by David Safier I noted 6 weeks ago that Republicans took $7 million from the First Things First fund to help balance the 2009 budget. Now, according to the Republic,
The First Things First early-childhood-education board filed a lawsuit Monday to block the state from taking $7 million from a fund created by Arizona voters three years ago.
The defendants in the suit are our Accidental Guv, state Treasurer Dean Martin and state Comptroller D. Clark Partridge.
First Things First is a fund approved in 2006 to pay for early childhood education and health issues with a tobacco tax. It has amassed $300 million, because, rather than spending the money as it came, the board set up regional councils to figure out how best to spend the funds, and how to
assure the money will be around long enough to assess the educational
benefits, if there are any. To do a reasonable assessment, that's 8 to
10 years.
All these lawsuits involving the 2009 budget are going to have to take a number and wait their turn. This is the fifth so far.
NOTE: I may have to stop referring to Brewer disparagingly as the Accidental Guv. Dem legislators are saying she's about the only friend they've got right now -- which lets you know how truly dire things are at the Capitol. But I don't have to make nice. I'll believe she's got our best interests at heart when we see some actions, not just words. It's still early.
A majority of Arizona voters support a temporary tax increase to rescue the state from its deepening budget crisis, according the results of a statewide poll released Tuesday by the Arizona Republican Party.
About 66 percent of the 607 likely voters surveyed said they would back a 1 percent short-term sales tax increase to save funding for public health programs and K-12 education.
Now, if they can be convinced that a sales tax will cost the average citizen more than reinstating the $250 million property tax and restoring previous income tax levels for the wealthiest Arizonans . . .
by David Safier The State Supreme Court has spoken: vouchers are unconstitutional in Arizona. Yet we continue to argue about them here at BfA. Well, no more. Or not for awhile anyway.
My sense is that vouchers will sit on a back bench in Arizona for awhile. Though voucher advocates have two basic avenues they can pursue, neither of them sound very practical politically at this moment.
They can try to amend the constitution in a way that would allow vouchers. Somehow, I don't see a ballot measure like that going very far. Even in conservative Utah, a whopping 62% of the voters turned against vouchers in 2006. Democrats would probably like nothing more than to be able to say, "Be sure to go to the polls and vote against the Republican's attempts to take taxpayer dollars away from public schools so they can fund religious schools."
The other avenue is to increase the tax credits for private education. Again, at a time when everyone sees the state is in the red, it's a hard sell to push for diverting more money from state revenues.
Both ideas sound like bad moves politically. If I'm right, this issue will sit on the back burner for awhile -- years, probably.
While reporters hooted at the comically simplistic charts and lack of details in the House Republican leadership’s budget plan, the green eyeshade types at Citizen’s for Tax Justice crunched the numbers (PDF). They conclude that a quarter of all households, most of them poor, would pay more taxes under the GOP plan, while the richest one percent would pay $100,000 less.
See the CTJ report here (pdf) - but be warned: there are numbers in it.
The GOP tax plan begins with making the Bush tax cuts permanent. The lowest 40 percent would pay more taxes (because the GOP does not make permanent the refundable income tax credits in the Obama tax plan), while the top 1 percent would realize a tax savings bonanza. The GOP plan would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone.
In other words, let's just keep doing what we've been doing for the past eight years.
This isn't a plan, it's the definition of insanity.
by David Safier I had some other items I wanted to blog about today, but Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute has kept me pinned down on this voucher thing. As Al Pacino said in Godfather 3, "Just when I thought I was out . . ."
The ACLU, PFAW, AEA, etc. should really be ashamed of themselves. The provision they used against these students was a relic of anti-Catholic bigotry foisted upon the state as a condition of admission.
[snip]
The irony of a group calling itself "People for the American Way" picking up weapons forged in a bygone era of Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan bigotry and using them against children with disabilities is sickening.
What he's referring to here is The Blaine Amendment. A number of states including Arizona have a version of it in their constitutions. It says, basically, that the state can't pay for religious education. And Ladner is correct, its original intent when it was crafted in the 19th century was to stop public funding of Catholic schools.
Who knew the Blaine Amendment is a huge deal with the voucher crowd? Not many liberals, I imagine, myself included. Now I know.
So, here's some reasonably objective historical background on The Blaine Amendment.
The first thing you need to know is that, in the 19th century, U.S. public schools had a distinctly Protestant religious tone. The Protestant version of the Bible was part of the curriculum, and Protestant prayers were said on school time.
A large Catholic immigration began in the late 19th century, creating a strong anti-Catholic backlash in the country. But even without consideration of the backlash, Catholic immigrants refused to let their children be deluged with Protestant theology in the public schools. That's the main reason we have the large, longstanding network of Catholic Schools in this country.
What would have happened if the public schools didn't have religious instruction at the time? Possibly, there would be far fewer Catholic schools right now (That, by the way, is a historical supposition, not a statement of preference).
The public didn't want Catholic schools to get public funding, and a politician named James Blaine figured he could score some political points using the nation's anti-Catholic bigotry, so he proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit states from funding religious education (Of course, Protestant prayers and Bible readings in the public schools were perfectly fine). The amendment failed, but versions of the wording of the amendment went into 36 state constitutions, including Arizona's.
And that's why the pro voucher crowd is so intent on demonizing the Blaine Amendment, because it blocks their attempts to push vouchers, since vouchers always include religious schools -- which, by the way, make up about 70-80% of the private schools in the U.S.
So, yes, the Blaine Amendment was founded on religious bigotry, because it was targeted at Catholics while ignoring the Protestant teachings in public schools. If it had eliminated religious teaching from public schools as well, it possibly would have created a more equitable arrangement that would have benefited the country, since it would have treated all religions equally and separated religious teaching from public education.
Most of the websites about the Blaine Amendment are pro voucher, so they couch the argument in similar terms to the ones Ladner uses, an argument that has been brought up in court cases, usually unsuccessfully. Here's why the anti-Blaine arguments have been unsuccessful, according to The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:
The Becket Fund [an anti-Blaine organization] claims that the Blaine Amendments are unconstitutional because their creation stemmed from prejudice against Catholicism. But no court has accepted this argument because, now that public schools no longer have a Protestant character, the Blaine Amendments no longer function in a way that favors or disfavors particular religious groups.
The Pew Forum believes the fight will continue, unsuccessfully:
I expect the anti-Blaine groups to continue looking for a case with facts supporting their point of view – that is, a case involving an application of a Blaine Amendment in a way that appears to discriminate against a particular religious tradition, denomination or practice. But given contemporary norms against such discrimination, this case is unlikely to arise.
As a final note, the anti-Blaine amendment argument is problematic in regards to the Arizona constitution for another reason. The constitution forbids public money for any private school, religious or non-religious. Here's Article 9, Section 10. I'm going to cross out anything that has to do with religion:
Section 10. No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation.
Take out the religious references, and you still can't give public money to private schools.
by David Safier The person who complained about the weird spacing and fonts on my posts was right. And the reason is, I was using Mac's native Safari browser to write the posts. It was causing me all kinds of headaches, but I didn't know why. Now I'm using Firefox, which posts more easily and without all the visual problems.
I don't know whether to blame the Typepad folks for not making the blog compatible with Safari, or vice versa. Either way, problem solved. That complainer, a very squeaky wheel (you know who you are!) got the grease. I appreciate the tip.
• Public schools are held accountable. Indeed, under No Child Left Behind, they constantly have to demonstrate student performance on many subjects in multiple grades.
