best new ideas are coming from his Asian team. And last year, America bought $160 billion more from China than China bought from us. America is still way ahead, but in the words of Will Rogers: "Even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over." It's time we get moving, starting with education. First, close the Excellence Gap. American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 OECD countries in math literacy and 19th in science. Fifteen years ago, the United States and Asia produced about the same number of Ph.D.'s in math and physical science: 4,700 a year. Today, we graduate 4,400; Asia graduates 24,900. Second, close the Achievement Gap. Failing urban schools are a dead end for too many minority children. This is the civil rights issue of our generation.
How to close the education gaps? The teacher's unions have their answers: simply spend more money and hire more teachers for smaller classroom size. But the data show that those are not the answers at all. Massachusetts tests our kids regularly; when studentproficiencyis matched with classroom size and per-pupil spending, there is absolutely no relationship. In fact, the district with the highest per-pupil spending in our state -- almost $19,000 per student -- is in the bottom 10 percent of our state in student proficiency.
We found our education prescription by interviewing parents, teachers and principals, studying actual data, mining lessons from successful districts and charter schools, and digesting the recommendations from commissions and experts. Here are some of the real answers:
1) Make teaching a true profession. The 19th-century industrial labor-union model doesn't make sense for educating children. Teachers aren't manufacturing widgets. Better teachers should have better pay, advancement opportunities and mentoring responsibilities. Better pay should also accompany the most challenging assignments -- needed specialties like math and science, advanced placement skills and extra effort.
2) Let the leaders lead. Superintendents and principals must have authority to hire, deploy resources, assign mentors and training, and remove nonperformers. Seniority cannot trump the needs of our children.
3) Measure up. Over union objections, Massachusetts implemented standardized testing and a mandatory graduation exam. With measurement, we finally see our successes and failures and can take corrective action. Without measurement, we were blind.
4) Let freedom ring. When parents, teachers and kids are free to choose their school, everyone benefits. Charter schools free of union restraints and, yes, even home schools, teach lessons we can apply to improve standard public schools.
5) Pull in the parents. Teachers tell us that the best predictor of student success is parental involvement. For our lowest-performing schools, I've proposed mandatory parental preparation courses. Over two days, parents learn about America's education culture, homework, school discipline, available after-school programs, what TV is harmful or helpful and so on. And for parents who don't speak English, help them understand why their child's English immersion in school is a key to a bright future.
6) Raise the bar. Our kids need to be pushed harder. Less about self-esteem; more about learning. I have proposed advanced math and science schools for the very brightest (the one we have is a huge success, but we need more); advanced placement in every high school, more teachers with serious science and math credentials, and laptop computers for every middle- and high-school student. We've also added science as a graduation exam requirement, in addition to math and English.
These ideas should sound familiar -- they turn up in virtually every unbiased look at education. The opposition comes from some teachers unions. They fight better pay for better teachers, principal authority, testing and standards, school choice and English immersion. With their focus on themselves and their members, they have failed to see how we have failed our children. But that will change as testing produces data and data debunks the myth that more and more spending is the answer.
A continuing failure to close the excellence and achievement gaps would have catastrophic consequences, for individual human lives left short of their potential, and for our nation. Students around the world are racing ahead of ours. If we don't move, we'll become the France of the 21st century, starting as a superpower and exiting as something far less. Education must be one of our first priorities, as it was when Sputnik was launched the last time. We succeeded before. We will do it again.
Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.
For more on Mitt Romney click here.
Reforming education
By Mitt Romney
April 10, 2006 - Washington Times OpEd
I was in high school when Sputnik happened. Russia's lead in space frightened us. It also woke us up. President Kennedy issued a call to boost science and math education, to produce more engineers. His vision: Put a man on the moon. America, as always, rose to the occasion.
One could argue that there have been quite a few Sputniks lately, but that we haven't noticed. Tom Friedman's flat world is tilting toward Asia, taking investment and jobs. Of 120 new chemical plants worldwide with over $1 billion in capital, 50 are planned for China, only one for the United States. Bill Gates says Microsoft's best new ideas are coming from his Asian team. And last year, America bought $160 billion more from China than China bought from us. America is still way ahead, but in the words of Will Rogers: "Even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over." It's time we get moving, starting with education. First, close the Excellence Gap. American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 OECD countries in math literacy and 19th in science. Fifteen years ago, the United States and Asia produced about the same number of Ph.D.'s in math and physical science: 4,700 a year. Today, we graduate 4,400; Asia graduates 24,900. Second, close the Achievement Gap. Failing urban schools are a dead end for too many minority children. This is the civil rights issue of our generation.
How to close the education gaps? The teacher's unions have their answers: simply spend more money and hire more teachers for smaller classroom size. But the data show that those are not the answers at all. Massachusetts tests our kids regularly; when studentproficiencyis matched with classroom size and per-pupil spending, there is absolutely no relationship. In fact, the district with the highest per-pupil spending in our state -- almost $19,000 per student -- is in the bottom 10 percent of our state in student proficiency.
We found our education prescription by interviewing parents, teachers and principals, studying actual data, mining lessons from successful districts and charter schools, and digesting the recommendations from commissions and experts. Here are some of the real answers:
1) Make teaching a true profession. The 19th-century industrial labor-union model doesn't make sense for educating children. Teachers aren't manufacturing widgets. Better teachers should have better pay, advancement opportunities and mentoring responsibilities. Better pay should also accompany the most challenging assignments -- needed specialties like math and science, advanced placement skills and extra effort.
2) Let the leaders lead. Superintendents and principals must have authority to hire, deploy resources, assign mentors and training, and remove nonperformers. Seniority cannot trump the needs of our children.
3) Measure up. Over union objections, Massachusetts implemented standardized testing and a mandatory graduation exam. With measurement, we finally see our successes and failures and can take corrective action. Without measurement, we were blind.
4) Let freedom ring. When parents, teachers and kids are free to choose their school, everyone benefits. Charter schools free of union restraints and, yes, even home schools, teach lessons we can apply to improve standard public schools.
5) Pull in the parents. Teachers tell us that the best predictor of student success is parental involvement. For our lowest-performing schools, I've proposed mandatory parental preparation courses. Over two days, parents learn about America's education culture, homework, school discipline, available after-school programs, what TV is harmful or helpful and so on. And for parents who don't speak English, help them understand why their child's English immersion in school is a key to a bright future.
6) Raise the bar. Our kids need to be pushed harder. Less about self-esteem; more about learning. I have proposed advanced math and science schools for the very brightest (the one we have is a huge success, but we need more); advanced placement in every high school, more teachers with serious science and math credentials, and laptop computers for every middle- and high-school student. We've also added science as a graduation exam requirement, in addition to math and English.
These ideas should sound familiar -- they turn up in virtually every unbiased look at education. The opposition comes from some teachers unions. They fight better pay for better teachers, principal authority, testing and standards, school choice and English immersion. With their focus on themselves and their members, they have failed to see how we have failed our children. But that will change as testing produces data and data debunks the myth that more and more spending is the answer.
A continuing failure to close the excellence and achievement gaps would have catastrophic consequences, for individual human lives left short of their potential, and for our nation. Students around the world are racing ahead of ours. If we don't move, we'll become the France of the 21st century, starting as a superpower and exiting as something far less. Education must be one of our first priorities, as it was when Sputnik was launched the last time. We succeeded before. We will do it again.
Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Wall Street Journal-Courts Flunk the Civics Test
The following article was sent to us by our finance guy Pete Speer and appeared in the April 8th edition of the Wall Street Journal.
For a review and information to order Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod book go to Amazon.com.
Wall Street Journal
Courts Flunk the Civics Test
By ROSS SANDLER and DAVID SCHOENBROD
April 8, 2006; Page A9
On March 23, a New York appellate court ordered the state legislature to provide an additional $4.7 billion for operating the New York City schools, plus another $9.2 billion for construction. These are immense sums, even in the Empire State. The advocacy group that brought the suit, Campaign for Fiscal Equity, declared the court's decision would "get real action" because the legislature must "come up with a solution now, right now." This was good spin, but it's not true.
Contrary to a widespread misconception, courts have no power to force a state legislature to appropriate money; nevertheless the ersatz order, coming as it did in the final days of the state's budget process, could tilt the legislators towards more spending. This is apparently what is happening in Albany, where, in a partial tip of their hats to the court, legislators authorized $11.2 billion in new debt to pay for school construction in New York City.
And what was pulled off in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New York seems to be part of a pattern. Last July in Kansas a similarly timed judicial decision prodded its state legislature to pony up a hefty increase in school funding. This year Texas is under a June 1 deadline to change the source of school funding. Before the scam spreads further, it's time to lay it bare.
In New York, the courts found that the government is violating a state constitutional clause that the legislature "shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of the state may be educated." The Kansas case was to enforce a similar clause. That most children in New York City and elsewhere in the state are not getting much of an education is not the question. What to do about it is.
Plausible suggestions include freeing the schools from rigid union contracts and bureaucratic procedures that make it all but impossible to fire incompetent teachers, reward good ones and remove disruptive students from the classroom. Other potential solutions include more charter schools and vouchers. One strand of thinking relates school failure to cultural norms rather than lack of money. In New York City, spending per pupil is among the highest in the nation, $13,400, and the educational results among the worst. The plaintiffs chose, however, to focus on the solution -- more money -- that delights teacher union allies. The courts played along.
Most people assume that the legislature must cough up the cash because courts have the power of contempt, which allows them to punish those who disobey their orders. In the school case, however, the courts can't punish anyone. State legislators are not defendants in this case, and even if they were, they can't be punished because they are immune from suit. The state's treasury is immune because the court lacks authority to appropriate more funds and can't fine the state for the legislature's unwillingness to do so. The remaining defendants are officials, including Gov. George Pataki. They can't be held in contempt for failing to produce the money because they are powerless under the state constitution to spend money the legislature has not appropriated.
Longstanding impediments to coercing legislators and governors have never stopped courts from nullifying statutes that violate constitutional rights by, for example, segregating schools, or suppressing free speech. But courts rightly have a tougher time when they want to exercise the legislature's power of the purse.
There are, to be sure, cases where courts have indirectly pressured legislators to spend more. The leading one was in New Jersey, in 1976. After the state Supreme Court found that the state had violated a constitutional requirement that all school districts have equal per-pupil funding -- and the legislature failed to give more money to the poorer districts -- the court ordered state officials to close all the schools until the legislature equalized spending. Faced with that prospect the legislature passed an income tax to raise the extra money.
The New Jersey court argued that its job was to vindicate the constitutional right to equal spending and, if the legislature would not achieve that result by increasing spending, the court would get it done by reducing spending for everyone to zero. The argument has a certain cold logic, but it's a nonstarter in New York and Kansas, where the right being enforced is to a sound basic education.
If a New York court closed the schools, it would be the judges who violated the state constitutional right, by denying any education to all students. That would undercut the only leg the court has to stand on, the rule of law. Nonetheless, when the Kansas court raised the question of whether it should close the schools, the threat was enough to pry some money from the legislature.
New York's high court made a grave mistake when the judges transferred the power to decide what is a sound basic education from the legislators to themselves. Assuming it is too late to admit its error, the court should stick to issuing a declaratory judgment that the state does not deliver a constitutionally adequate education rather than ordering the legislature to do anything. This, as it happens, is precisely the position urged by both Gov. Pataki as defendant, and his counsel, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
The coercive force behind such a declaratory judgment would come from all those who want to improve the schools, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who demanded and got responsibility for the city's schools, and the voters of the state, for whom there is no more important issue.
When courts claim that they have power to make legislatures spend more to vindicate a constitutional right to basic education, they tamper with a basic tenet of our democracy -- no taxation without representation. Voters are entitled to hold political officials accountable for the taxes they levy, the money they spend, and the education they produce. When judges pretend that legislators are their marionettes, the legislators can escape accountability, but only if the voters are fooled. They shouldn't be.
Messrs. Sandler and Schoenbrod are professors at New York Law School and authors of "Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government" (Yale University Press, 2003).
For a review and information to order Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod book go to Amazon.com.
Wall Street Journal
Courts Flunk the Civics Test
By ROSS SANDLER and DAVID SCHOENBROD
April 8, 2006; Page A9
On March 23, a New York appellate court ordered the state legislature to provide an additional $4.7 billion for operating the New York City schools, plus another $9.2 billion for construction. These are immense sums, even in the Empire State. The advocacy group that brought the suit, Campaign for Fiscal Equity, declared the court's decision would "get real action" because the legislature must "come up with a solution now, right now." This was good spin, but it's not true.
Contrary to a widespread misconception, courts have no power to force a state legislature to appropriate money; nevertheless the ersatz order, coming as it did in the final days of the state's budget process, could tilt the legislators towards more spending. This is apparently what is happening in Albany, where, in a partial tip of their hats to the court, legislators authorized $11.2 billion in new debt to pay for school construction in New York City.
And what was pulled off in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New York seems to be part of a pattern. Last July in Kansas a similarly timed judicial decision prodded its state legislature to pony up a hefty increase in school funding. This year Texas is under a June 1 deadline to change the source of school funding. Before the scam spreads further, it's time to lay it bare.
In New York, the courts found that the government is violating a state constitutional clause that the legislature "shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of the state may be educated." The Kansas case was to enforce a similar clause. That most children in New York City and elsewhere in the state are not getting much of an education is not the question. What to do about it is.
Plausible suggestions include freeing the schools from rigid union contracts and bureaucratic procedures that make it all but impossible to fire incompetent teachers, reward good ones and remove disruptive students from the classroom. Other potential solutions include more charter schools and vouchers. One strand of thinking relates school failure to cultural norms rather than lack of money. In New York City, spending per pupil is among the highest in the nation, $13,400, and the educational results among the worst. The plaintiffs chose, however, to focus on the solution -- more money -- that delights teacher union allies. The courts played along.
Most people assume that the legislature must cough up the cash because courts have the power of contempt, which allows them to punish those who disobey their orders. In the school case, however, the courts can't punish anyone. State legislators are not defendants in this case, and even if they were, they can't be punished because they are immune from suit. The state's treasury is immune because the court lacks authority to appropriate more funds and can't fine the state for the legislature's unwillingness to do so. The remaining defendants are officials, including Gov. George Pataki. They can't be held in contempt for failing to produce the money because they are powerless under the state constitution to spend money the legislature has not appropriated.
Longstanding impediments to coercing legislators and governors have never stopped courts from nullifying statutes that violate constitutional rights by, for example, segregating schools, or suppressing free speech. But courts rightly have a tougher time when they want to exercise the legislature's power of the purse.
There are, to be sure, cases where courts have indirectly pressured legislators to spend more. The leading one was in New Jersey, in 1976. After the state Supreme Court found that the state had violated a constitutional requirement that all school districts have equal per-pupil funding -- and the legislature failed to give more money to the poorer districts -- the court ordered state officials to close all the schools until the legislature equalized spending. Faced with that prospect the legislature passed an income tax to raise the extra money.
The New Jersey court argued that its job was to vindicate the constitutional right to equal spending and, if the legislature would not achieve that result by increasing spending, the court would get it done by reducing spending for everyone to zero. The argument has a certain cold logic, but it's a nonstarter in New York and Kansas, where the right being enforced is to a sound basic education.
If a New York court closed the schools, it would be the judges who violated the state constitutional right, by denying any education to all students. That would undercut the only leg the court has to stand on, the rule of law. Nonetheless, when the Kansas court raised the question of whether it should close the schools, the threat was enough to pry some money from the legislature.
New York's high court made a grave mistake when the judges transferred the power to decide what is a sound basic education from the legislators to themselves. Assuming it is too late to admit its error, the court should stick to issuing a declaratory judgment that the state does not deliver a constitutionally adequate education rather than ordering the legislature to do anything. This, as it happens, is precisely the position urged by both Gov. Pataki as defendant, and his counsel, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
The coercive force behind such a declaratory judgment would come from all those who want to improve the schools, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who demanded and got responsibility for the city's schools, and the voters of the state, for whom there is no more important issue.
When courts claim that they have power to make legislatures spend more to vindicate a constitutional right to basic education, they tamper with a basic tenet of our democracy -- no taxation without representation. Voters are entitled to hold political officials accountable for the taxes they levy, the money they spend, and the education they produce. When judges pretend that legislators are their marionettes, the legislators can escape accountability, but only if the voters are fooled. They shouldn't be.
Messrs. Sandler and Schoenbrod are professors at New York Law School and authors of "Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government" (Yale University Press, 2003).
Friday, April 07, 2006
Taxpayers don't stand a chance
Chris Bailey eloquently states why we will see more referenda pass in the future. To view the complete article go to DailyHerald.com
Taxpayers don't stand a chance
Posted Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Even as many head to the polls to choose between their kids or their wallets, their medicine or their grandkids, police and firefighter unions are dreaming up new ways to take more of their money, too.
House Bill 1816 is the latest incarnation of the 20-20-20 retirement plan- the one that unnaturally inflated the salaries of teachers, superintendents and other public servants just before they retired, all but guaranteeing they'd make nearly as much for not working as they did for working. HB 1816 proposes a Deferred Retirement Option Plan for police officers and firefighters, but it truly is misnamed. A better name would be Daffy Optimum Pay Effect, that acronym also being a pretty spot-on view of how those at the public trough view taxpayers, often correctly.
Basically, the DROP plan would allow people to declare they are retired when they aren't. They begin collecting pension money at the time they make such a declaration, but they actually keep working at the same level of pay for up to five years. This is double-dipping risen to an art form. Though 20-20-20 was designed to clear out educational deadwood, DROPs are designed to hang onto valued employees who are eligible to retire. Given the physical nature of their jobs, one has to question the wisdom of extending physical careers like those of police officers and firefighters into therealm of higher disability and workers compensation claims. Even worse, DROPs often cost more, too. The formulas involve complex mathematical and actuarial tables, but if you are interested in learning the details, go to www.benefitsattorney.com or www.iml.org. Then multiply the thousands of dollarsextra times the number of firefighters and police officers in Illinois and you'll get the picture.