But at least citizens have plenty of data by which to gauge the performance of public schools, and that transparency is constantly increasing.
Parochial and other private schools need not divulge a thing - neither test scores nor anything about staff or student behavior or misbehavior. Everything's a secret. So why should tax dollars go to clandestine, for-profit schools? They should not.
• Our public schools also must admit everyone - kids with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, language barriers. Private schools can skim the cream off the top and bar everyone they don't want.
• Public schools provide diversity; most of them teach our kids the reality of this melting pot republic, and none of them discriminate on any level - ethnic, economic, religious. But private schools can admit solely Catholic kids, or only Jewish kids, or only kids with certain academic achievement levels. Many of them countenance a homogenous environment, which isn't the way of this world.
by David Safier I have to hand it to Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute. He keeps on stepping into the lion's den here at BfA. Every time I say something he disagrees with (which is pretty much every time I put keyboard to blog), he's tearing into me in the comments section. And of course, I tear right back.
There's nothing like a worthy adversary to keep you sharp. I've actually lost some sleep constructing answers to his commentaries. This morning, in an answer to his most recent comment, I felt compelled to discuss my love/hate -- or supporter/critic -- relationship with our public schools. It seems worth airing as a blog post, even if it seems more than a bit egotistical to quote myself.
Here's the relevant portion of my comments:
I spent over 30 years in the classroom complaining about the
failures of the public school system. Ask any administrator I served
under. I never donned a short skirt and waved pompons as a cheerleader
for public schools. I was a constant thorn in bad principal's side and
a cattle prod in the good principal's backsides, to get them moving.
Public schools have to be, and can be, far better than they are.
But I also spent over 30 years realizing how hard it is to teach
children successfully. By most measures, I was a successful teacher,
but I purposely gravitated to a school with mainly middle to upper
middle class kids, because my personality and teaching style don't work
well in the most difficult educational arenas. Friends of mine who
stuck it out in the toughest schools when they could have moved to
easier venues -- I held them in the highest esteem and told them often
they deserved more credit than I did.
If it's no longer at The Loft, rent the French film, "The Class."
It's set in a high school in an area of Paris with Arab and African
immigrants. The classroom scenes are as spot on about a gifted but
flawed, hard working teacher in a multicultural, multi-ethnic classroom
trying his best to bring genuine education to a tough group of kids as
you're ever going to see. And he doesn't "succeed" like those teachers
in the fantasy-based, feel good American movies. Some critics called
the film depressing. Actually, it was somewhat optimistic to me, who
knows what goes on in a classroom and how hard it can be to reach some
kids.
We're trying to accomplish the impossible with public education:
furnish a first rate education to the least educable members of our
society. If you want things more like the 50s and 60s, kick 20% of the
kids out of the high schools, and you'll have the proportion of the
population that attended HS back then. If you want the 20s, kick out
everyone but the most promising 25% from the high schools, because
that's the percentage of teens who made it that far in those days.
Please, Matthew, show me some good, comprehensive studies indicating
that private schools do a better job than public schools educating
similar students when you control for variables like economic class and
ethnicity. I haven't seen a credible study which comes to that
conclusion. The most recent studies from Bush's Ed. Dept. say that
traditional public schools, charters and private schools score
more-or-less equally. The only exception is fundamentalist Christian
private schools. They score measurably lower than the other schools in
the study.
So we agree, public schools can be and should be a hell of a lot
better than they are. But we disagree on the solution. You say
vouchers. I say a mixture of educational improvements in the schools
with the lowest SES students -- and money to back those improvements --
along with well regulated charters which add some innovative yeast to
the mix at the same time they furnish a variety of educational options
for parents to choose from. And I also say, bring the parents into the
educational picture. If there's one most important missing link in
educating the hardest to reach children, it's parental involvement.
Democratic legislators are going to release their 2010 budget proposal to the press Monday at 10:30. It will be available simultaneously to the public at www.strongerarizona.com (I just visited the site, and it's not up. I assume they'll have it ready in time for the unveiling.)
Rep. Steve Farley says it's a serious alternative to the Republican proposal.
During a gathering today at Pima County Democratic Headquarters, a number of elected officials spoke. Rep. Dave Bradley was bemoaning the current budget cuts that hurt the weakest among us, whom he vowed to protect when he was first elected. He began his talk with these words:
"I'm from the government, and we're not here to help, it appears."
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "It's not funny, 'cause it's true."
Someone told me today that my posts sometimes are a hodgepodge of fonts and spacings, but that AZ Blue Meanie's posts look fine. I don't see the problems on my computer.
Is anyone else having this problem? I use a Mac and compose on Safari, and it may be that other browsers on PCs don't pick things up the same way.
If you're having a problem with my posts (other than what I say -- that's a problem that can't be fixed), let me know what it is. It would be helpful if you told me whether you use a Mac or PC, and what browser you use.
Let me begin with the caveat that studies are never conclusive. That being said, I find this one very thought provoking.
A recent study of high school science instruction concludes that students benefit from studying fewer topics in depth rather than lots of topics more generally. (The article is in Education Week, a subscription-only site.)
High school students who focus more intensely on core topics within their biology, chemistry, and physics classes fared better in beginning college science than those who delved a little bit into a larger list of topics, the study found. Observers say those findings could offer direction to developers of science curricula, tests, and textbooks.
A central finding is that "breadth-based learning, as commonly applied in high school classrooms, does not appear to offer students any advantage when they enroll in introductory college science courses," the authors conclude, "although it may contribute to scores on standardized tests."
That makes sense to me. A once-over-lightly curriculum gives a generalized snapshot of a scientific field, with little insight into how the concepts were arrived at. Digging into a few topics reveals more about the scientific method and the intricacies. It's easier to generalize from deeper understanding than to reach a deeper understanding from a long list of generalizations.
It also makes sense that standardized tests would favor the student with the broader, more superficial knowledge, which points up one of the many weaknesses of standardized tests.
The study even attempts to quantify the differences.
In-depth teaching can have a major impact, the authors maintain. Students who experience deeper coverage of physics in high school perform in college as if they had received two-thirds of a year more preparation than those who had the opposite mix of depth and breadth. In chemistry, students appeared to gain the equivalent of one-quarter of a year’s worth of study from in-depth lessons, the authors found.
In biology, students taught under an approach emphasizing breadth performed as if they had received a half-year less preparation in high school in that subject.
I was one of many people who was floored when Al Melvin was given the absolute lowest rating in the Senate by the very conservative Pachyderm Coalition. The Pachyderms went so far as to call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only), which is the vilest epithet you can throw around in those circles.
Surprise was also registered on the conservative blog, Gila Courier, and more than a little derision of the Pachyderms for putting Melvin far below the Republicans it refers to as "all four remaining members of the Napolitano Eight."
I guess Howard Levine, the Pachyderm treasurer, was a bit miffed, since he chaired the committee running the evaluation. In a string of comments at the end of Gila's blog post, he made it clear that Melvin sponsored and supported "nanny state bills" purely to win votes from moderates. The portrait he paints of Melvin's motives is less than flattering.
Al Melvin is apparently trying to position himself to head off any liberal opposition to his 2010 reelection bid.
[snip]
I discerned Al Melvin’s motives by listening to his explanation of why he sponsored the bills he sponsored. He could have pulled these bills with a resulting improvement in his rating, but he adamantly refused to because these bills position him well with local newspapers and other liberals. This is based on a personal conversation with Al Melvin - not just a guess at his motives.