"For the collective good of Illinois taxpayers, it's a bad thing," said Elgin Assistant City Manager Sean Stegall, who is heading to Springfield next week with Mayor Ed Schock.Worse, Mary McKittrick, the legislative chairman for the Metro West Council of Governments, of which Elgin is a part, said in a memo to those governments that the proposal violates a promise made by fire unions in 2004. In exchange for an enhanced widow's pension that Stegall said cost Elgin $600,000, the equivalent of seven firefighters, the unions promised not to ask for any more pension enhancements until atleast 2008. They obviously couldn't wait to fleece us again. Given the current state of public pension funding in Illinois, considered among the worst in the nation, it's hard for the mentally sound person to grasp why anyone would propose an idea that would make it worse. That's simple. Police andfire unions want more, and they deliver votes.
"No more pension sweeteners" is the supposed mantra in Springfield these days, but that doesn't mean lawmakers wouldn't create the obligation for somebody else. Like the municipalities that employ these firefighters and police officers. That would solidify the votes of union members whilemaking somebody else pay, the ideal solution in politics.
Municipalities all over the state have been alerted to that possibility. Lawmakers would lose little sleep over the fact that most municipalities don't have the money to pay for it, either. Or that municipalities are funded by the very same taxpayers. You again. So get out that wallet, even if it means you'll no longer be able to afford to contribute to your own 401(k) retirement plan as a result. If you think anybody cares about you, forget it. You don't vote often enough to scare anybody. It was about a year ago that everybody, just everybody in the General Assembly felt the tax cap lawneeded more safeguards for taxpayers as a result of a Daily Herald series on the issue. There are still no new protections for taxpayers.Why? Because teachers unions and administration groups, those who benefit most directly from education fund tax hikes made bigger by the current law, have dug intheir heels. They vote, too. While taxpayers remain docile, awakening momentarily when theirreal estate tax bill arrives or there's a referendum at the polls. Too late, of course. Until they quit playing the DOPE, taxpayers really don't stand a chance.
- Chris Bailey is the Fox Valley Editorial Writer.You can reach her at cbailey@dailyherald.com or (847) 608-2729.
To view more of the great Chris Bailey's columns go to the Daily Herald.
Taxpayers don't stand a chance
Posted Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Even as many head to the polls to choose between their kids or their wallets, their medicine or their grandkids, police and firefighter unions are dreaming up new ways to take more of their money, too.
House Bill 1816 is the latest incarnation of the 20-20-20 retirement plan- the one that unnaturally inflated the salaries of teachers, superintendents and other public servants just before they retired, all but guaranteeing they'd make nearly as much for not working as they did for working. HB 1816 proposes a Deferred Retirement Option Plan for police officers and firefighters, but it truly is misnamed. A better name would be Daffy Optimum Pay Effect, that acronym also being a pretty spot-on view of how those at the public trough view taxpayers, often correctly.
Basically, the DROP plan would allow people to declare they are retired when they aren't. They begin collecting pension money at the time they make such a declaration, but they actually keep working at the same level of pay for up to five years. This is double-dipping risen to an art form. Though 20-20-20 was designed to clear out educational deadwood, DROPs are designed to hang onto valued employees who are eligible to retire. Given the physical nature of their jobs, one has to question the wisdom of extending physical careers like those of police officers and firefighters into therealm of higher disability and workers compensation claims. Even worse, DROPs often cost more, too. The formulas involve complex mathematical and actuarial tables, but if you are interested in learning the details, go to www.benefitsattorney.com or www.iml.org. Then multiply the thousands of dollarsextra times the number of firefighters and police officers in Illinois and you'll get the picture.
"For the collective good of Illinois taxpayers, it's a bad thing," said Elgin Assistant City Manager Sean Stegall, who is heading to Springfield next week with Mayor Ed Schock.Worse, Mary McKittrick, the legislative chairman for the Metro West Council of Governments, of which Elgin is a part, said in a memo to those governments that the proposal violates a promise made by fire unions in 2004. In exchange for an enhanced widow's pension that Stegall said cost Elgin $600,000, the equivalent of seven firefighters, the unions promised not to ask for any more pension enhancements until atleast 2008. They obviously couldn't wait to fleece us again. Given the current state of public pension funding in Illinois, considered among the worst in the nation, it's hard for the mentally sound person to grasp why anyone would propose an idea that would make it worse. That's simple. Police andfire unions want more, and they deliver votes.
"No more pension sweeteners" is the supposed mantra in Springfield these days, but that doesn't mean lawmakers wouldn't create the obligation for somebody else. Like the municipalities that employ these firefighters and police officers. That would solidify the votes of union members whilemaking somebody else pay, the ideal solution in politics.
Municipalities all over the state have been alerted to that possibility. Lawmakers would lose little sleep over the fact that most municipalities don't have the money to pay for it, either. Or that municipalities are funded by the very same taxpayers. You again. So get out that wallet, even if it means you'll no longer be able to afford to contribute to your own 401(k) retirement plan as a result. If you think anybody cares about you, forget it. You don't vote often enough to scare anybody. It was about a year ago that everybody, just everybody in the General Assembly felt the tax cap lawneeded more safeguards for taxpayers as a result of a Daily Herald series on the issue. There are still no new protections for taxpayers.Why? Because teachers unions and administration groups, those who benefit most directly from education fund tax hikes made bigger by the current law, have dug intheir heels. They vote, too. While taxpayers remain docile, awakening momentarily when theirreal estate tax bill arrives or there's a referendum at the polls. Too late, of course. Until they quit playing the DOPE, taxpayers really don't stand a chance.
- Chris Bailey is the Fox Valley Editorial Writer.You can reach her at cbailey@dailyherald.com or (847) 608-2729.
To view more of the great Chris Bailey's columns go to the Daily Herald.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Threats, threats and more threats
This past election we saw one of the greatest numbers of school referenda pass in recent history. On March 21st 66% of referenda passed statewide. Typically at least 60% fail statewide; sometimes as many as 80% fail. What was different about this election? The level of threats from the very people entrusted to protect and educate our children while not in parental care made the difference.
D-300 superintendent Arndt stated he did not use threats, that he was going to follow through with cutting programs and going to split shifts. Seems like he did not use a dictionary much when he earned his Ph.D. A threat is a threat whether you follow through or not. One definition of threat - "A statement of intention to inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."
D - 158 in Huntley took the lead in using threats to pass referenda.
Paid pro-referendum activist Cheryl Meyer contributed to these despicable acts to pass referenda in both D-158 and D-300. Schools network through school boards, associations, teacher unions and administrator associations. You can bet they well be sharing the idea of using threats to pass referenda. These same tactics will be used in November.
Referenda passed because of fear. Ordinary citizens are now afraid of their own government. This is the turning point for the Illinois public education system.
Our government run schools a.k.a. our public education system has now become even more powerful. Until the people are willing to stand up to our government run schools and the very people charged with educating and protecting our children, property and income taxes will continue to rise.
The level of waste and corruption in our government run schools will continue to rise. Government schools refuse to be accountable with our tax dollars or the education of our children. With every referenda and tax increases that passes, government school employees hold more power over our legislators in the form of lobbyist funds, campaign funds and threats to their legislative seats.
D-300 superintendent Arndt stated he did not use threats, that he was going to follow through with cutting programs and going to split shifts. Seems like he did not use a dictionary much when he earned his Ph.D. A threat is a threat whether you follow through or not. One definition of threat - "A statement of intention to inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."
D - 158 in Huntley took the lead in using threats to pass referenda.
Paid pro-referendum activist Cheryl Meyer contributed to these despicable acts to pass referenda in both D-158 and D-300. Schools network through school boards, associations, teacher unions and administrator associations. You can bet they well be sharing the idea of using threats to pass referenda. These same tactics will be used in November.
Referenda passed because of fear. Ordinary citizens are now afraid of their own government. This is the turning point for the Illinois public education system.
Our government run schools a.k.a. our public education system has now become even more powerful. Until the people are willing to stand up to our government run schools and the very people charged with educating and protecting our children, property and income taxes will continue to rise.
The level of waste and corruption in our government run schools will continue to rise. Government schools refuse to be accountable with our tax dollars or the education of our children. With every referenda and tax increases that passes, government school employees hold more power over our legislators in the form of lobbyist funds, campaign funds and threats to their legislative seats.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Texas takes up school "reform"
The following article appeared at Townhall.com. Below Mr. Murchison points out why real reform will not occur.
Just after Easter, the Texas Legislature convenes in special session to address -- yes, again -- the state of public education hereabouts.
Our lawmakers have their eyes specifically on the overhaul of school finance: a really, really good idea, inasmuch as the old finance system has been partly invalidated by the state Supreme Court! But that's only our latest venture into educational improvement.
We've been "reforming" the public schools for two decades -- ever since Ross Perot, in early messianic mode, wrote and partly dictated a plan meant to make schools more accountable and, therefore, successful. More recently, our lawmakers have played with school finance (the Robin Hood plan for transferring big bucks from "wealthy" districts to "poor" ones) and established statewide uniform testing.
Now, as I say, it's back to finance, with -- possibly -- some reform thrown in. A fall date for school board elections is one notion that keeps surfacing, the idea being to encourage more voter participation. Hardly radical stuff, when the impression grows that some radicalism of the right sort would find a welcoming audience.
A researcher for the Texas Public Policy Foundation says that "Approximately half of all students in ... (Texas) universities and colleges need remedial classes. Meanwhile, 35 percent of entry-level job applicants do not meet eighth-grade skill levels on a competency test administered by Texas Instruments ..." Last year's National Assessment of Education Progress found just 31 percent of Texas eighth-graders proficient in mathematics, and just 26 proficient in reading.
Ross Perot, call your office ...
It's hard to be glib -- and it's no fun -- in terms of the sorry state to which public education has fallen in the whole United States, of which even a state so grand as Texas is only one part.
What strikes me as the underlying problem is that public education is so, well, public.
That is to say, it's government-owned and government-run. This government stuff used to work, generally speaking. That was back before the chief commitment of government was to the servicing of short-term voter wants and demands. Government wasn't yet an instrument for the leveraging of social change and economic redistribution. It was likelier to give voters what they needed (roads, postal service, meat inspection, sanitation, education) than to pass out goodies and social uplift to organized blocs.
A student could fail in the old schools. He can fail in the new ones, also, except that government doesn't let it show. For one thing, knowledge and performance standards are generally lower than 30 years ago. (One day last year, I discovered that not a single student in one upper-level class I teach had ever heard of William Jennings Bryan.)
Because government social policy requires every student to succeed, government practically forbids you not to procure a high school degree. That's if you stay in school -- something huge numbers of students don't do. Likewise, government education policy forbids even the most awful schools to fail absolutely. The teacher unions wouldn't like it if dues-paying members lost their jobs.
As a remedy, government-funded vouchers for students who transfer to private schools make absolute sense. As a political expedient, no way. The education unions won't allow in public education the sort of accountability the free market enforces in commercial situations: i.e., succeed -- or go out of business.
Yes, back to the Capitol comes the lawmaking power of the mighty state of Texas. To make a few deft procedural adjustments, lower some taxes, raise other taxes, then -- all too likely -- adjourn, leaving the big questions unsorted: How can teaching and learning standards be raised across the board?
In these self-esteeming times of ours, can we learn to penalize failure as well as reward success? Can we get across to students, in breadth and detail, that which they need in order to function in the most challenging moral and economic environment ever known?
Can we even suggest the necessity of knowing the name of the presidential candidate who bade us not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold?
To view the rest of the story go to Townhall.com.
Just after Easter, the Texas Legislature convenes in special session to address -- yes, again -- the state of public education hereabouts.
Our lawmakers have their eyes specifically on the overhaul of school finance: a really, really good idea, inasmuch as the old finance system has been partly invalidated by the state Supreme Court! But that's only our latest venture into educational improvement.
We've been "reforming" the public schools for two decades -- ever since Ross Perot, in early messianic mode, wrote and partly dictated a plan meant to make schools more accountable and, therefore, successful. More recently, our lawmakers have played with school finance (the Robin Hood plan for transferring big bucks from "wealthy" districts to "poor" ones) and established statewide uniform testing.
Now, as I say, it's back to finance, with -- possibly -- some reform thrown in. A fall date for school board elections is one notion that keeps surfacing, the idea being to encourage more voter participation. Hardly radical stuff, when the impression grows that some radicalism of the right sort would find a welcoming audience.
A researcher for the Texas Public Policy Foundation says that "Approximately half of all students in ... (Texas) universities and colleges need remedial classes. Meanwhile, 35 percent of entry-level job applicants do not meet eighth-grade skill levels on a competency test administered by Texas Instruments ..." Last year's National Assessment of Education Progress found just 31 percent of Texas eighth-graders proficient in mathematics, and just 26 proficient in reading.
Ross Perot, call your office ...
It's hard to be glib -- and it's no fun -- in terms of the sorry state to which public education has fallen in the whole United States, of which even a state so grand as Texas is only one part.
What strikes me as the underlying problem is that public education is so, well, public.
That is to say, it's government-owned and government-run. This government stuff used to work, generally speaking. That was back before the chief commitment of government was to the servicing of short-term voter wants and demands. Government wasn't yet an instrument for the leveraging of social change and economic redistribution. It was likelier to give voters what they needed (roads, postal service, meat inspection, sanitation, education) than to pass out goodies and social uplift to organized blocs.
A student could fail in the old schools. He can fail in the new ones, also, except that government doesn't let it show. For one thing, knowledge and performance standards are generally lower than 30 years ago. (One day last year, I discovered that not a single student in one upper-level class I teach had ever heard of William Jennings Bryan.)
Because government social policy requires every student to succeed, government practically forbids you not to procure a high school degree. That's if you stay in school -- something huge numbers of students don't do. Likewise, government education policy forbids even the most awful schools to fail absolutely. The teacher unions wouldn't like it if dues-paying members lost their jobs.
As a remedy, government-funded vouchers for students who transfer to private schools make absolute sense. As a political expedient, no way. The education unions won't allow in public education the sort of accountability the free market enforces in commercial situations: i.e., succeed -- or go out of business.
Yes, back to the Capitol comes the lawmaking power of the mighty state of Texas. To make a few deft procedural adjustments, lower some taxes, raise other taxes, then -- all too likely -- adjourn, leaving the big questions unsorted: How can teaching and learning standards be raised across the board?
In these self-esteeming times of ours, can we learn to penalize failure as well as reward success? Can we get across to students, in breadth and detail, that which they need in order to function in the most challenging moral and economic environment ever known?
Can we even suggest the necessity of knowing the name of the presidential candidate who bade us not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold?
To view the rest of the story go to Townhall.com.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
The news media
The following piece appeared at Townhall.com. Hat tip to our friend at Family Taxpayers Foundation for directing us to the article. This article reminded us of many of the staff writers at the Northwest Herald.
The news media
By Michael Barone
Apr 3, 2006
Let's say you were part of a group designing the news media from scratch. Someone says that it would be a good idea to have competing news media -- daily newspapers and weekly magazines, radio and television news programs. Sounds like a good start.
Someone else says that it would be a good idea to staff these news media with people who are literate and well-educated. Check. Then someone says let's have 90 percent of the people who work for these organizations be from one of the nation's two competitive political parties and 10 percent from the other.
Uh, you might find yourself saying, especially if you weren't sure that your party would get the 90 percent, maybe that's not such a good idea. But that's the news media we have today.
Surveys galore have shown that somewhere around 90 percent of the writers, editors and other personnel in the news media are Democrats and only about 10 percent are Republicans. We depend on the news media for information about government and politics, foreign affairs and war, public policy and demographic trends -- for a picture of the world around us. But the news comes from people 90 percent of whom are on one side of the political divide. Doesn't sound like an ideal situation.
Of course, a lot of people in the news business say it doesn't make any difference. I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.
"Doesn't the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.
"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don't affect the news."
"So what you're saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."
He quickly replied, "No, then it would be biased."
I have been closely acquainted with newsroom cultures for more than 30 years, and I recognize the attitude. Only liberals can see the world clearly. Conservatives are prevented by their warped and ungenerous views from recognizing the world as it is.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have often hired as reporters writers who have worked on liberal publications like The New Republic, The Washington Monthly and The American Prospect -- and many of those writers have produced fine work. But they have never hired as reporters writers who have worked on conservative publications like National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. News media executives like to brag about the diversity of their staffs, but there is precious little political diversity in most newsrooms.
And of course this affects the work product. Consider two stories in the New York Times last month. On March 8, the Times ran a long story about a woman from Biloxi, Miss., and her problems getting aid from the government after Hurricane Katrina. Turned out she wasn't from Biloxi, was not a Katrina victim and had been fraudulently obtaining government aid.
"For its profile, the Times did not conduct adequate interviews or public record checks to verify Ms. Fenton's account," the Times admitted in a correction on March 23.
On March 11, the Times ran a story about an Iraqi identified as the man in a famous photograph of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Turned out he wasn't the man in the photo. On March 18, the Times ran another correction: "The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military."
Both of these too-good-to-check stories of course reflected badly on the Bush administration, which seems to be a requirement for getting your story in the Times these days. The relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq in most news outlets falls in the same category. Stories about American heroes, stories about soldiers building schools and water systems, stories about the successes of Iraqis -- you have to look awfully hard to find them in most news media today. What you do see is a determination to make Vietnam and Watergate happen again.
All of which brings to mind an old politician's comment on an idealistic young colleague: "He actually thinks this place is on the level." The good news is that many Americans have caught on. Newspaper circulation is down, and so is viewership of broadcast TV network news.
For the rest of the article go to Townhall.com.
The news media
By Michael Barone
Apr 3, 2006
Let's say you were part of a group designing the news media from scratch. Someone says that it would be a good idea to have competing news media -- daily newspapers and weekly magazines, radio and television news programs. Sounds like a good start.
Someone else says that it would be a good idea to staff these news media with people who are literate and well-educated. Check. Then someone says let's have 90 percent of the people who work for these organizations be from one of the nation's two competitive political parties and 10 percent from the other.
Uh, you might find yourself saying, especially if you weren't sure that your party would get the 90 percent, maybe that's not such a good idea. But that's the news media we have today.