[snip]
Just because Al Melvin sponsored them to confuse his liberal constituents (Al’s word - not mine) so they won’t think he’s too conservative, does that suddenly make these bills “Republican” this year? In case you’re wondering, the answer is NO.
[Bold face added]
It kinda makes ya think, don't it? Does Melvin care about stopping people from using cell phones in cars, or smoking when children are in the car, or letting people ride in the backs of pickups, or are these just tactics someone helped him devise (the name Constantin Querard comes to mind) so Melvin has an answer when people say he's too conservative?
I don't know much about State Sen. Carolyn Allen, except that she's a Scottsdale Republican from the same district as John Kavanagh. With that in mind, you should read her very human op ed about our need to maintain Arizona's safety net in spite of our budget problems. It's another signal of the chasm that may be opening between sensible Republicans and the wingnut fringe majority in the legislature.
Here are a few excerpts.
When I was 6, my father died, leaving my mother no choice but to go on public assistance for three months to support our family until she could find a job as a maid, take in laundry, and apply for my father's Social Security.
We didn't plan it; we didn't want it. My mother was a proud woman. But we needed it. And, thank God, the help was there for us.
Arizona's human services safety net exists to support people - like my mother - with temporary services that help them work their way back to self-sufficiency.
[snip]
We have time to consider not only what these cuts mean in terms of dollars and cents, but also what they mean to people who need services now, and what they mean to our state in the future.
The research is clear about what happens when families do not get the services and support they need: educational failure for children, higher crime rates and economically depressed communities.
That's not the Arizona I know. It is not the Arizona many of us worked so hard to build. And it is not the Arizona I want to live in or leave to our children and grandchildren.
She uses a quote I didn't recognize to seal the deal. AZ Blue Meanie, who knows his political history, told me it's from Hubert Humphrey. I checked. He's right.
It has been said, "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and, those who are in the shadows of life - the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
Let me get this straight. An Arizona Republican State Senator quoting Hubert "The Happy Warrior" Humphrey, a famous liberal, to support her contention that we've cut services too far. Is there a new wind blowing?
UPDATE: Comments from SonoranSam, as well as Craig of Random Musings, confirm my suspicion that Allen is a decent human being. Craig writes:
Carolyn Allen is one of the few true public servants left in the AZGOP. Kavanagh may be from the same district, but he isn't from the same planet.
Allen is definitely a Republican, but she's a chamber of commerce Rep with a soul, which royally ticks off the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em wing (led by the Pearces and Kavanaghs) of the GOP. She's fended off primary challenges from the wingers before (Colette Rosati in 2006), but she may be termed out soon.
We have a certain commentor here at Blog for Arizona who has been posting comments of late about "secession" from the U.S. I can only assume he listens to the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck over at Faux News who have been fomenting this kind of extremist nonsense among the wingnuts since last November's election.
On Wednesday, the "Minnesota Loon" (small joke, it is the state bird of Minnesota) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared on wingnut Sean Hannity's radio show, and sharply reiterated her calls for revolution in America:
At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer.
And there was this exchange:
Bachmann: Right now I'm a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn't a game. this isn't just a political talk show that's happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I'm going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind. where do we go--
Hannity: The last great hope of man on this Earth.
Bachmann: Do we get into an inner tube and float 90 miles to some free country? There is no free country for us to repair to. That's why it's up to us now. The founders gave everything they had to give us this freedom. Now it's up to us to give everything we can to make sure that our kids are free, too. It's that serious. I hate to be dramatic, but--
Hannity: It's not -- you are not overstating this case, Congresswoman, and you don't need to apologize for it. And as a matter of fact, it's refreshing. And I can tell you, all around this country, on 535 of the best radio stations in this country, people are saying "Amen," "Hallelujah", "where have you been?"
(h/t talkingpointsmemo.com)
So Michelle Bachman and Sean Hannity view the U.S. government as a "foreign enemy." They must also view the vast majority of their fellow American citizens who elected this government and rejected their wingnut extremist politics as a "foreign enemy." The paranoid schizophrenic delusions of these wingnut extremists has crossed the line into advocating the overthrow of the government, and law enforcement had better take notice and take it seriously. These people are more than a few bricks short of a load.
Before Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck form their "Faux News Brigade" militia of wingnut extremist chickenhawks (none of these gas bags have served in the military) to overthrow the government of the United States and make Michelle Bachman a general in their conservative revolution, they had better consult their attorneys. There is a law against this kind of thing US CODE: Title 18,2385. Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
UPDATE 3/28/09: Video from Countdown with Keith Olbermann below the fold (Interview with Jonathan Alter). Time for the GOP leadership to rein in this loose canon. Any member of Congress, and any citizen by the way, may file an ethics complaint with the Congress - something my friends and relatives back in Minnesota may want to consider.
A tight job market amid staggering layoffs nationwide has a growing number of adults flocking to GED test preparation classes in Arizona and around the country.
In Mesa alone, the program director expects to offer four times as many classes this fall as he did last year.
[snip]
A report by the Arizona Department of Education shows that the waiting list to get into classes for basic reading, writing and math or high school-level science, social studies, reading, writing and math grew from 2,342 in June 2007 to 4,025 December 2008. Each year, about 22,000 adults take the GED test, Liersch said.
Northern Arizona University (NAU) is planning to close four satellite campuses because of budget cuts.
The university . . . will close four satellite locations, in Nogales, Payson, Globe and Holbrook, as well as an office in Avondale. University officials said further layoffs are possible as are universitywide furloughs for the next school year.
When the job market is tight, people decide to go back to school to boost their chances of getting a job. When state budgets are tight, we offer fewer opportunities for education.
The state may have to restore some of its higher ed cuts, so NAU's satellites may get a reprieve, in spite of the Republican cuts. At least we can hope.
Let’s be honest: Yesterday’s House Republican budget rollout was a P.R. disaster for the GOP. “Here it is, Mr. President” was the title of the GOP Leader blog touting that they had answered Obama’s dare to produce a budget. The problem -- their budget rollout didn’t contain any hard budget numbers or deficit projections. They say those hard numbers will come out next week. But now we learn that Reps. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan objected to unveiling yesterday’s “blueprint,” but were overruled by Reps. John Boehner and Mike Pence. But bigger than any internal disagreements or any criticism about a lack of details is the fact that yesterday’s GOP non-announcement moved the attention away from the Obama-vs.-congressional Democrat storyline to the GOP’s lack of a budget. In fact, after yesterday, the White House and congressional Democrats can agree on one thing: The GOP -- at least until next week -- is the “Party of No.” What's more, it puts more pressure on Ryan to truly put out a comprehensive budget alternative; Also, this episode could end up creating a rift in the GOP over how to combat the Obama White House. After all, Senate Republicans wanted nothing to do with an alternative, and now Mitch McConnell, et al are either laughing at their House GOP colleagues, furious at them, or both.
The DNC was quick to jump on the GOP's PR disaster with this ad:
The GOP leadership's insane clown posse promises to reveal the details of its budget next Wednesday. Well, check your calendar: Wednesday April 1 - April Fool's Day. This gang who couldn't shoot straight just can't get out of their own way.
This from an article about the possibility Arizona could lose $800 million in Fed Ed Stimulus money because we cut $150 million from higher ed:
But Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said unless the final rules differ substantially — or Arizona can get a waiver — the state will have no choice but to restore the cash to the universities.
"I'm certainly not going to give up the stimulus money," he said, saying the amount Arizona will get far exceeds any obligations to provide more funds for higher education.
"It's fairly clear we need to give the money back" to the universities, Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, agreed.
Kavanagh and Burns, I imagine, hate the Stimulus Bill like their Republican brethren in Congress. And weren't they among those who said they wouldn't accept the money if it had too many strings?
Conservatives like to tell us, accepting handouts weakens your character. By that logic, Arizona should pull itself up by its own bootstraps and Just Say No to Obama's welfare dollars.
Or if they take it, say, "Thank you, President Obama." It's just being polite.
Senate Republican leaders say their budget work is at a point at which they're looking for ideas, other than raising taxes, to close the final $500 million or so of the projected roughly $3 billion budget deficit for the 2010 fiscal year starting July 1. Road bumpy for Arizona lawmakers' budget work
"This is how we don't get a tax increase," said Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem.
Got an idea that could save the state money? State Majority Whip Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, says she wants to hear from you: pgorman@azleg.gov
"Some of the greatest ideas in history are on cocktail napkins," she said. God help us. A partial list of the mostly asinine ideas she has received to date was published in the Arizona Daily Star on Thursday 197 ideas, some offbeat, for slashing state deficit Here's an idea for you, Pam: just do your damn job that we pay you to do and quit punting your responsibilities to the voters!
Governor Jan Brewer proposed in her address to the Legislature that lawmakers use a mix of spending cuts, stimulus money and a temporary tax increase to balance the next budget, but Republican lawmakers are balking at raising taxes or asking voters to do so.
In other words, the Governor and the "no new taxes pledge" radical ideologues in the GOP caucus are at loggerheads with one another. This is a high stakes game of chicken to see who will blink before the 2010 fiscal year starting July 1. If there is no budget agreement by July 1, the state will have to resort to the short-term borrowing recently established by State Treasurer Dean Martin to avoid shutting down government services.
Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, and other Republican leaders had declined to release specifics of their developing budget plan, saying that would spur premature complaints from supporters of various programs being considered for spending cuts. He was right. On Thursday, the draft GOP budget was released. According to the Arizona Guardian (subscription required):
On balance, the budget proposals that trickled out Thursday from Republican legislative leaders are DOA.
The dramatic cuts to health, welfare and education programs -- nearly $600 million on top of the $600 million already slashed this year -- are too much for most in the GOP-led Legislature to stomach, and likely far too deep to win Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's signature.
So we are still at an impasse. Governor Brewer should take a lesson from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and his recent budget impasse and start getting tough with these Republican obstructionists.
Governor Brewer does have an alternative: she can work with the Democrats to craft a hybrid budget from the budget submitted by former Governor Janet Napolitano and her own proposals, something both the Democrats and the Governor can live with for now, and then turn to some arm twisting to bring along the handful of moderate Republican votes needed in each chamber to pass the budget.
It is simply foolhardy for the Governor to trust Republicans like Bob Burns, Pamela Gorman and Russell Pearce to craft a budget along the lines that she proposed. It ain't gonna happen. We're all just wasting our time.
There are only three realistic alternatives here: Governor Brewer will break her word and agree to the draconian "budget cuts only plan" being crafted by the "no new taxes pledge" radical ideologues in the GOP caucus; or Governor Brewer will put the best interests of the state ahead of her own political ambitions and agree to work with Democrats to craft a budget plan and bring along enough moderate Republicans to pass a budget. The final option is a prolonged budget impasse and eventually starting the process of shutting down government services after July 1.
For those of you with more patience than I possess, here's the draft budget Arizona Republican legislators have put together for 2010, courtesy of the Arizona Guardian.
Thursday was the day the big bad GOP was supposed to show up the White House by finally announcing its own economic agenda, "The Republican Road to Recovery." It was promoted heavily by Faux News and cable outlets and by conservative blogs like Politico. So what happened? The GOP failed to deliver as promised.
Here's how Mark Nickolas at politicalblog.com described it:
This afternoon, GOP House leadership called a press conference to roll-out their alternative budget. The cable news greatly hyped the event in advance. But like so much of the Republican rhetoric we get these days, it's nothing but hot air.
There was no budget. No numbers. No data. No projections. No specifics. Nothing but a slick18-page bookletof their old talking points -- massive tax cuts for the wealthy, unspecific entitlement cuts, and no more bailouts. That was about it.
In other words, nada, zip. The media got punked by the GOP leadership's insane clown posse.
Yesterday, House Republicans made a pretty big deal about unveiling their budget alternative.
In fact, we received this email from a House GOP spokewoman, "Given the President’s comments [Tuesday] night that, 'we haven’t seen a budget out of [Republicans],' we wanted to make sure to make you all aware that we are introducing our Republican Budget Alternative tomorrow."
And then what happens today? House Republicans release a 19-page document that contains no hard spending numbers or deficit projections. Per the AP, "One of the few hard bits of information is a promise to simplify the tax code and cut income tax rates to 10 percent for people making $100,000 or less down. They also promise to cut domestic spending below current levels but don't say whether they are exempting Social Security. It's impossible to determine the projected deficit based on their offering."
...Not surprisingly, the Democratic National Committee pounced on the GOP's budget -- or lack thereof. "After 27 days, the best House Republicans could come up with is a 19-page pamphlet that does not include a single real budget proposal or estimate," said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.
House GOP leaders held a press conference this morning to prove a) they could put together a budget; b) that they could be the "party of yes"; and c) that their agenda is about more than just saying the opposite of whatever President Obama wants.
Instead, they unveiled a "budget" with no numbers or even budget estimates, and spent most of the press conference criticizing the president.
Republican leaders posted their "Road to Recovery" report online, and it's more or less a joke. Apparently -- I hope you're sitting down -- the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes, stick with Bush's energy policies, and pursue more deregulation. How much would this cost? They don't say. How would this affect the deficit? They don't say.
Then there was this smack down delivered by Contessa Brewer of MSNBC who was not happy about getting punked by the GOP leadership's insane clown posse ("we cut away for that?") h/t Daily kos:
The Republican Road to Recovery... sounds like a Bing Crosby and Bob Hope "road" movie back to the past.
Just when you thought it was safe to stop thinking about vouchers in Arizona after yesterday's State Supreme Court decision that they're unconstitutional, comes this:
Ryan said there is a way to make the vouchers legal: persuade voters to amend the constitution to alter or repeal the ban.
That may be the next step.
"We will certainly consider all our options," said Tim Keller of the Institute for Justice, who tried to convince the high court the programs are constitutional.
And Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the state's Catholic bishops for the church's schools, said the question of putting the issue on the 2010 ballot may depend on what else voters will be asked to approve that year.
It's their right, of course. But how will a ballot measure play at a time when public schools are hurting for money? Will they argue we'll save education dollars? Will they pull out the widows and orphans defense? ("How dare you deny these poor children the education rich kids get at private schools?") Or will they decide it's a fight they don't want to pick right now?
A draft proposal of rules by U.S. Department of Education could force the state to undo $160 million in cuts to higher education approved in January by lawmakers if Arizona is to receive $775 million in federal stimulus aid.
[snip]
Included in those rules, House Speaker Pro Tem Steve Yarbrough said, is a requirement that prevents the state from reducing the level of funding for both K-12 and higher education to below fiscal 2009 levels. He said lawmakers were told the draft rules were not expected to change significantly before being adopted.
Requiring education spending to be maintained at fiscal year 2009 levels would mean that $160 million in cuts to universities and community colleges enacted in late January to help the state close a $1.6 billion budget hole would have to be restored if the state wants to collect federal stimulus money intended for education.