Surveys galore have shown that somewhere around 90 percent of the writers, editors and other personnel in the news media are Democrats and only about 10 percent are Republicans. We depend on the news media for information about government and politics, foreign affairs and war, public policy and demographic trends -- for a picture of the world around us. But the news comes from people 90 percent of whom are on one side of the political divide. Doesn't sound like an ideal situation.
Of course, a lot of people in the news business say it doesn't make any difference. I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.
"Doesn't the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.
"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don't affect the news."
"So what you're saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."
He quickly replied, "No, then it would be biased."
I have been closely acquainted with newsroom cultures for more than 30 years, and I recognize the attitude. Only liberals can see the world clearly. Conservatives are prevented by their warped and ungenerous views from recognizing the world as it is.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have often hired as reporters writers who have worked on liberal publications like The New Republic, The Washington Monthly and The American Prospect -- and many of those writers have produced fine work. But they have never hired as reporters writers who have worked on conservative publications like National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. News media executives like to brag about the diversity of their staffs, but there is precious little political diversity in most newsrooms.
And of course this affects the work product. Consider two stories in the New York Times last month. On March 8, the Times ran a long story about a woman from Biloxi, Miss., and her problems getting aid from the government after Hurricane Katrina. Turned out she wasn't from Biloxi, was not a Katrina victim and had been fraudulently obtaining government aid.
"For its profile, the Times did not conduct adequate interviews or public record checks to verify Ms. Fenton's account," the Times admitted in a correction on March 23.
On March 11, the Times ran a story about an Iraqi identified as the man in a famous photograph of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Turned out he wasn't the man in the photo. On March 18, the Times ran another correction: "The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military."
Both of these too-good-to-check stories of course reflected badly on the Bush administration, which seems to be a requirement for getting your story in the Times these days. The relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq in most news outlets falls in the same category. Stories about American heroes, stories about soldiers building schools and water systems, stories about the successes of Iraqis -- you have to look awfully hard to find them in most news media today. What you do see is a determination to make Vietnam and Watergate happen again.
All of which brings to mind an old politician's comment on an idealistic young colleague: "He actually thinks this place is on the level." The good news is that many Americans have caught on. Newspaper circulation is down, and so is viewership of broadcast TV network news.
For the rest of the article go to Townhall.com.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Cost of Remedial Education.
Our public schools a.k.a. our government schools continue to fail our students. Below is an excerpt from part of the The Cost of Remedial Education study done by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Although this study is about the Michigan government run school system. Public government run schools continue to fail students across the United States.
Other experts place the blame squarely at the door of the public schools. They argue that basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills are necessary for anyone who intends to function in society, not just those who are college bound. Janet Detloff, chair of the Math and Sciences Division at Wayne County Community College, is worth quoting at length:
The Detroit-area public schools are terrible. Most of the students who come to us not only lack math and English skills, but they lack basic academic skills. They have no idea what is expected of them at the college level. They don't know how to take notes. They don't read the assigned material. And many of them don't even come to class. How did they get through high school without these skills? Many of them were promoted for social reasons—they were getting too old; they had repeated the grade three times; they would otherwise fail-out. So they graduate without the skills they need to succeed, not only in academics, but in the workplace. Local employers often find the same problems with their employees that we are addressing here—truancy, lack of attention to detail, inability to complete tasks. I remember one student who called me complaining that she had received an 'F' in a course even though she had attended every day. She didn't understand that she actually had to master the basic course material. That was foreign to her.
To view the rest of the study go to Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Other experts place the blame squarely at the door of the public schools. They argue that basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills are necessary for anyone who intends to function in society, not just those who are college bound. Janet Detloff, chair of the Math and Sciences Division at Wayne County Community College, is worth quoting at length:
The Detroit-area public schools are terrible. Most of the students who come to us not only lack math and English skills, but they lack basic academic skills. They have no idea what is expected of them at the college level. They don't know how to take notes. They don't read the assigned material. And many of them don't even come to class. How did they get through high school without these skills? Many of them were promoted for social reasons—they were getting too old; they had repeated the grade three times; they would otherwise fail-out. So they graduate without the skills they need to succeed, not only in academics, but in the workplace. Local employers often find the same problems with their employees that we are addressing here—truancy, lack of attention to detail, inability to complete tasks. I remember one student who called me complaining that she had received an 'F' in a course even though she had attended every day. She didn't understand that she actually had to master the basic course material. That was foreign to her.
To view the rest of the study go to Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently
D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently
Posted Mar 23, 2006
The District of Columbia spends far more money per student in its public elementary and secondary schools each year than the tuition costs at many private elementary schools, or even college-preparatory secondary schools. Yet, District 8th-graders ranked dead last in 2005 in national reading and math tests.
D.C.'s public elementary and secondary schools spent a total of $16,334 per student in the 2002-2003 school year, according to a Department of Education study. That compares to the $10,520 tuition at St. John's College High School, a District Catholic school that sends almost all its graduates to four-year colleges.
Last year, however, only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math.
Not one U.S. state can boast that a majority of the 8th-graders in its public schools last year had achieved grade-level proficiency or better in either reading or math.
How much money did your state spend per pupil while failing to adequately educate in reading and math the majority of students in its public schools? The answers are in the chart below.
They eloquently make the case for school choice.
The state spending figures below are the total median expenditure per student as reported in "Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2002-03," published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005.
To view the rest of the article on Humun Events Online click here.
Posted Mar 23, 2006
The District of Columbia spends far more money per student in its public elementary and secondary schools each year than the tuition costs at many private elementary schools, or even college-preparatory secondary schools. Yet, District 8th-graders ranked dead last in 2005 in national reading and math tests.
D.C.'s public elementary and secondary schools spent a total of $16,334 per student in the 2002-2003 school year, according to a Department of Education study. That compares to the $10,520 tuition at St. John's College High School, a District Catholic school that sends almost all its graduates to four-year colleges.
Last year, however, only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math.
Not one U.S. state can boast that a majority of the 8th-graders in its public schools last year had achieved grade-level proficiency or better in either reading or math.
How much money did your state spend per pupil while failing to adequately educate in reading and math the majority of students in its public schools? The answers are in the chart below.
They eloquently make the case for school choice.
The state spending figures below are the total median expenditure per student as reported in "Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2002-03," published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005.
To view the rest of the article on Humun Events Online click here.
Friday, March 31, 2006
John Stossel hears from teachers in support of Stupid in America
To the email--there was lots of it from teachers, and to my surprise, most took my side, and were critical of their union:
"Just saw your report tonight on the pissed off teachers. Great stuff. I tried to wake my wife, but she is a high school principal and was zoned out from dealing with it. You are soooo right. The teachers unions have created a safe bureaucracy for teachers where they can sit on their duffs like other government bureaucrats, get a paycheck and never have to worry about repercussions..." Fernando J. L., Houston, Texas
"I am an NYC teacher and I feel unfortunate to be represented by such a loud, offensive group of people...Often, one will hear throughout the halls, 'that's not in my contract!'...If you take on that challenge, I'm sure you will see that teaching is a privilege. To be the one who opens up the world a little bit at a time to new minds is a great position to be in every day..." Karen. B. Mercurio
"John - Keep up your fight for better teachers and don't let the teachers union coerce you..." Cal Phillips, Cayucos, CA
"Thank you so much for showing the rest of America what many students see but are helpless to do anything about it. Now more parents understand what's going on and you shouldn't apologize to anyone..." Alison Wix Cedar Grove, TN
"I am a special education teacher. I don't care for the union myself, but I do like the idea of you teaching for a week..." Christinna Landon
"Mr. Stossel, Hang in there. I am a recently retired teacher and principal of 30 years and believe me EVERYTHING you reported on in 'Stupid in America' was true and in some cases worse. Teachers just don't think they are ever the problem...believe me they are the majority of the problem and those in unions are the very worst." Judy Eledge, Anchorage AK
"I am a public school teacher of thirteen years...and I agree with your assessment of public education and teacher's unions...there are still too many teachers I've work with that I would not want to teach my children...I'm against teacher tenure too. If you can jump through all the hoops and keep your mouth shut for three years of probationary status, you have it made. It would then take an act of Congress to fire you. That gives tenured teachers the OK to settle into mediocrity or to cross the line of appropriate or professional teaching practices. There's a lot of high-priced deadwood that needs cleaned out...J.G. Bertelsen, Tucson, Arizona
"Mr. Stossel, My husband is a school administrator, and I am a teacher. We loved your show, 'Stupid in America.' We thought it was right on!" Todd & Liane Schwarz, In Southern Idaho
For more information on John Stossel's Stupid in America click here.