Sure, cut money to education, then get the feds to replace the funds. Who could object to that?
How often do you see a unanimous ruling from a Supreme Court, state or federal? That's what we got today on the voucher issue from the Arizona Supreme Court.
At issue are the vouchers for foster children and disabled students I wrote about earlier today.
Here's the shocker, for me, anyway. The ruling didn't hinge on using state money for religious education. It was far broader. The ruling said the vouchers "violated the Arizona Constitution's prohibition against providing state aid to private schools."
Though supporters argued that students and their parents were the true beneficiaries of the programs, the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling said the programs still tripped up against the Constitution's prohibition against appropriating money for private education.
"These programs transfer state funds directly from the state treasury to private schools. That the checks or warrants fist [sic] pass through the hands of parents is immaterial," Justice Michael D. Ryan wrote.
The prohibition is clear, Ryan wrote. "The framers plainly intended that Arizona have a strong public school system to provide mandatory education."
So in Arizona, students can't get government vouchers to attend any private schools period, religious or otherwise. Unless that's changed at some point, or unless voucher supporters can figure out a way around it, that's the last nail in the coffin for Arizona vouchers.
The 1999 court ruling that educational tax credits are OK still stands. Though the money goes to private schools, it doesn't make it into the state's hands first, so the court considers it the taxpayer's money.
UPDATE: Thanks to Francine for forwarding an ACLU email about the Supreme Court decision. This apparently all comes down to the so-called "Aid Clause" of the AZ Constitution:
“no tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation."
There you have it. Private schools are rolled together with churches in this clause.
The Arizona Supreme Court has announced that on March 25 it will decide whether two school tuition-voucher programs for disabled and foster children should be allowed to continue.
By way of background, in May, an appellate court decided the Arizona vouchers for disabled and foster children were unconstitutional since some of the money went to religious schools. The other side argues that the money is going to the children, not the schools. So the pro-voucher people appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
This is the "widows and orphans" approach to getting the elephant's voucher trunk inside the legislative tent. "How dare you deny disabled and foster children the best education possible?" they cry. These are the same people who cut funding for education and children's services.
Similar voucher programs have been started in other states, which tells me it's an orchestrated national movement to soften the legislators and the populace to the idea of vouchers, which has been voted down every time it's been in front of voters.
Is this really a "trunk in the tent" thing?
Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Gilbert who has been a strong proponent of school vouchers, said he hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will issue a broad opinion supporting school vouchers that can be used to justify the expansion of similar programs.
From the Arizona Guardian's blog, the Guardian Angel:
The Angel just loves the smell of free energy drinks in the afternoon. That rumbling you heard Tuesday was sound of lawmakers stampeding toward the Ice Cream Parlor in the Old Capitol to snatch up some free swag from one of the state's most influential lobbying groups. The Arizona Beverage Associationhad laid out a wide assortment of drinks and legislators wasted no time stockpiling the free beverages. Inside the parlor it was chaos as lawmakers rushed around the room hoarding Coke, Starbucks and other products like it was the coming of Armageddon. Rep. Ed Ableserwalked off with more than 30 assorted sodas and energy drinks like Full Throttle and Monster Energy. Rep. Frank Antenori preferred the more traditional. He scored an entire case of Coke Zero.
Having a Coke on the AZ Beverage Assn. tab doesn't strike me as much of a problem. Walking off with 30 sodas or a case of Coke Zero? It's not like a lobbyist is giving legislators a yacht or tickets to the Super Bowl. But these folks make 24 grand a year. A free case of Coke Zero can make a legislator feel a bit too kindly toward the beverage lobby.
I was saddened to learn today of the passing of Tucson television pioneer Jack Jacobson. I knew him as a man (he was a member of my church when I was a youngster), but I loved him for his television character, "Dr. Scar" on K-GUN's Chiller Theater on Saturday nights. It was a weekly ritual in our house that I would sneak out to the living room to turn on the TV to watch Dr. Scar introduce some bad B-movie horror flick, only to have one of my parents come out to tell me to "get back in bed." Ah, fond memories of a misspent youth. I would see Mr. Jacobson on Sundays at church, with a knowing smile and a friendly wave.
Tucson TV pioneer Jack Jacobson, perhaps best known for his weekly portrayal of KGUN-TV horror movie host “Dr. Scar” in the 1960s, died Monday. He was 87.
* * *
Jacobson, a member of the Arizona Broadcasters Hall of Fame, began his career when he was 8 years old on the “Uncle Bob Pierce and Company” radio show in Rochester, N.Y. The year was 1929.
As a teen he worked as a comic in New York City night clubs before enlisting in the Army Air Corps in 1942.
But even World War II didn’t keep Jacobson from his true calling. He fought the Nazis with laughs as a comic in the Sky Blazers, a Combat Special Services entertainment unit.
Jacobson’s troupe toured North Africa, the Middle East and England and were among the first entertainers to land in Europe after the D-Day invasion. He would later recall that performances would sometimes be interrupted by enemy bombs.
“He knew how to perform in any situation,” Lindstrom said.
Jacobson was awarded the Bronze Star for his service during the war. “Introducing the Sky Blazers,” a book he wrote about his wartime experiences, will be published in June.
After returning to the U.S., Jacobson started a career in TV. In 1962 he was hired as program and promotion manager for KGUN-TV in Tucson.
* * *
His signature character, the “kindly, lovable” Dr. Scar, gained a cult following hosting KGUN’s weekly horror-movie show, “Chiller.”
Jacobson would slather himself in stage makeup and ham it up, climbing out of coffins and telling dark jokes.
The Arizona Daily Star article inexplicably fails to mention that Jack Jacobson was the local host of the Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) telethon for almost forty years, where he would occasionally do his Dr. Scar character. As described by his son, Steve Jacobson, in March 2005 E-gor's Chamber of TV Horror Hosts (h/t for the photo):
The guy that played Dr. Scar was Jack Jacobson. He was the program director at KGUN. He also did Science Fiction Theater on Sunday afternoon the same years that Chiller was on. He also was the host of the Jerry Lewis M.D.A telethon in Tucson and still co-hosts it now. He is always asked to do his Dr. Scar voice and laugh to this day. He also was on TV in Dayton Ohio in the 50's on a kid's show; his name was Nosey the Clown. That was on WHIO TV.
Jack Jacobson was a good and decent man who loved children and gave unselfishly to his community. The man may no longer be with us but his memory will live on in all who knew him and the many lives he touched over the years with his acts of kindness.
The Washington elitists, government types and the media villagers who are completely out of touch with average Americans who do not live in the "Beltway Bubble," apparently took offense to President Obama being the first president since Grover Cleveland in 1885 to miss the Gridiron Dinner in his first year in office. They got their panties in a twist that Obama chose to spend the weekend with his family rather than participate in their skits and comedic roast of the president on Saturday evening.
So how did the media villagers and Republican bloviators retaliate? Their talking points on Monday were to criticize Obama for laughing during his 60 Minutes interview on Sunday evening. These A-holes are shameless.
David Shuster sitting in on Countdown and his guest E. J. Dionne, Jr. did an excellent job of taking down these "Beltway Bubble" bloviators 'Countdown for Monday, March 23:
SHUSTER: Of course, the president‘s position in the global economic meltdown and on the past and future of the war on terror all pale in importance compared to the fact that the president laughed while talking about government bailouts.
* * *
Exactly what joke — was Mr. Obama making about money? Was he laughing at middle-class families on bread lines? Was he laughing about kids losing their medical insurance when their parents get laid off?