"Just saw your report tonight on the pissed off teachers. Great stuff. I tried to wake my wife, but she is a high school principal and was zoned out from dealing with it. You are soooo right. The teachers unions have created a safe bureaucracy for teachers where they can sit on their duffs like other government bureaucrats, get a paycheck and never have to worry about repercussions..." Fernando J. L., Houston, Texas
"I am an NYC teacher and I feel unfortunate to be represented by such a loud, offensive group of people...Often, one will hear throughout the halls, 'that's not in my contract!'...If you take on that challenge, I'm sure you will see that teaching is a privilege. To be the one who opens up the world a little bit at a time to new minds is a great position to be in every day..." Karen. B. Mercurio
"John - Keep up your fight for better teachers and don't let the teachers union coerce you..." Cal Phillips, Cayucos, CA
"Thank you so much for showing the rest of America what many students see but are helpless to do anything about it. Now more parents understand what's going on and you shouldn't apologize to anyone..." Alison Wix Cedar Grove, TN
"I am a special education teacher. I don't care for the union myself, but I do like the idea of you teaching for a week..." Christinna Landon
"Mr. Stossel, Hang in there. I am a recently retired teacher and principal of 30 years and believe me EVERYTHING you reported on in 'Stupid in America' was true and in some cases worse. Teachers just don't think they are ever the problem...believe me they are the majority of the problem and those in unions are the very worst." Judy Eledge, Anchorage AK
"I am a public school teacher of thirteen years...and I agree with your assessment of public education and teacher's unions...there are still too many teachers I've work with that I would not want to teach my children...I'm against teacher tenure too. If you can jump through all the hoops and keep your mouth shut for three years of probationary status, you have it made. It would then take an act of Congress to fire you. That gives tenured teachers the OK to settle into mediocrity or to cross the line of appropriate or professional teaching practices. There's a lot of high-priced deadwood that needs cleaned out...J.G. Bertelsen, Tucson, Arizona
"Mr. Stossel, My husband is a school administrator, and I am a teacher. We loved your show, 'Stupid in America.' We thought it was right on!" Todd & Liane Schwarz, In Southern Idaho
For more information on John Stossel's Stupid in America click here.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Reiner Resigns From Calif. Preschool Commission in Spending Flap
Spending already a problem for Universal Preschool in California.
Reiner Resigns From Calif. Preschool Commission in Spending Flap
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
LOS ANGELES — Complaining of "personal political attacks," Hollywood director Rob Reiner resigned Wednesday from a statewide preschool commission he helped create.
His organization, the California First 5 Commission, has been under scrutiny for its spending practices.
Two weeks ago, Reiner dismissed suggestions that he step down as chairman of the commission, which has collected nearly $4 billion in tobacco taxes to fund early childhood programs. "Everything I've done is completely legal," he said.
But Reiner called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over the weekend and resigned, said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson.
In a letter to the governor, Reiner said: "We agreed that we cannot let personal political attacks get in the way of doing the very best we can for California's children."
Critics accused the commission of a conflict of interest after it spent $23 million in state money on an ad campaign that coincided with Reiner's promotion of a preschool ballot initiative.
The Legislature has asked the state auditor to investigate.
For the rest of the story go to FoxNews.com
Reiner Resigns From Calif. Preschool Commission in Spending Flap
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
LOS ANGELES — Complaining of "personal political attacks," Hollywood director Rob Reiner resigned Wednesday from a statewide preschool commission he helped create.
His organization, the California First 5 Commission, has been under scrutiny for its spending practices.
Two weeks ago, Reiner dismissed suggestions that he step down as chairman of the commission, which has collected nearly $4 billion in tobacco taxes to fund early childhood programs. "Everything I've done is completely legal," he said.
But Reiner called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over the weekend and resigned, said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson.
In a letter to the governor, Reiner said: "We agreed that we cannot let personal political attacks get in the way of doing the very best we can for California's children."
Critics accused the commission of a conflict of interest after it spent $23 million in state money on an ad campaign that coincided with Reiner's promotion of a preschool ballot initiative.
The Legislature has asked the state auditor to investigate.
For the rest of the story go to FoxNews.com
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Taking on the teachers unions
Taking on the teachers unions
By Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West | March 29, 2006
IT IS RARE -- and risky -- for a governor and national political aspirant to put the interests of children above those of a constituency that has as much electoral clout as the teachers unions. Yet Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has done just that with the education reform package he proposed last September and is touting nationwide.
The governor's bill seeks to upend the status quo in teacher pay and evaluation that has been written into collective bargaining agreements across the Commonwealth. Specifically, it would offer annual bonuses for teachers with a math or science degree who pass the teacher test in their subject, forgo tenure, and receive a satisfactory year-end evaluation. It would also make teachers in all subjects eligible for a bonus upon receiving an exemplary evaluation and empower superintendents to reward teachers who work in low-performing schools. Crucially, the bill would remove teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process and establish statewide criteria for assessing each teacher's ''contribution to student learning."
While several states and districts nationwide are experimenting with differential pay for teachers, Romney's proposals are noteworthy for their breadth and the size of the proposed bonuses. All told, an effective math or science teacher could receive up to $15,000 a year in three bonuses.
Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective." The MTA denounced the proposal as ''uniquely designed to destroy collegiality in a school," ignoring the fact that performance pay is routine in such other professions as medicine, law, and engineering, not to mention in the Commonwealth's first-rate universities, including those that are unionized by the MTA.
The governor can expect a similarly abrupt reception nationwide -- a fact he should consider as he eyes a presidential run. Teachers unions control enormous political resources, including a network of readily mobilized voters. Moreover, the public likes to think that the interests of teachers and kids are always aligned, a line tirelessly advanced by the unions. The National Education Association's political action committee even bills itself as the ''Fund for Children and Public Education."
However, what the unions want may not always be good for students. Teacher pay is exhibit one. While unions have fought to boost salaries, they have resisted efforts to ensure that this money recruits, rewards, and retains the most essential or effective teachers. Current pay scales reward teachers only for experience and graduate credits, neither of which is a meaningful predictor of quality. The result is that districts reward long-serving veterans while failing to recognize those teachers who improve student achievement, possess high-demand skills, or take on more challenging assignments.
Proposals to revamp collective bargaining by tackling teacher pay are only a start. Teacher collective bargaining agreements extend far beyond bread and butter matters, frequently privileging the interests of employees over those of students.
Across the nation, contracts include clauses that prohibit principals from factoring student achievement into teacher evaluation, that allow senior teachers to claim the most desirable school and classroom assignments, and that engage in a dazzling array of minutiae, such as when teachers are allowed to wear an NEA membership pin. As a result, schools are organized and managed more like mid-20th century factories than professional 21st century centers of learning. None of this serves students, valuable teachers, or communities.
Improving teacher collective bargaining is not only a question of knowing what to do, but of persuading school boards and the public to tackle the issue. State policymakers must change the environment in which negotiations take place by maintaining pressure on local officials to raise student achievement. Local newspapers must shine light on contract provisions that serve adults rather than children. School boards and superintendents need to push for fundamental changes in contract language and fully exploit ambiguous language where it exists. Civic leaders and citizens must support management measures that may entail, at least initially, disgruntled unions and increased labor unrest.
For the rest of the story go to Boston.com
Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Martin R. West is a research fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
By Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West | March 29, 2006
IT IS RARE -- and risky -- for a governor and national political aspirant to put the interests of children above those of a constituency that has as much electoral clout as the teachers unions. Yet Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has done just that with the education reform package he proposed last September and is touting nationwide.
The governor's bill seeks to upend the status quo in teacher pay and evaluation that has been written into collective bargaining agreements across the Commonwealth. Specifically, it would offer annual bonuses for teachers with a math or science degree who pass the teacher test in their subject, forgo tenure, and receive a satisfactory year-end evaluation. It would also make teachers in all subjects eligible for a bonus upon receiving an exemplary evaluation and empower superintendents to reward teachers who work in low-performing schools. Crucially, the bill would remove teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process and establish statewide criteria for assessing each teacher's ''contribution to student learning."
While several states and districts nationwide are experimenting with differential pay for teachers, Romney's proposals are noteworthy for their breadth and the size of the proposed bonuses. All told, an effective math or science teacher could receive up to $15,000 a year in three bonuses.
Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective." The MTA denounced the proposal as ''uniquely designed to destroy collegiality in a school," ignoring the fact that performance pay is routine in such other professions as medicine, law, and engineering, not to mention in the Commonwealth's first-rate universities, including those that are unionized by the MTA.
The governor can expect a similarly abrupt reception nationwide -- a fact he should consider as he eyes a presidential run. Teachers unions control enormous political resources, including a network of readily mobilized voters. Moreover, the public likes to think that the interests of teachers and kids are always aligned, a line tirelessly advanced by the unions. The National Education Association's political action committee even bills itself as the ''Fund for Children and Public Education."
However, what the unions want may not always be good for students. Teacher pay is exhibit one. While unions have fought to boost salaries, they have resisted efforts to ensure that this money recruits, rewards, and retains the most essential or effective teachers. Current pay scales reward teachers only for experience and graduate credits, neither of which is a meaningful predictor of quality. The result is that districts reward long-serving veterans while failing to recognize those teachers who improve student achievement, possess high-demand skills, or take on more challenging assignments.
Proposals to revamp collective bargaining by tackling teacher pay are only a start. Teacher collective bargaining agreements extend far beyond bread and butter matters, frequently privileging the interests of employees over those of students.
Across the nation, contracts include clauses that prohibit principals from factoring student achievement into teacher evaluation, that allow senior teachers to claim the most desirable school and classroom assignments, and that engage in a dazzling array of minutiae, such as when teachers are allowed to wear an NEA membership pin. As a result, schools are organized and managed more like mid-20th century factories than professional 21st century centers of learning. None of this serves students, valuable teachers, or communities.