Or was it the one where the priest, the donkey, and a hedge fund manager walk in to the employment office — no, the president was laughing as you‘ll hear on this clip at the absurdity of his own position, at the lack of political popularity for the steps the government is taking, at the catch-22 of his predicament.
And as he explained seconds after laughing, it was not insensitivity to this dilemma; it was gallows humor familiar to anyone in a dilemma.
SHUSTER: When Mr. Bush was pushing privatization for Social Security, he told a woman he thought it was fantastic that she was working three jobs to make ends meet for her family. But Obama laughing at his poll numbers, at the general poll numbers, that merits widespread discussion of economic insensitivity? Help me out here.
DIONNE: Well, are we shocked at double standards in politics? Do we expect consistency on these things?
You know, I was reminded a line from the scripture I think in the Book of Proverbs, “A merry spirit doeth good like medicine.” And that‘s what we need right now. I‘d much rather have a president who laughs than a president who is mean or a president who‘s glum.
If he were laughing about sending troops to Afghanistan, men and women to fight in Afghanistan, I‘d say yes, there is a problem with that. But he was deadly serious when he spoke about that. If he were laughing about unemployed people, there‘d be a lot to criticize. But he was deadly serious when he spoke about that.
I think, if you forgive me, it‘s laughable to get down on him for laughing.
Shuster's final question: "What does it say though about the politics of those who want to make a big deal about laughter? Is it because they simply don‘t want to argue of the substance of the plan or argue about the direction that he‘s trying to take things economically, that they‘re just looking for something simple?"
I'll take this one. This is the right-wing technique of "grand distraction" to get the public to focus on the trivial rather than address the larger issue. It is the equivalent of failing to see the forest for the tree. This technique has been used to great effect and to the great ruination of our political discourse in this country for decades. I get the sense that most people are finally coming to their senses and realizing that they have been played for fools by the media villagers who believe they are the lords of public opinion, and the public is growing sick and tired of these "Beltway Bubble" bloviators who foment faux scandal and feigned outrage.
In an attempt to cure some of my ignorance, I did a google search on water desalination (desalinization, desalinisation) and found an Economist article from June, 2008. It has lots of excellent technical information.
The most important fact in terms of answering my question -- Why isn't desalination coupled with the production of sea salt? -- is that most processes only extract a certain amount of fresh water and spit out the rest of the liquid with a higher concentration of salts. I guess that's the most efficient way to do it.
Having at least partially answered that question, let me give you a few other bits of information, if you're interested:
As more parts of the world face prolonged droughts or water shortages, desalination is on the rise. In California alone some 20 seawater-desalination plants have been proposed, including a $300m facility near San Diego. Several Australian cities are planning or constructing huge desalination plants, with the biggest, near Melbourne, expected to cost about $2.9 billion. Even London is building one. According to projections from Global Water Intelligence, a market-research firm, worldwide desalination capacity will nearly double between now and 2015.
Not everyone is happy about this. Some environmental groups are concerned about the energy the plants will use, and the greenhouse gases they will spew out. A large desalination plant can suck up enough electricity in one year to power more than 30,000 homes.
The good news is that advances in technology and manufacturing have reduced the cost and energy requirements of desalination. And many new plants are being held to strict environmental standards. One recently built plant in Perth, Australia, runs on renewable energy from a nearby wind farm. In addition, its modern seawater-intake and waste-discharge systems minimise the impact on local marine life. Jason Antenucci, deputy director of the Centre for Water Research at the University of Western Australia in Perth, says the facility has “set a benchmark for other plants in Australia.”
[snip]
The energy-recovery devices in the 1980s were only about 75% efficient, but newer ones can recover about 96% of the energy from the waste stream. As a result, the energy use for reverse-osmosis seawater desalination has fallen. The Perth plant, which uses technology from Energy Recovery, a firm based in California, consumes only 3.7kWh to produce one cubic metre of drinking water, according to Gary Crisp, who helped to oversee the plant’s design for the Water Corporation, a local utility.
So, I guess if you can find a particularly windy stretch of ocean, put up some wind turbines and a desalination plant, you're good to go.
That's it. We will now return to our regularly scheduled blogging.
NOTE: Right after I put up this post, I found a comment from Ben Kalafut that basically explained to me what I found out myself. Ben concludes, "if someone was to be looking for startup capital for opening up a cogenerating nuclear power/desalination plant in the Tijuana area that would sell water and electricity to the Californians, I'd put in a thousand dollars!"
Ben,Sen. Al Melvin is your man. He advocates putting a nuclear power/desalination combo in Sonora somewhere. Write that check and get in on the ground floor!
Here's another question born of ignorance. When college athletes are given scholarships, where does the money come from?
A column by John Harris in the Pittsburgh Trib-Review questions the free education given to college athletes. Harris comments:
A basketball player attending Pitt is eligible for an education worth more than $100,000.
Except in rare instances,athletic scholarships aren't given for . . . well, scholarship. They're recognition of the hours these folks spent in the gym or on the playing field and the athletic skills they've demonstrated.
I hear over and over again how college sports programs pay their own ways,that they don't cost colleges and universities dollars that could go toward academics. I've always been suspicious of the accounting here -- whether it covers all the external costs of facilities, training areas, etc. Do sports that make a profit cover the expenses of those that don't? Do schools with consistently lousy teams recoup the costs?
But this is another issue. Where do sports scholarships come from? Is it from money contributed to the sports programs? Do they come from profits the sports programs make? Does some of the cash come from the general scholarship pot, taking money away from students whose academic achievement makes them more deserving than someone who,say, can bounce a round ball skillfully and toss it through a small hoop consistently?
Maybe I should have waited until after UA is out of the tournament before I asked this. Sports fans are a dangerous, unpredictable lot. I'll just have to take my chances.
This could be viewed as a cry for help -- scientific help, that is.
Advertisers as well as health food advocates the world round sing the praises of sea salt over . . . not sea salt,wherever that comes from.
One of the problems with desalination of sea water (also called "desalinization" -- see, I know words if not science) is the byproduct, salt. No one knows what to do with all that stuff.
See where I'm heading? What if we substituted the sea salt that's the byproduct of desalinizing sea water for all that other . . . not sea salt?
Since I've heard the term "back to the salt mines," and because I've heard one of the ways they're thinking about disposing of nuclear waste is to put it in salt mines, I assume "not sea salt" is mined in those salt mines.
So, close down the salt mines. Desalinate water,and sell the sea salt byproduct as a way to offset the costs. The result: more water at a reasonable cost (we keep the Colorado water while the people closer to the west coast can use the desalinated stuff, for instance), and more sea salt, which is better for you. Win, Win.
Now, here comes the conspiracy theory born of complete ignorance. Could it be that Morton and the rest of the companies involved in the "Salt mine/Industrial Complex" are standing in the way of a shift from salt mine salt to sea salt?
Those of you who know more than I, stop laughing and start explaining.
Remember how, during his big prime-time speech last month, Lousiana's Republican governor Bobby Jindal, in addition to making stuff up about what he did during Hurricane Katrina, also found time to mock the Obama administration for "wasteful spending" in the stimulus bill, including
… $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.
Why is Jindal's line looking even worse now? Because, as you've likely heard, Alaska's Mount Redoubt, 100 miles southwest of Anchorage, erupted last night. And a USGS geologist confirmed to TPMmuckraker that a portion of the stimulus spending for volcano monitoring that Jindal lampooned has been slated to go to USGS monitoring Redoubt.
Chris Waythomas, a geologist with the Alaska Volcano Observatory, a branch of the USGS, said that part of the money from the stimulus that Jindal was referring to would have been used to "shore up" monitoring of Redoubt, by adding new monitoring technology like real-time GPS. Redoubt, he said, was "very high on our list" of volcanoes that needed increased scrutiny.
In fact, thanks to its close monitoring of Redoubt, the USGS has known for months that it was on the point of blowing. The volcano had emitted ash and steam last week, alerting scientists to the likely imminence of a full eruption. Their efforts also meant they knew enough to raise the alert level to orange, or "watch" on Saturday, a day before Redoubt erupted. That, for instance, meant that the FAA received advanced warning that flight disruptions could occur, and it gave local officials time to draw up precautionary plans to evacuate people if needed.
Just another anti-science Republican like Sarah Palin, who no doubt can see Mount Redoubt from her house.
(h/t to politicalbase.com for the screen shot)
(h/t to zaiusnation.blogspot.com for Bobby's portrait)
A Seattle Times columnist has an interesting thought piece on teacher merit pay, comparing it to bonuses paid to Wall Street execs. If pay for performance is such a good idea, how did Wall Street's bonus babies get us into such a mess?
It's a good question, and part of a larger debate raging in education over the topic of privatization.
Should education be privatized by using government money as vouchers to pay for private schools? These days, when we're seeing the results of private sector abuse, it's strange to suggest we should adopt that model for publicly funded schooling -- giving money to private, minimally regulated schools and expecting them to act in the public interest.
Should public schools adopt the private enterprise model of rewarding teachers for "performance"?
For Wall Street bankers, the gauge was profits or stock prices. For classroom teachers, it's usually student test scores. Those who get higher profits or test scores earn more cash. Those who don't are left behind, and eventually weeded out.
Simple, efficient, Darwinian.
Except on Wall Street it was a disaster.
[snip]
I realize teacher merit pay would be different — nobody would get rich, for starters. But the idea is similar. It's to tie some pay not to experience or skills but to a short-term result — how students do on yearly tests.
Traders, banks and loan officers obsessed over immediate profits rather than the long term effects of their actions. Would teachers and administrators obsess over test scores (even more than they do now) at the expense of the non-testable aspects of the entire educational curriculum, and the non-testable aspects of being human?
The idea of merit pay is a minefield filled with hidden dangers and unintended consequences. It needs to be approached with utmost caution.
Where does the Goldwater Institute go for inspiration on the issues of taxation and the cutting government spending? Grover Norquist.
That's right. The same Grover Norquist who gave us this bit of wisdom:
My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
The same Grover Norquist whose taxpayer protection pledge has legislators swearing allegiance to his No New Taxes dictum rather than paying attention to the needs of their constituents.
G.I. puts out a daily email blast. Today's is written by Norquist, as was the March 13 edition.
On 13th, the message was, any Arizona legislator who signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge has to vote against sending a tax hike measure to the voters.
Today's message is, "Raising taxes, Bad! Cutting government, Good!" (That's a paraphrase, by the way.) Here's the final line:
Reducing state and local government overspending is long overdue. Reducing tax and regulatory burdens that kill jobs and reduce incomes in Arizona is long overdue. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It makes things worse.
But here's my favorite line:
Call your relatives in Michigan and Zimbabwe and ask how ever higher taxes are helping on the jobs and earnings front.
Right. Michigan is having trouble because of high taxes. Remind me, don't they make cars somewhere around there?
And Zimbabwe? Can you say "Non sequitur," boys and girls?
A few commenters have written about a column by E.D. Hirsch in this morning's NY Times concerning standardized reading tests. The commenters found themselves agreeing with someone who at least one of them has reservations about. Let me weigh in.
E.D. Hirsch is the big "cultural literacy" guy. He's conservative in the sense that he wants everyone to learn the core facts and ideas of western civilization and bemoans the fact that we've tossed lots of the classics aside. I find his idea both attractive and senseless. Though I would love to see more classical cultural literacy, I don't think it would work today with our universal education system, or at least not at nearly the level he wants to see it.
Back to Hirsch's column. He thinks our current reading tests are inaccurate, but not for the usual reasons. He says the reading samples are random and favor students who are most comfortable with the subject matter, not those who are the best readers. I love this example he gives.
[In a 1988 study], Experimenters separated seventh- and eighth-grade students into two groups — strong and weak readers as measured by standard reading tests. The students in each group were subdivided according to their baseball knowledge. Then they were all given a reading test with passages about baseball. Low-level readers with high baseball knowledge significantly outperformed strong readers with little background knowledge.
That's beautiful. As he says elsewhere, when you give inner city kids a passage about hiking in the Appalachians, they're lost. And my experience tells me, if students are interested in the topic, they can read and comprehend far above their tested reading levels. Culturally biased tests yield culturally biased results.
If I remember my testing history correctly, the original I.Q. tests were created in the early 20th century by working with students at private schools and seeing which answers the "smart" kids got right. In other words, the people creating the test already knew what "smart" was -- including that "smart" kids attend fancy private schools -- and they made sure "smart" kids got the right answers. Which proved they were smart.
Some of those early test questions talked about eating sirloin, a cut of meat many children in other schools had rarely seen on their plates and barely heard of. Cultural slanting of material creates a host of problems.
I agree with Hirsch up to that point. But while he sees the problem clearly enough, he suffers from the classic problem, "When you have a cultural literacy hammer, everything looks like a nail." His solution to the reading test problem is this:
If the reading passages on each test were culled from each grade’s specific curricular content in literature, science, history, geography and the arts, the tests would exhibit what researchers call “consequential validity” — meaning that the tests would actually help improve education. Test preparation would focus on the content of the tests, rather than continue the fruitless attempt to teach test taking.
His idea only works if everyone in the fourth grade, for example, reads the same books and studies the same topics in science, history, geography and the arts. In other words, he wants to see a standardized national curriculum. And I bet I know who he wants to decide what that curriculum should be.
That's where his idea breaks down for me. Should every class in every school in the country read exactly the same books and cover the same facts in history? This country is too big and too diverse for that to work well. But that's Hirsch's dream, and that's why his column raises all kinds of red flags for me.
This morning I posted about a Nicholas Kristof article praising D.C. School Chancellor Michelle Rhee's "reform" agenda. I noted his statement, "Test results showed more educational gains last year [2008] than in the previous four years put together," and said I would look into possible reasons for the gains. If they're legit, great. But I wanted to see for myself.
Look I did. And I found we have to attach a few qualifications to those higher scores.
The most important qualification is, D.C. began using a new standardized test in 2006 which is specific to D.C. That means, first, the scores can't be used to compare results against scores from the previous test taken in past years, and second, the scores can't be compared with national results.
The new test had students give short responses, while the earlier test was multiple choice. That's probably good, but it means no one knew how to help students perform well on the test. In the first year, the scores went down, probably for that reason.
The results during Rhee's first year as Chancellor, 2008, were for the third year of the new test. That gave the entire D.C. district time to learn the ins and outs of the test and figure out how to best "prepare" the students. Translation: teachers learned how to teach to the test. That would almost certainly give the scores a bump.
But did teachers prepare students to take the test on Rhee's watch. You bet they did, with a vengeance!
Rhee had schools conduct three pretests early this year [the 2007-8 school year] to gauge student progress. Students spent several hours a week taking practice tests. Teachers . . . analyzed the data and retaught material that students got wrong. Before the DC-CAS was administered in the spring, principals were required to devise a plan on how teachers would prepare for it.