Improving teacher collective bargaining is not only a question of knowing what to do, but of persuading school boards and the public to tackle the issue. State policymakers must change the environment in which negotiations take place by maintaining pressure on local officials to raise student achievement. Local newspapers must shine light on contract provisions that serve adults rather than children. School boards and superintendents need to push for fundamental changes in contract language and fully exploit ambiguous language where it exists. Civic leaders and citizens must support management measures that may entail, at least initially, disgruntled unions and increased labor unrest.
For the rest of the story go to Boston.com
Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Martin R. West is a research fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Response to the Christian Science Monitor' View on Universal Preschool.
Dear Christian Science Monitor:
I was a bit shocked to read your highly one-sided endorsement of "universal preschool” Universal preschool, universal benefits
, as if there were simply no down-side to the concept.
Your article cites a research study done by the “High/Scope” foundation in support of the supposed benefits of preschool. It seems you neglected to mention a few important facts about High/Scope:
• High/Scope is the producer of preschool programs and as such stands to benefit enormously by widespread public financing of such programs.
• In the 1960s High/Scope was the producer of an elementary school program called “Cognitive Curriculum” that failed disastrously in the federal government’s long-term test of nine competing curricula to see the summary click here.
; this program was so awful that it actually reduced the performance of students in already-dysfunctional districts.
• High/Scope is well known for twisting the facts to suit its own purposes. In an effort to discredit the winning competing curriculum in the aforementioned study, High/Scope published a fraudulent analysis of the long-term effects of that curriculum (and in fact still publishes it today at Journals.sped.org.
); the rebuttal to this travesty can be found at darkwing.uoregon.edu
.
Considering High/Scope’s decades-long slavish dedication to failed ideology in childhood education and its record of perennial failure when measured by standards other than its own, I would have to say that your use of this organization as a reference calls your own credibility into question.
Secondly you cite the supposed success of Head Start, a program whose efficacy is highly touted by those who have a significant financial interest in its continued funding (including High/Scope). However if we read a more independent government-sponsored meta-study by the RAND corporation, we see that even the government that provides the funding has no clear idea of whether our investment of hundreds of millions of dollars per year has been worthwhile RAND corporation
.
Meanwhile it seems to me that there are some quite definite downsides that will certainly come to pass if we should adopt publicly funded preschool.
Almost the entire current network of private-sector preschool providers will of course be demolished by this move. In place of the wide variety of competing independent providers we have now, we will see an enlargement of the public school monopoly - an enormously hungry and powerful organization that is famous for its lack of interest in suiting the individual tastes and needs of its “customers.”
Implementation of universal preschool will of course create an even larger support base among its beneficiaries, namely the parents who will have their children managed at public expense. This even-larger constituency will make it even harder than it is now for taxpayers to fight against the eternal tax increases demanded by this utterly inefficient and corrupt system.
And of course all universal preschool will empower the teacher’s unions even further, bringing in more union dues from all those preschool workers who will soon discover that they must now “pay to play” and carry a union card in order to keep their jobs. Along with unionization will come, of course, all of the union-oriented malaise that has afflicted the public schools for almost half a century now (a discussion of that alone would fill another letter entirely).
Another predictable result is that the use of preschool services will undoubtedly rise dramatically. No doubt this is wonderful news for people in the preschool business. But I don’t think it’s good news for the kids who would have enjoyed the company of their mothers for another couple of years, and whose mothers would never otherwise have considered dumping them in someone else’s lap.
To suit the insatiable monetary appetite of the public school administration and its unions, eventually preschool will be made mandatory. Already the people who stand to make billions off of this policy are trotting out “experts” whose job is to convince mothers that they’re doing damage to their children by keeping them home. But soon those mothers won’t need convincing … instead they’ll instead need some really creative excuses to keep the truant officers from grabbing their 3-year-olds out of their hands.
This expansion of the power of the already utterly mediocre and over-funded public school system is a travesty that we’ll be regretting for decades to come.
Sincerely,
David Ziffer
I was a bit shocked to read your highly one-sided endorsement of "universal preschool” Universal preschool, universal benefits
, as if there were simply no down-side to the concept.
Your article cites a research study done by the “High/Scope” foundation in support of the supposed benefits of preschool. It seems you neglected to mention a few important facts about High/Scope:
• High/Scope is the producer of preschool programs and as such stands to benefit enormously by widespread public financing of such programs.
• In the 1960s High/Scope was the producer of an elementary school program called “Cognitive Curriculum” that failed disastrously in the federal government’s long-term test of nine competing curricula to see the summary click here.
; this program was so awful that it actually reduced the performance of students in already-dysfunctional districts.
• High/Scope is well known for twisting the facts to suit its own purposes. In an effort to discredit the winning competing curriculum in the aforementioned study, High/Scope published a fraudulent analysis of the long-term effects of that curriculum (and in fact still publishes it today at Journals.sped.org.
); the rebuttal to this travesty can be found at darkwing.uoregon.edu
.
Considering High/Scope’s decades-long slavish dedication to failed ideology in childhood education and its record of perennial failure when measured by standards other than its own, I would have to say that your use of this organization as a reference calls your own credibility into question.
Secondly you cite the supposed success of Head Start, a program whose efficacy is highly touted by those who have a significant financial interest in its continued funding (including High/Scope). However if we read a more independent government-sponsored meta-study by the RAND corporation, we see that even the government that provides the funding has no clear idea of whether our investment of hundreds of millions of dollars per year has been worthwhile RAND corporation
.
Meanwhile it seems to me that there are some quite definite downsides that will certainly come to pass if we should adopt publicly funded preschool.
Almost the entire current network of private-sector preschool providers will of course be demolished by this move. In place of the wide variety of competing independent providers we have now, we will see an enlargement of the public school monopoly - an enormously hungry and powerful organization that is famous for its lack of interest in suiting the individual tastes and needs of its “customers.”
Implementation of universal preschool will of course create an even larger support base among its beneficiaries, namely the parents who will have their children managed at public expense. This even-larger constituency will make it even harder than it is now for taxpayers to fight against the eternal tax increases demanded by this utterly inefficient and corrupt system.
And of course all universal preschool will empower the teacher’s unions even further, bringing in more union dues from all those preschool workers who will soon discover that they must now “pay to play” and carry a union card in order to keep their jobs. Along with unionization will come, of course, all of the union-oriented malaise that has afflicted the public schools for almost half a century now (a discussion of that alone would fill another letter entirely).
Another predictable result is that the use of preschool services will undoubtedly rise dramatically. No doubt this is wonderful news for people in the preschool business. But I don’t think it’s good news for the kids who would have enjoyed the company of their mothers for another couple of years, and whose mothers would never otherwise have considered dumping them in someone else’s lap.
To suit the insatiable monetary appetite of the public school administration and its unions, eventually preschool will be made mandatory. Already the people who stand to make billions off of this policy are trotting out “experts” whose job is to convince mothers that they’re doing damage to their children by keeping them home. But soon those mothers won’t need convincing … instead they’ll instead need some really creative excuses to keep the truant officers from grabbing their 3-year-olds out of their hands.
This expansion of the power of the already utterly mediocre and over-funded public school system is a travesty that we’ll be regretting for decades to come.
Sincerely,
David Ziffer
Monday, March 27, 2006
Yes to oversight for school contracts
The following editorial appeared in the Daily Herald. Anyone investigating their schools finances needs to follow these money trials.
Yes to oversight for school contracts
With the emotions surrounding many of the school district referendums in last week’s election still fresh, it’s clear that taxpayers do care when it comes to how money is raised and how it is spent.
And when they are unhappy, they can take care of things at the ballot box — either by voting against a tax-increase in a referendum or by voting for their local school board members.
A new state law would put those school board members on the hot seat — where they belong — by requiring a board vote for contracts that bring in $1,000 or more in revenue. As Daily Herald staff writer Bob Susnjara reported Sunday, starting July 1, public school boards must vote on deals for vending machine exclusivity, class rings, photography, sports apparel and other items and services. A report would be required to state how the revenue was used.
We think that provides a necessary check and balance on contracts that in the suburbs have brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars for some school districts. For example, Stevenson High School inked a contract for soft-drink exclusivity in 2002 that is estimated to be worth $850,000 over five years.
“We learned that there was significant amounts of money for contract agreements and arrangements that sort of floated below the radar of school boards,” said state Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican who helped sponsor the bill.
Another suburban district was allowing first-year teachers to sign off on income-generating contracts involving clubs. That’s just poor policy, as GOP Rep. Renee Kosel of Mokena acknowledged.
“I’m not saying there was any illegal activity going on,” she said. “I just believe we should have the sunshine of day on it.”
At Warren High in Gurnee, school officials approved tighter financial controls after it was learned the school board did not oversee a five-year $120,000 contract with Coca-Cola. Because they acted on their own and instituted controls, a Warren school board member said the new state law is not needed.
“I really think (the law) is an abuse of what a school board should be doing,” said Warren board member Charles Crowley Jr.
We disagree. There is nothing more important for a school board to do than oversee how districts spend their money. In an age when the tax cap is causing more and more districts to ask taxpayers for more money, it’s good policy for board members to have strong knowledge of all money moving into and out of the district.
The Illinois Association of School Boards took a neutral position on the law, but we’re heartened by the sentiment of Bill Dussling, president of Northwest Suburban High School District 214, in the Daily Herald story Sunday: “There should be oversight for any contracts that are signed. Absolutely.”
Yes to oversight for school contracts
With the emotions surrounding many of the school district referendums in last week’s election still fresh, it’s clear that taxpayers do care when it comes to how money is raised and how it is spent.
And when they are unhappy, they can take care of things at the ballot box — either by voting against a tax-increase in a referendum or by voting for their local school board members.
A new state law would put those school board members on the hot seat — where they belong — by requiring a board vote for contracts that bring in $1,000 or more in revenue. As Daily Herald staff writer Bob Susnjara reported Sunday, starting July 1, public school boards must vote on deals for vending machine exclusivity, class rings, photography, sports apparel and other items and services. A report would be required to state how the revenue was used.
We think that provides a necessary check and balance on contracts that in the suburbs have brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars for some school districts. For example, Stevenson High School inked a contract for soft-drink exclusivity in 2002 that is estimated to be worth $850,000 over five years.
“We learned that there was significant amounts of money for contract agreements and arrangements that sort of floated below the radar of school boards,” said state Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican who helped sponsor the bill.
Another suburban district was allowing first-year teachers to sign off on income-generating contracts involving clubs. That’s just poor policy, as GOP Rep. Renee Kosel of Mokena acknowledged.
“I’m not saying there was any illegal activity going on,” she said. “I just believe we should have the sunshine of day on it.”
At Warren High in Gurnee, school officials approved tighter financial controls after it was learned the school board did not oversee a five-year $120,000 contract with Coca-Cola. Because they acted on their own and instituted controls, a Warren school board member said the new state law is not needed.
“I really think (the law) is an abuse of what a school board should be doing,” said Warren board member Charles Crowley Jr.
We disagree. There is nothing more important for a school board to do than oversee how districts spend their money. In an age when the tax cap is causing more and more districts to ask taxpayers for more money, it’s good policy for board members to have strong knowledge of all money moving into and out of the district.
The Illinois Association of School Boards took a neutral position on the law, but we’re heartened by the sentiment of Bill Dussling, president of Northwest Suburban High School District 214, in the Daily Herald story Sunday: “There should be oversight for any contracts that are signed. Absolutely.”
Sunday, March 26, 2006
PARENTS DECLARE WAR ON SCHOOL BOARD
PARENTS DECLARE WAR ON SCHOOL BOARD
Internet exclusive: On Full Disclosure™ 12 min Video
March 25, 2006
Full Disclosure
Los Angeles, CA. – Angry parents and taxpayers in South Orange County are featured in an eleven minute FULL DISCLOSURE™ Internet video, describing unsafe and unsanitary classrooms, gross fiscal mismanagement and school corruption – all of which sparked their unprecedented campaign in 2005 to recall all seven members of the Capistrano Unified School District. This "Free" video is available "On Demand" 24/7 as a public service of the Full Disclosure Network™ and can be accessed from the link in this paragraph.
Featured in the video are three leaders of the CUSD Recall Committee, the grassroots organization that led the campaign to
remove all seven CUSD Trustees from office. Tom Russell, official spokesman, Mark Nielsen, campaign research and analysis and Jennifer Beall, campaign organizer, cite many of the unacceptable conditions that led to this "mini-uprising." The CUSD Recall Committee organized and managed the recall campaign; successfully raising public awareness and collecting more than 177,000 recall petition signatures.
In this preview of the ongoing Full Disclosure Network™ special series, CUSD Recall Committee leaders discuss the many failings of the CUSD Trustees and Superintendent, including:
Failure to provide adequate classrooms and facilities for the children Squandering $52,000,000 on a luxurious administration building for themselves Allocating $130,000,000 to a new high school adjacent to a large, active landfill Ignoring the voter referendum that rejected the controversial "Toxic High" project Entering into suspicious land deals with developers
Misusing taxpayer funds and bond proceeds Circumventing the democratic process by appointing Trustees before
elections Citizens from the communities of Aliso Viejo, Coto De Caza, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch, Laguna Niguel, Las Flores, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano are working together to reform their school district. They have also called upon law enforcement authorities to commence a full and complete investigation into the compelling allegations and evidence of serious crimes, corruption and cover-ups at CUSD.
Hosted by Leslie Dutton, the Full Disclosure Network™ public affairs television programs are featured on 43 cable systems and the worldwide Internet website www.fulld isclosure.net. In 2002 the program was presented with a public affairs Emmy Award from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences entitled "L.A.'s War Against Terrorism" which was presented by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Channels and airtimes can be found on the website.
Watch this 12:26 minute Internet Exclusive Video Here.
Leslie Dutton
Full Disclosure Network
Tel: 310-822-4449
Email: ldutton@fulldisclosure.net
Web: www.fulldisclosure.net
Internet exclusive: On Full Disclosure™ 12 min Video
March 25, 2006
Full Disclosure
Los Angeles, CA. – Angry parents and taxpayers in South Orange County are featured in an eleven minute FULL DISCLOSURE™ Internet video, describing unsafe and unsanitary classrooms, gross fiscal mismanagement and school corruption – all of which sparked their unprecedented campaign in 2005 to recall all seven members of the Capistrano Unified School District. This "Free" video is available "On Demand" 24/7 as a public service of the Full Disclosure Network™ and can be accessed from the link in this paragraph.
Featured in the video are three leaders of the CUSD Recall Committee, the grassroots organization that led the campaign to
remove all seven CUSD Trustees from office. Tom Russell, official spokesman, Mark Nielsen, campaign research and analysis and Jennifer Beall, campaign organizer, cite many of the unacceptable conditions that led to this "mini-uprising." The CUSD Recall Committee organized and managed the recall campaign; successfully raising public awareness and collecting more than 177,000 recall petition signatures.
In this preview of the ongoing Full Disclosure Network™ special series, CUSD Recall Committee leaders discuss the many failings of the CUSD Trustees and Superintendent, including:
Failure to provide adequate classrooms and facilities for the children Squandering $52,000,000 on a luxurious administration building for themselves Allocating $130,000,000 to a new high school adjacent to a large, active landfill Ignoring the voter referendum that rejected the controversial "Toxic High" project Entering into suspicious land deals with developers
Misusing taxpayer funds and bond proceeds Circumventing the democratic process by appointing Trustees before
elections Citizens from the communities of Aliso Viejo, Coto De Caza, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch, Laguna Niguel, Las Flores, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano are working together to reform their school district. They have also called upon law enforcement authorities to commence a full and complete investigation into the compelling allegations and evidence of serious crimes, corruption and cover-ups at CUSD.
Hosted by Leslie Dutton, the Full Disclosure Network™ public affairs television programs are featured on 43 cable systems and the worldwide Internet website www.fulld isclosure.net. In 2002 the program was presented with a public affairs Emmy Award from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences entitled "L.A.'s War Against Terrorism" which was presented by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Channels and airtimes can be found on the website.
Watch this 12:26 minute Internet Exclusive Video Here.
Leslie Dutton
Full Disclosure Network
Tel: 310-822-4449
Email: ldutton@fulldisclosure.net
Web: www.fulldisclosure.net
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Editorial: Give us $10 million, then trust us; yeah, right
Editorial: Give us $10 million, then trust us; yeah, right
3/23/2006
Bloomington Pantagraph
We've all heard that more individual attention will help children in their early learning years develop better in their later years.
So, smaller class sizes for kindergarten through third-grade classes sound ideal to address that problem - if you say it fast enough.
But, there is a problem. Make that two problems.
An Illinois House committee has approved $10 million to give $50,000 grants to hire teachers to reduce 200 kindergarten through third-grade classes in Illinois.
The Illinois State Board of Education said the grants would be evenly distributed within the state.
But there are no specifics of that plan, the No. 1 problem. Nor will there be until after the legislation becomes law, according to the state board.
The House committee didn't seem a bit concerned about where the $10 million, plus expected salary increases, will come from the following year. Hey, it's just money - money that we keep hearing the state can't afford.
That's problem No. 2. That's sufficient, we don't need to look for any more problems.
Any legislator who buys this pig-in-a-poke idea doesn't deserve to be representing us.
To view the rest of the article printed in the Bloomington Pantagraph click here.
3/23/2006
Bloomington Pantagraph
We've all heard that more individual attention will help children in their early learning years develop better in their later years.
So, smaller class sizes for kindergarten through third-grade classes sound ideal to address that problem - if you say it fast enough.
But, there is a problem. Make that two problems.
An Illinois House committee has approved $10 million to give $50,000 grants to hire teachers to reduce 200 kindergarten through third-grade classes in Illinois.
The Illinois State Board of Education said the grants would be evenly distributed within the state.
But there are no specifics of that plan, the No. 1 problem. Nor will there be until after the legislation becomes law, according to the state board.
The House committee didn't seem a bit concerned about where the $10 million, plus expected salary increases, will come from the following year. Hey, it's just money - money that we keep hearing the state can't afford.
That's problem No. 2. That's sufficient, we don't need to look for any more problems.
Any legislator who buys this pig-in-a-poke idea doesn't deserve to be representing us.
To view the rest of the article printed in the Bloomington Pantagraph click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)