If teachers used the three pretests and the weekly practice tests as diagnostic tools, that could have improved students' learning. But if they mainly used the tests to find areas where students did poorly and narrowly focused on helping the students do better, that's going to raise scores without necessarily raising achievement. Most likely, teachers did a little bit of both. So which had more to do with the bump in scores, an increase in student learning or an increase in test taking skills? It's hard to tell. No, it's impossible to tell.
And let's not forget that taking practice tests over and over and seeing their results will make the students better at taking that test,regardless of what else happens in class.
Rhee began as Chancellor in 2007, so the jump in scores we're talking about happened at the end of her first year. She didn't have much time to implement a whole lot of change. Maybe she scared people into teaching better. Or maybe she scared them into taking the test more seriously. Again, maybe it's a little bit of both.
This is not an indictment of Rhee. She may be improving D.C. schools. But I wouldn't put too much stock in the rise in test scores as an accurate indicator of progress made on her watch.
In a Truthout Perspective commentary, author Ravi Batra exposes Saint Ronnie Reagan for what he truly was, a Robin Hood in reverse Socialist who redistributed wealth from the poor and middle class to the most affluent Americans. Reagan: The Great American Socialist
Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."
"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.
Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.
* * *
In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.
How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.
* * *
Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.
Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.
* * *
-------
Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, is the author of five international best sellers. He was the chairperson of his department from 1977 to 1980. This article is based on Batra's two books, "The New Golden Age" and "Greenspan's Fraud." His web site is Ravibatra.com.
One of my favorite economics bloggers, Jon Perr over at Crooks and Liars blog, posted this provocative report:
In just their latest posturing for the 2012 Republican presidential race, governors Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Texas' Rick Perry, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal in announcing they would reject some of the federal stimulus funds allocated to their states. But as the steady one-way flow of tax dollars and earmarks spreading the wealth from Washington to their states shows, de factored state socialism is alive and well.
As a 2007 analysis (above) of federal spending per tax dollar received by state shows, the reddest states generally reaped the most green. Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for President. Unsurprisingly, all 10 states at the bottom of the list - those whose outflow of tax revenue is funding programs elsewhere in the country - all voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
This is a paradox of modern American politics. Those conservative Republicans who complain the loudest about those "socialist" tax and spend liberal Democrats are among the largest recipients of federal tax dollars. "Just put the money in my pocket while I pretend to be offended."
Arizona probably would fair better in receiving federal largesse if we did not have two drama queen Republicans who get the vapors over federal "earmarks" - Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Flake. (Federal earmarks are less than 2% of the federal budget).
Arizona's Republican delegation would rather see your federal tax dollars go to other states to pay for things like oh, I don't know, a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, than to bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan right here in Arizona. If it wasn't for the military bases and defense contractors here in Arizona, we would be receiving even less return on our federal tax dollars thanks to these slackers. Why can't they be more like Republicans in other states who take the money and feign offense?
I experienced a dozen conflicting emotions as I read Nicholas Kristof's NY Times, column, Education's Ground Zero this morning.
I'm on Kristof's side of most issues. When I'm not, I know I can't dismiss him. Today, though, his column has echoes of the ideas conservatives have been pushing about education. Hence, the conflict.
Here's the thrust of Kristof's argument. The real educational "reformers" are people who want to decrease the power of teachers' unions by giving the district the power to fire teachers, and, as a trade off, increase salaries of the excellent teachers who remain.
He's talking specifically about Michelle Rhee, the current chancellor of D.C. schools, whom he mostly praises for the work she has done, with a few caveats. He calls her "an insurgent from the school-reform movement." Rhee, by the way, is much loved and touted by educational conservatives, and her ideas go beyond firing bad teachers and raising the salaries of the rest.
This is Rhee's second year, and Kristof says, "Test results showed more educational gains last year than in the previous four years put together." I haven't seen the results he's talking about, so until I know more, I'll have to accept his stat. I plan to look deeper to see if it's an accurate and meaningful figure.
Here's the problem for me. The educational right has successfully branded themselves as "reformers" and called the teacher's unions and ed profs the "establishment." Their entire agenda includes what Kristof says -- give the districts a free hand to fire bad teachers, raise teacher salaries and (since these aren't folks who want to increase school spending) increase class sizes. But it also includes expanding charter schools with minimum regulation and oversight (I'm for charters, but also for oversight) and making vouchers the order of the day. And the back-to-basics style it espouses favors teaching things that can be measured on multiple choice tests.
By this definition, George Bush is a reformer. Bill Bennett is a reformer. Michelle Rhee is an insurgent reformer. This reminds me of the Christian right calling itself a besieged minority and adopting the language of the civil rights movement. Conservatives are masters at using language to further their agenda, and by rebranding the Christian right as a "minority" and educational conservatism as "reform," they're trying to make the powerful, conservative, moneyed interests look like Martin Luther King and 60s anti-war protesters. Like so much in conservative language, its purpose is to distort and confuse the issue to their advantage.
And I think Kristof and others on the moderate left have been taken in by the language, because it resonates with their civil rights/protest movement memories.
On the other hand, Rhee is worth watching. She's a newbie, and she's already beginning to backpedal a bit on her agenda, saying she was trying to do too many things at once. She's made more than a few enemies, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The question is, who is right, Rhee or her detractors? She could easily crash and burn, leaving little to show for her tenure as D.C. Chancellor. Then again, she could shake things up in D.C. and bring about some much needed change, even -- dare I say it? -- reform.
So here's the multiple conflict. No one can defend D.C. schools. They're a disaster area. Everyone agrees they need to be changed for the better. But that doesn't mean the people who come in with what they're calling "reform" know what they're doing. I don't know much about Rhee, but I do know that lots of her supporters are privatizers who would like to use vouchers to move public money into private schools, which I think is a very bad, very dangerous idea.
So, with a skeptical but open mind -- what I want more than anything is improved education in the U.S., especially for students from the low end of the socio-economic scale, so I want to see someone come up with some real movement in this area -- I'll watch and wait.
The recently enacted economic-stimulus bill requires every state to take steps to improve teacher effectiveness, as well as to tackle one of the most pervasive problems in K-12 education: inequities in access to top teaching talent for poor and minority children.
In those two provisions, which governors must address to get their cuts of $53.6 billion in state fiscal-stabilization aid, some experts see glimpses into the future of federal teacher-quality policy.
“We have a lot of evidence that this administration is very interested in making effective teaching a priority,” said Sabrina W.M. Laine, the director of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality at Learning Point Associates, a federally financed technical-assistance center in Naperville, Ill. “The stimulus bill is wide open for interpretation, but it provides the proverbial shot in the arm for equitable distribution and for discussions to move a reauthorization bill [on education] forward.”
It's a well known problem that a disproportionate number of the best, most experienced teachers are at schools with affluent students. It's another one of those ways the educational playing field is slanted in favor of the well heeled.
But if you see cynical educators roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, we've heard it all before," here's the reason.
The stimulus measure’s provision on equitable distribution of teachers is identical to language in the federal No Child Left Behind Act that requires states to put plans in place to ensure that poor and minority students aren’t taught disproportionately by out-of-field, inexperienced, or unqualified teachers. The NCLB law also charges states with monitoring districts’ progress on instituting strategies to address those inequities.
Talking is one thing. Action is another. And action on something like this is tough, and potentially costly. We'll see what happens.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments