Leonard
Letter Articles on Education – 2004-2008
“Remedial Math” – February
2, 2004
Last week’s news reported that the Cal State University system is throwing out
fewer students for being behind in basic math and English skills. That is
hardly something to celebrate. All students who graduate from California high schools should be able to pass such proficiency exams, but only 42% of
incoming freshmen can. As a result, the CSU system is spending millions
offering remedial coursework to get these students up to speed. What none of
the news stories noted was how much money that is costing the state. The
Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that we could save millions annually by
offering those basic math and English courses at the community college or high
school level, rather than continuing such basic instruction at the University
level. As we try to close a multi-billion dollar gap this year, budget writers
should look for every available savings opportunity.
“Parents Beware” – February 9, 2004
While California may not be able to guarantee that students graduate knowing how to read and write, California law does allow school districts to dismiss minors from campus for confidential medical services. The state does not require parental consent for their children to leave school for medical services, but school districts may, as a matter of local control, choose to require parental notification and consent before releasing minors from campus for any reason. If you are the parent of a high school student, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with your district’s policy so that you will know whether your child can seek medical attention without your knowledge.
A debate was held at the Folsom Cordova school district last week, driven by parents who wanted that district to change its policy. Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, speaking for the change, said, “Parents simply want to know where their kids are during the day and want the opportunity to be a part of important decisions made by their kids.” Advocating for keeping the school district policy open to allow students to leave campus without parental consent was Planned Parenthood. School board members sided with Planned Parenthood on a 3-2 vote.
“Public Education Failing
a Generation” – March 8, 2004
One big challenge that public schools in California have is convincing the
public that more money will result in better student performance. I do not see
what they can point to that is going to make voters believe this. Forty-eight
percent of freshman enrolled at CSU last year got out of California high
schools without basic English skills and 40% lacked basic math skills -- and
these are supposedly the good students. It is true that the high number of
limited-English speaking students in California is a great challenge. Still, it
is obvious that California public schools need bold change, and before they get
more money, the California Teachers Association, and other education advocates,
will need to offer evidence of a reform agenda that will dramatically improve
student performance.
Lance Izumi and the staff at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco released a study last fall, The California Index of Leading Education
Indicators, which shows that the performance of our schools is at an
intolerable level. According to the report:
- From 1987
to 1995, verbal SAT scores for California public high school students dropped
from 421 to 412, while those for parochial school students increased from 432
to 442.
- From 1990
to 1994, the percentage of students taking first-year chemistry in California was the lowest of all states, and only Delaware and Hawaii had a lower
percentage of students enrolled in second-level algebra.
- California ranks near the bottom in both math and reading based on National Assessment of
Educational Progress test scores, with 59 percent of California students
reading below the basic level.
- As many as
one-third of California's high school students drop out.
- In
inflation-adjusted dollars, per-pupil spending in California was 60 percent
higher in 1994-95, than in 1969-70.
“Drop-Out Deception” – May
3, 2004
Kudos to Dr. Alan Bonstee,
president of California Parents for Educational Choice (http://www.cpeconline.org/homepage.asp
), for his recent article in the Los Angeles Daily News exposing the
California Department of Education’s shell game in reporting the state’s
drop-out rates. He points out what I well remember: that until 1998, the CDE
reported a drop-out rate based on unaudited numbers. Schools assumed that
students who left their district enrolled somewhere else and so concluded that
we had a 3.3% drop-out rate. The absurdity of that number comes into focus. In
1998, the state Board of Education required different numbers (though still
unaudited). They show that during 1999-2003 school years, the most recent
statewide dropout rate is 29.2 percent. Dr. Bonstee notes the sad case of the
LA Unified School District, with a drop-out rate of 53% during those years.
Since such figures do not sound too good for the state of education, educators
are now reporting “graduation rates” instead of “drop-out rates.” Those are
calculated differently and assert that 86.9% of students graduate high school.
Dr. Bonstee believes this number low-balls the real drop-out rate, and that the
new computer system that has been designed to track students through bar-coding
will still miss the mark. He concludes, “California's shameful dropout rate is
the greatest crisis facing the state. Our budget crisis will end someday, and
we'll soon fix the workers' compensation mess. A teenager who drops out today,
however, is a tragedy for the state for the next half century. Subtracting a
phony number from 100 percent to get another phony number is nobody's idea of
reform. The public deserves the truth.”
“What Is the Yield on 12
Years of Public Education?” – June 7, 2004
In 1999, the State Board of Education
decided that the new California High School Exit Exam would include some
Algebra concepts. Sen. Poochigian then wrote a law making Algebra I, or an
equivalent course, a graduation requirement. The bill was signed into law in
2000. The state Department of Education
notified California school districts of the new requirement, but gave them
plenty of time to ramp up. Now, it is finally time
for high school seniors to have successfully completed Algebra I to get
their high school diploma. But an avalanche of whining from both students and
teachers has led the State Board to grant waivers for
more than 15,000 students statewide.
I would like to hear from LL readers whether they think young people, after spending twelve years in school, should or should not be expected to handle basic algebra concepts. Here are some sample problems from the exit exam:
If x = -7, then -x =
A. -7
B. -1/7
C. 1/7
D. 7
Assume y is an integer and solve for y
| y+2 | = 9
A. {-11, 7}
B. {-7, 7}
C. {-7,11}
D. {-11, 11}
OK, these are two of the easiest questions to get you warmed up. Next week we will do some harder ones -- but thus far, are we having any trouble? More important: Would you be satisfied with your local high school if your 18 year-old received a diploma without knowing how to do the problems above?
“More Algebra” – June 14,
2004
I maintain that California's high
school seniors should be able to solve basic algebra problems. Thousands of
students have successfully graduated without knowing basic algebra because the
state is granting waivers to just about anyone who asks. We should all be very
disappointed that we are short-changing students this way. To me, it is the
bigotry of soft expectations that claims that these problems are too tough for California students. We are a great state and a great people -- our students are more than
capable of handling this subject.
You be the judge. Here are a few more questions from the sample test. (Answers follow):
Q1: In a certain room, the number of chairs, c, is equal to 3 times the number of tables, t.
Which equation matches the information? (The symbol x in this case represents the multiplication function.)
A. 3 x c = t
B. 3 x t = c
C. 3 x c = 3 x t
D. c x t = 3
Q2: A shopkeeper has x kilograms of tea in stock. He sells 15 kilograms and then receives a new shipment weighing 2y kilograms. Which expression represents the weight of the tea he now has?
A. x - 15 - 2y
B. x + 15 + 2y
C. x + 15 - 2y
D. x - 15 + 2y
Answers: Q1: B, Q2: D
“Lottery Low-Down” – June 21, 2004
Californians were sold a bill of goods back in the mid-1980s. They were told that a state lottery dedicated to public education would help solve our schools’ problems. The lottery has not accomplished that and school funding remains a fiscal football to this day. Here are some new stats about the state lottery and the money it generates to schools:
Over the past 18 years, the California Lottery has dispersed $40.03 billion. The money has been distributed between three different categories: 49.8% to lottery winners, 37.2% to education, and 13% for operating costs.
Of the 37.2% set aside for education: 77% goes to salaries and benefits for teachers, classroom aides, nurses, school psychologists and other educators; 18% for textbooks, computers, software, library books and other instructional materials; and 5% for miscellaneous programs and services.
The sales from the California State Lottery over the past four years has been relatively flat, averaging an annual return between $2.8 to $2.9 billion a year. In 2003, total gross sales were $2.78 billion, a decrease of 4.7% from 2002.
California ranked 28th out-of 38 states with sales at $78.40 per capita. This compares to Florida, which ranked 12th with sales at $168.51 per capita, and Texas that ranked fifteenth with sale at $141.53 per capita.
“Algebra Challenge
III” – June 21, 2004
Loyal Leonard Letter readers know of
my disappointment in the thousands of waivers granted to students who have not
learned enough basic algebra to successfully pass that portion of the High
School Exit exam. To show how easy the questions are, I have been offering
some sample problems from the exit exam.
1. Divide a number by 5 and add 4 to the result. The answer is 9. Which of the following equations matches these statements?
A. 4 = 9 + n/5
B. n/5 + 4 = 9
C. 5/n = 4
D. (n+4)/5 = 9
2. If n = 2 and x = 1/2, then n(4-x) =
A. 1
B. 3
C. 7
D. 10
3. If h = 3 and k = 4, then (hk + 4)/2 - 2 =
A. 6
B. 7
C. 8
D. 10
Answers: 1-B, 2-C, 3-A
“Education: Bad News/Good News” – November 8, 2004
Over the past few months, the Department of Education has released data that show an education system in serious crisis. It is important to keep in mind that it some will try to shoot the messenger. Every excuse will be given why it is bad to measure student achievement. It took years of hard political fighting to even get to this point where we are testing students against national norms and minimum standards. Measurement alone does not improve educational quality but properly used it will give educators and policy makers pointers on making needed improvements. We cannot afford to let up on these measures.
Starting with the Early Assessment program. The CSU system has teamed up with California's K-12 schools to provide 11th-graders a way to measure their ability to do college level work. This is a terrific idea. Last Spring nearly 40 percent of all 11th grade students statewide voluntarily took a test to see whether they are ready to handle college-level mathematics and English at CSU. The results are shocking: Only 22 percent were ready to take college English classes and 55 percent were ready for college mathematics.
In addition to this, the number of California schools facing penalties under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act because they failed to meet federal test-score standards rose 45 percent to 1,626 schools, which is about 20 percent of all California schools. This could rise substantially as the requirements under the Act become tougher. By 2014, 100 percent of students in each public school must score "proficient" in reading, writing, and math -- hence, the title “No Child Left Behind.”
Many reformers have been warning us about the decline in educational skills of our students. These tests are concrete proof that the warnings cannot be ignored. Those who would end this testing must be rebuffed so that we can use this information to guide our educational bureaucracy to the needed improvements.
“Golden State Fleece Awards” – November 29, 2004
My thanks to the California Taxpayers Association for identifying these
examples of wasting your valuable dollars that should be used to teach
children:
Parents of students at Santa Cruz County’s Freedom Elementa ry School recently received a letter saying the school would be confiscating “any non-nutritious foods such as Cheetos or chips, sugary snacks, soda, etc.” After parents complained about the school food police, the Superintendent’s office countermanded the confiscation policy.
Nevada Union High School students and parents received a surprise when the first quarter report cards actually included last year’s grades. An audit last year noted the district was behind in technology and the report card error was attributed to a “computer glitch.”
Although the above cost just more than $1000, the Alameda County Office of Education has just wasted $1 million. Back in 1997, the county staff purchased software for attendance reporting before each of the member school districts committed to using it. Three districts did not participate and the software has sat unused since then.
“Different Kinds of
School Reform” – February 7, 2005
Last week, Jack O’Connell, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, was in my hometown of San Bernardino. I commend the Press
Enterprise editorial that preceded his visit by pointing out a major
discrepancy in his statements about public education reform. The Press
Enterprise wrote, “O’Connell sends a contradictory message about vocational
education. He says he wants to make college-prep the ‘default’ curriculum for
high-schoolers, yet also says he ‘recognizes’ that academe isn’t for everyone,
and that many students need training to thrive in technical careers.” It is
not just that academe is not for everyone; it is that it is barely for anyone.
Just more than 20% of California high school graduates go on to four-year
colleges.
If we make the state’s curriculum default to serve that 20%, we ignore the 80% who are either going straight to work or onto community college. We cannot be elitist and ignore both the needs of the majority of students and of California’s job-creators who need employees who understand how to work well. High school students need options in their education and should not be ramroded into either college prep or vocational ed programs. Rather, they should be able to sample from all and then choose a course of study that suits their needs and plans in consultation with their parents and counselors. When we talk about standards, we simply cannot have one standard that fits all. Our children deserve the best education that readies them for their future, and not everyone’s future is college.
“Students Debate Taxes” – February 22, 2005
If you know a high school student with any interest in public policy issues then I recommend the YMCA Youth and Government Program. This last weekend 2,200 California high schoolers took over the Capitol and did the work of Governors, Legislators, Supreme Court Justices, and, yes, Board of Equalization Members. Margaret Pennington of my staff was one of the coaches for the first time ever BOE section. The students did a great job and they did everything we do. They presented the taxpayer’s case, defended the government’s position, followed the Clerk’s rules of order, and then, after asking questions, the Board members voted on the cases. My commendations to a great team. Pictures will be on my web site soon.
“Told You So” – February 22, 2005
A decade ago I got in trouble with the University of California officialdom and their elitist supporters for saying that the then-UC Berkeley Chancellor was nothing more than a professional fundraiser. Not only is this true, it is also sad as there is little leadership at the top of the UC system. The Regents have delegated authority to the administration, the administration to the Academic Senate, and the Senate to the individual department chairs who are unaccountable to the public or to the students. Now in an LA Times piece on the search for the new UC Irvine Chancellor comes this fact: “In a 2001 survey, the American Council on Education found that presidents of public institutions like UC Irvine said fundraising took up more time than any other activity.” Maybe it’s not as controversial when the American Council on Education says it, but it is no less sad.
“Math, New Math, Fuzzy Math, Anti-Fuzzy Math” – March 7, 2005
If you are of my generation, you remember looking at your own children’s math homework and thinking, “huh?” Our children were taught the “new math” and it did not make much sense to those of us who learned traditional math. Now our children, math-impaired as they generally are, are looking at our grandkids’ homework and asking the same question. Mathematics itself is ancient and constant and necessary, but the manner in which it is taught in the U.S. has varied widely in the past few decades. We collectively groan when new test scores are released demonstrating just how poorly U.S. students perform in math compared to their international counterparts. If you have ever asked yourself how this sorry situation came to pass, then I encourage you to read the article “An A-Maze-ing Approach to Math,” by Barry Garelick (see: http://www.educationnext.org/20052/28.html).
Garelick did his research while interning on Capitol Hill, but his frustration began before that, while he was trying to help his daughter do second grade math homework and while tutoring a ninth grader in geometry. He explains how mathematicians themselves have been removed from the curriculum process, that educational fads, textbook companies and national standards have had a stultifying effect on learning, and how reforms are stymied by fearful politicians. His article is a must-read for teachers, parents and school board members who hope to recapture the days when students could actually do basic addition, long division and multiplication, and thus be equipped to learn geometric proofs, calculus and other logic-driven subjects that will render them not just competitive with their global counterparts and functional in daily life.
“Numbers
for Educators” – May 9, 2005
Two nearly identical numbers struck me
last week as carrying a message for educators. First, I read that 88% of California's parents expect their children to get a college degree or higher. Second, data
released showed that in 2003 only 86.6 of what should have been high school
seniors even graduated from high school. (As I have mentioned in this
newsletter before, that number seems inflated to me, sad though that is to
conclude.) Parents have a higher expectation for their children than the
public education system is able to deliver. Educators should take
advantage of these high expectations parent's have for their children and
partner with them. There is no reason that the California high school
graduation rate (comparing entering freshman with the number of graduates four
years later) should not be right at 100%.
“Incentive Pay
Works” – May 9, 2005
The headline above is so obvious that it
should not have to be explained. However, to the teacher union leaders,
such a statement is fighting words. The union defends the “principle”
that the best teachers should be paid exactly the same as the worst
teachers. Now, the story is that the union leaders have discouraged
legislators from even talking to each other about how to get good teachers in
the right classroom. It has long been known that a school campus with
more challenges has a higher percentage of low seniority teachers in a system where
teachers can choose their assignments on the basis of seniority. The
Governor has asked the simple question: what if we paid those senior
teachers more money to teach at those schools where recruiting faculty is
harder?
The May revision of the budget will soon be out, and my hope is that if there is more on-going revenue than predicted in January that the Governor earmark that money not for the K-12 general fund, but for a program that will pay good teachers more if they will take up the challenge to teach in tougher schools. Let the teachers and the district negotiate on how to identify who the good teachers are and how to identify which schools are the tougher, but let state government use its clout to make inventive pay happen despite the nonsensical opposition of union officials.
“Drop-Out Redux” – May
16, 2005
A new report from the Legislative Analyst explains how three very
different groups of high schools students-- dropouts, general track students,
and university bound students—are creating challenges for high schools. The
LAO explains that dropouts constitute 30% of the entering ninth grade class.
Despite the admission that decades of focused programs to reduce the dropout
population have failed, the LAO recommends more new programs. One of the ideas
is to make high schools more “accountable.” It’s a great buzz word, but I have
no idea what they mean. Each dropout costs the school money in reduced state
support, so the schools already have plenty of incentive to keep bodies, if not
students, on campus. Another idea is to increase spending at elementary and
intermediate schools to supposedly identify potential future dropouts and
somehow serve them. That is called throwing money at the problem, and it is
doomed to failure.
I have another idea: do nothing. Make sure that high school adult education and
California's community colleges are funded and available to all. Then, when
these dropouts grow up to the realization that a good job requires a good
education, there will be educational opportunities for them. Not everyone
matures at the same age and not everyone gets it without a few setbacks along
the way. So we should design a system that is there for people when they are
ready and willing to learn.
This would also mean that the high schools could focus on the 70% of the 14-18
years old who want to be there.
“Out
of the Box Schools” – May 23, 2005
In
recent weeks the public discourse on education has focused on spending. The
fight between the Governor and the California Teachers Union over how much
money our schools need has generated debates about how schools function and how
students learn.
First, let me share an idea offered by Senator Tom McClintock. It is not new; I remember writing similar article myself nearly 20 years ago and McClintock has been doing a great job making education spending understandable for a long time now. After pointing out that the K-12 school budget proposed for next year is actually $2.5 billion more than this year, McClintock finds we will be spending $10,084 per student. After removing the money spent at the state Department of Education, we are left with $6,937 per student. McClintock then takes a hypothetical school of 180 students and budgets $6,937 per student. This would give the school “only” $1.2 million to get through a year. Rather then putting those students in an existing school (with the filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs and other physical problems we have seen), he proposes leasing luxury commercial office space. Then he wants to hire five teachers—associate professors from Cal State paid at their current rate. He says “since university professors generally assign more reading, we’ll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student’s name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.” He considers that since the childhood obesity epidemic seems to indicate that our P.E. classes are not working, he proposes an annual membership at a private health club for each student. “Finally, we’ll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because, well, I don’t know exactly why but we always have.” Here is the budget:
Five classrooms in leased office space: $158,400
150 desks @ $130 each: $19,500
180 annual health club memberships @ $480 each: $86,400
2,160 textbooks @ $80 each: $172,800
Five CSU professors @ $67,093: $225,465
One administrator: $80,000
One secretary: $40,000
24% benefits for faculty and staff: $109,312
Offices, expenses and insurance: $30,000
Total = $1,031,877
Second, I have heard many creative ideas from educators and parents. Consider these options: changing the school calendar so it is no longer based on the agrarian lifestyle; altering school hours and having schools offer before- and after-school programs; grouping students by ability rather than grade; having students work on computers that either move them forward when they have mastered a skill or keep reviewing a skill in different ways until it is mastered; creating classes that teach student work skills so that if they do not want to go to college they will be prepared to take on productive jobs.
All of these have value. Some schools might thrive in a non-traditional campus setting. Some students might excel in a technology-based environment. Some families might benefit from different schedules. The problem is that in our current, top-heavy, centralized education system, none of these options can be explored. Creativity is squashed. The pendulum swings all the way in one direction (“outcome-based” education) to the other (excluding everything that does not appear on a standardized test) and back again. We have to dismantle the system, toss out the concept that one-size-fits-all, and enable parents to find the education option that is best for their children.
“State Pencils” –
June 13, 2005
A quote from a
school teacher at one of those anti-Schwarzenegger rallies reflects my major
frustration over this whole school funding debate. The reporter quoted this
teacher as saying that the state only gives her one pencil per month for each
of her students. Like most other teachers, she digs into her own pocket to buy
pencils when a student needs another pencil before the month is up.
The state does not buy pencils. Nor with all of its volumes of educational regulations does it set a quota for pencil usage in California's schools. The teacher and the reporter both reflect the unquestioning myths about state support of schools. The state sends money, not pencils, to school districts. The amount of money is roughly equal to the average public school support in every other state in the nation. Individual school districts decide how to spend the money. With all of these tax dollars going to schools, it is shocking and sad how little of it actually ever gets inside a classroom.
Some
fiscal administrator at this teacher's district office decided that her
students needed only one pencil per month. The money that could have been
spent on more pencils was spent elsewhere. The administrators of school districts,
guided by the school board, decide where this money goes. If merely 5% of the
school budgets were shifted to hiring more teachers, buying more textbooks,
and, yes, buying more pencils, the new amounts for these purposes would be in
the billions. I sure would like to see some district try this.
“Doctor, Doctor” – July 11, 2005
It may not be the end of western civilization, but it is
close. I am speaking of the power play by the California State University system to begin granting doctorate degrees, which once was the exclusive province of
the University of California. It’s not that doctorates are bad in and of
themselves that has kept CSU from offering them; it’s the known fact that
universities put more money into post-graduate research projects than into
undergraduate work. CSU was supposed to be the workhorse of the state’s higher
education system, teaching undergraduate students. Now it will divide its
resources between the undergraduates and the doctoral candidates. I suppose
that would not be so bad if CSU was excelling at its current mission, but it is
failing at this core mission and should not take on additional responsibility.
It spends more than one billion dollars per year teaching college students high
school level coursework, and many of these students really do not catch up and
truly achieve the fullness of a bachelor’s degree education. Having CSU now
grant doctoral degrees is like the city granting me a building permit to add a
second story onto my home when my basement is flooded and my first floor is
collapsing. It will be a sad day for education in California if the legislature
rubberstamps this bad deal.
“Leonard Law” –
August 22, 2005
Imagine you were running a college program to train new teachers. You have to write a list of “professional dispositions” that students are “expected to demonstrate” during their classes and field work. What might you put on that list? What professional qualities might you want future teachers to develop? I jotted down a few: excellence in academics, good communication, ability to inspire students, effective classroom discipline, flexibility in teaching skills depending on students’ learning styles, ages, abilities, etc. Then I read the actual Professional Dispositions code for the College of Education at San Jose State University. It says that students should be reflective, responsible, committed to professionalism, and committed to fairmindedness and equity. That seemed a little odd at first glance and looked even more suspicious when I read the “indicators” of these dispositions. For example, one demonstrates a commitment to fairmindedness and equity in these ways: “treats others with respect, courtesy and dignity; is intolerant of all forms of harassment, discrimination, and exploitation; recognizes the need for differences to ensure equal treatment of all.”
The problem with these pleasant, harmonizing words is that
they themselves are used to harass. This Professional Disposition code is
simply a new form of the “speech codes” that were used to punish people,
generally conservatives, on college campuses in the 1990s. I recently received
a complaint from a student at the school who was graded down for expressing an
unorthodox view. Implicit in such speech codes or professional dispositions is
that students must express the tolerant views of the administration, not their
own thoughts, freely arrived at, no matter how well supported by research or
citations. I authored a law (S.B. 1115 of 1991) to prevent students from being
punished solely for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, but
clearly there still is a gap between the intent of that law and how students
who express unpopular views are treated on campus.
“What Is 7 Times 8
Today?” – October 31, 2005
I have long been a critic of many
standardized tests used in our public education system. Usually those tests
are for students, but I learned recently about a question on our state’s test
for teachers, the CBEST. Leonard Letter reader Barry Garelick has said it all
very well himself, so I will not repeat his thoughts here. I will tease you
with this line from the test question: “What many people fail to
understand is that mathematics is constantly evolving; it is not a fixed body
of facts.” As one commentator noted, “Has anyone checked what 7 times 8 is
today?” Go see for yourself at
http://www.kitchentablemath.net/twiki/bin/view/Kitchen/OpenLetter
Garelick reports that one day after his article was posted,
the question was removed.
“School Governance” – November 8, 2005
The new Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, has announced his interest in getting LA schools to do a
better job. Right on, Mr. Mayor! I know a previous Mayor, Dick Riordan, also
made this a priority and I commend both of their efforts. Fifty some years ago
the state made a major policy change in school governance. Up until the 1950s,
schools were governed not by boards of education but by mayors and city councils.
It is now clear that is was a mistake to set up the single purpose government
entity called a school district.
Cities have a tremendous
stake in the academic success of their schools. Just as the city leadership
influences a city's success by the infrastructure they build and by the proper
use of their planning and zoning powers, city leadership used to be able to
control the quality of their schools. These powers should be restored so that
the electorate can focus on the leadership of their entire community by their
votes for mayor and council.
“CTA –
Check Your Calendar” – November 14, 2005
A small item in today’s Sacramento Bee noted that the California
Teachers’ Association conducted candidate interviews on Thursday to figure out
whom to spend their dollars on next year. I was also invited to be
interviewed, and I appreciate the support the CTA has lent me in the past, but
I declined this recent invitation since the connection between my present job
and education policymaking is so tenuous that it does not merit comment.
However, I was struck by CTA’s timing. In their letter to me, they said they
would decide their endorsements in January. This seems very odd since the
filing deadline for those to declare their candidacy for the 2006 election is
not until March 10. This creates the possibility that the CTA could endorse
candidates who will not even be on the ballot, or they might neglect to endorse
greater friends for their cause who have yet to declare their candidacy.
“The UC Exposes
Itself” – November 14, 2005
I have been meaning to comment on a story I read a few weeks ago in the
Wall Street Journal. It featured a sad episode between a Christian school in California vs. UC Riverside. The school, Calvary Chapel in Murietta, sent a description of
some of its courses to UC Riverside for review because some of the Academy
students aspire to attend UCR. The university’s undergraduate director of
admissions rejected some of the courses as not legitimate preparation for UC.
From the article, it is clear that what is really going on is blatant bigotry
against Christians. Calvary Chapel has filed suit in district court.
According to the Journal, an English class titled “Christian Morality in
American Literature,” which featured writers like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane and
Nathaniel Hawthorne, was rejected because, according to the university, it did
not offer a non-biased approach to the subject matter. The incredulous Wall
Street Journal reporter compared this to other courses approved by the
university like, “Feminine Perspective in Literature” and “Ethnic Perspectives
in Literature.” Another example, “Christianity’s Influence on America,” is too narrow but “Armenian History” is OK. You get the drift.
My first reading of this story made me angry. But on second thought, the humanities departments at our public universities have been so hostile and contemptuous of Christian values for so long, I have decided it is better to be grateful that they are no longer hiding it. As the university has abandoned people of faith so now it is understandable that people of faith will abandon the government-owned universities. It is a sad end to a history of academic inquiry that began with the creation of the university by the church in the Middle Ages.
“A Good Read:
Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy” – November 28, 2005 (listed as Microsoft doc ‘1118’)
I have in recent weeks talked about the need for immigrants to this
country to assimilate. Such assimilation is not limited to being fluent in
English. It must also include a knowledge of the shared information that is
“the foundation of our public discourse,” which allows us to “comprehend our
daily newspapers and news reports, to understand our peers and leaders, and
even to share our jokes.” E.D. Hirsch, Jr. first wrote about this concept in
“Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know” in 1987. He tied his
discussion to the need for educational reform and explained how the skill of
reading must be linked to the content of what is read. His criticism of
education at that time was right on: schools had abdicated their responsibility
to impart this cultural knowledge and were shifting to the dismal “whole
language” approach to reading. Hirsch ended the book with an actual list of
what every American who graduates from high school should know. He followed
that up with “The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,” which expands on the list
by telling the stories connected to each piece of knowledge. Hirsch updated
“Cultural Literacy” in 2002, and I recommend you pick up this new version and a
copy of the Dictionary. You can test your own knowledge, and make sure that the
young people in your life are familiar with the concepts that make them
uniquely American.
“Making More of
Money for Schools” – January 3, 2006
If there is one thing voters want to fund more than roads, it is
schools. Yet in most states, only one-half to two-thirds of every dollar
designated for public education actually makes it into the classroom. The rest
of the money is spent on business operations like transportation, food services
and administration. Those costs tend to be driven down in large districts
where there are economies of scale, but the downside is that student
performance tends to be higher in small districts, not large ones. Dr. Dan King
of San Bernardino talked with me about this paradox more than two decades ago.
A new study by the Reason Foundation and Deloitte Research finds a middle ground between these two choices: shared services. The report (available at http://www.reason.org/ps339.pdf) details how small school districts can join together to create economies of scale for everything from instructional services to transportation, real estate services and human resources management. The report also discusses the benefits of decentralization, and I was particularly impressed with the story of John Hay Elementary School in Seattle. There the principal worked with her teachers to develop a new class schedule and hire part-time reading and math coaches. Reading was taught in small groups of five to seven students and gifted students experienced “turbo-tutoring” to challenge them. In four years, the school’s math scores rose from the 36th percentile to the 62nd and reading jumped four percentiles.
“A Weighty Matter?”
– February 6, 2006
A few weeks ago I published this question as a sample of math questions
on the high school exit exam: “A shopkeeper has x kilograms of tea in stock. He
sells 15 kilograms and then receives a new shipment 2y kilograms. Which
expression represents the mass of the tea he now has?” One observant reader
wrote back with this point: “Kilogram is a unit of mass….Weight is a measure of
the attractive force between the matter and the Earth, the moon, or whatever.
Mass is
measured by using a balance to compare it to other masses. Weight is measured
with a spring scale. Weight of an object varies with location. Mass does not.
Weight is also measured in pounds...”
So I asked the Department of Education to respond to his factually correct analysis. The Department offered the following explanation: “We understand the point brought up by the question, but items used to assess learning on this mathematics standard may be written from a business or everyday perspective, rather than a scientific perspective, as they do not assess knowledge of the difference between weight and mass. In business and in everyday usage, weight and mass are not distinguished and are commonly used synonymously. For example, shipping companies charge by 'weight' and not by 'mass'….This item adheres to the test item specifications for the standard it assesses and was also deemed acceptable by the teacher committees that reviewed this item prior to its use on the exam. The subsequent statistics for this item supported its clarity and effectiveness.”
“Teachers Just
‘Fudge’” – February 27, 2006
My article last week about educators’ use of group learning techniques
generated strong reactions from several teachers. One teacher said that if
teacher put five students in a group, then they have one-fifth of the
papers/projects to grade. On the other hand, one teacher told me how her
colleagues get around the silliness of some education fads, like group
learning: they fudge. These teachers know what works with students and they do
not want to be forced into experimental or ineffectual classroom methods. So,
they submit lesson plans that conform with the latest “requirement” but they do
not teach to those lesson plans. Instead, they stick with what they know works
in their classroom. One problem with this is that administrators reviewing
good results might think the falsified lesson plans deserve credit when
actually it is the ingenuity of a good teacher. The other problem this
identifies is some principals being completely out of touch with what is
happening in the classrooms on their campuses. I am curious about how
widespread this practice is, and while I cannot advocate lying, I also cannot
condemn a professional who wants to do right by their students. I welcome your
stories and experiences on this topic. Send your thoughts to me at billleonard@billleonard.org.
“Educrats
Need Paddling” – April 3, 2006
I went to high school and college in the 1960's during tumultuous times
of students protests. When students abandoned classrooms for the streets they
confronted “the man.” Educators told students to get back to class or face
punishment. This sometimes escalated to sit-ins and other protests, forcing
educators to manage situations where they were ill equipped. Ronald Reagan made
his early reputation as the new Governor in telling students how lucky they
were to have state subsidized education and in telling administrators to find
their back bone.
Fast forward to today. School officials are assisting, encouraging, and
promoting student protests on immigration policy. What once was a protest
against the system is now a school sponsored field trip. Have these officials
lost their minds? Now that they have told all students that truancy has no
consequences, how do you get them back in school? Mayor Villaraigosa, after
congratulating them for abandoning their classes, then told the students to go
back to school and was booed for his comments.
Maybe we should use student protests as an incentive. Hey kids, you can leave
school today to protest but only if you have already passed the High School
Exit Exam.
“Stupid in
America” – April 3, 2006
For a terrific summary of what is wrong with America’s public education
system, see John Stossel’s column, “Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice
Cheats Kids Out of a Good Education” at this link:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1500338
One of the most intriguing parts of Stossel’s article is a profile of a charter school in Oakland, California, run by principal Ben Chavis. Chavis formerly worked as a public school principal but now he runs an alternative school that spends thousands of dollars less per student than neighboring public schools. Despite that, his middle school students have the highest test score in the city. He says, “It’s not about the money,” and he saves it by having students keep the campus neat, set up their own cafeteria for lunch and just go for a run for physical education. The article also compares our public school system with those in Europe, explores the difficulty of firing bad teachers, and discusses the lengths to which parents will go to enroll their children in better schools than the ones they are assigned to geographically.
“A Good Read:
Graham’s Schooling in America” – April 3, 2006
For anyone curious or concerned about the state of public schools in America, I recommend “Schooling America: How the Public Schools Meet the Nation’s Changing
Needs” by Patricia Albjerg Graham. The book is not quite the defense of public
education one expects from the title, but it is a quality look at the history
of American public schools. Using her own family’s immigrant history, Graham
explains how public school adapted to meet the needs of the huge immigrant
population in the early 1900s. The goal of public schools was to assimilate
the children of immigrants into American society. By the middle of the
century, schools were changing again to address critics who demanded attention
for desegregated classes, programs for the gifted, the disabled and the poor.
Finally, she discusses the current demand for accountability by way of high
test scores. On the subject of research into successful educational methods,
she writes: “[W]e treat schools as doughnuts. We are very good at explaining
the periphery (the demographics of students, the teachers, the funding) but we
do not understand the hole in the center (what makes the child learn). I do
not agree with all of her points, but her historical perspective of schools
changing because of social demands is instructive, and her concluding
discussion about the importance of schools in a democracy is not something we
hear often enough these days. She writes, “What the country needs now is the
enhancement of both the wit and the character of the young, and such efforts
should be at the heart of our educational institutional efforts. Wit is a more
inclusive term for knowledge than academic achievement. Character includes the
secular traits of integrity, ingenuity, and hard work, both individually and
collectively, that our democracy needs.” She cites these personal attributes
as the causes of American triumphs and wonders, appropriately so, from whence
will come the force that will help bring such wit and character to our modern
schools.
“A+ Response to
Exam” – May 15, 2006
As high school graduation day approaches throughout California, the
media is focused on the first class of graduates required to pass the
California High School Exit Exam. Judge Robert B. Freedman issued a ruling
last week saying that because poor students do not have an equal education,
they do not have an equal chance of passing the test. Therefore, he concludes,
the test cannot be required to receive a diploma. Recently, the West Contra Costa Unified School District actually debated defying state law and giving
diplomas to students who did not pass the exam. I wish to commend a member of
the West Contra Costa Unified School District Board of Trustees who spoke on
the matter with a clarity that seemed missing in news coverage of the exit exam
and the court case. Trustee Karen Pfeiffer told students who were objecting to
the quality of their schools, which they blame for their failure to pass, “We
are charged to deliver education to you, and it is your job to show up and
learn.” Kudos to Pfeiffer for placing responsibility on students and their
parents. She also said, “To continue to pretend that student who can’t pass
this relatively simple exam are high school graduates and should get a diploma
is a disservice to the students and the community.” Double kudos for reminding
us that standards must actually mean something and have substance and value.
The majority of the Board voted to keep the state requirement in place.
“There’s
More To It Than Money” – June 12, 2006
Notwithstanding the importance of education dollars actually getting
into classrooms to help teachers do their jobs of imparting knowledge, skills
and character to students, money is not everything. This sentiment was
captured perfectly by Santa Clara County School Board member and Stanford
Hoover Institute fellow Bill Evers in a recently San Jose Mercury News
article. For full text, see:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14638652.htm
Next week, it is likely that the legislature will pass the Governor’s budget that proposes to spend more than $67 billion on California’s public schools. That is a lot of money; Evers says it is $11,300 per student. Evers also says that a new study shows that California “has the highest average teacher salary in the country when state income taxes and mandatory retirement contributions are netted out.” What is noteworthy about the Governor’s education spending plan this year, according to Evers, is the Governor’s “focus on ensuring that we reap a bountiful harvest from what we sow in education—that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth out of our schools and not just continuing to write check after check, to no avail.” To accomplish this, Schwarzenegger designates money for unbureaucratic charter schools and $2 billion for discretionary spending. I join Evers in appreciating these aspects of the budget and acknowledging that local control and cutting red tape can make great things happen for our students.
“Slivers of Money”
– July 3, 2006
One the state budget stories last week got me ranting at the press
again. A Sacramento Bee writer opened her story with the line, “A small
sliver -- less than 1 percent -- of the $131 billion budget...” Do you
know how big a “small sliver” is? In this case, it’s over a quarter of a
billion dollars. Of all of the state's competing priorities for public
funding, for any specific program to get one percent is a big deal and not
a sliver. After all, add up just 100 of those one percent slivers and you
will have spent the entire budget. I am not asking for reporters to be
math geniuses, but I would appreciate some proper perspective.
Which brings me to my second rant: the sliver in the story is new money being
dedicated to the high school exam. This is the exam that makes sure that
high school graduates have at least an eighth grade education in math and
English. Now you might think that the billions of dollars going to California's government schools would include eighth grade math and English. And I
know they do include this. But some kids who are not exempt from the exam
are still unable to pay attention long enough to pick up these skills by the
end of the twelfth grade. So the state budget has a plan. These
educrats want to spend almost $300 million on extra classes and counseling for
those who do not pass this exam. I want these kids to pass this test, but
I do have to point out: this is school money that is not going to school
districts as part of the general education apportionments. My guess that
this money will not change the pass rate by much at all, and it should have
been left to the discretion of the local school board to decide how to
spend.
“Higher Standards,
Not!” – July 17, 2006
An interesting item in the LA Times last week. They reported that the University of California is raising the minimum grade point average (GPA) of applicants up from 2.8 to 3.0. Your first thought might be that UC is raising its standards and we should expect brighter graduates in the future. Not. The truth is that UC must rule eligible the top 12.5% of each high school graduating class. They do that by setting a GPA at which only 12.5% are at or above. So this is not an example of higher standards at all, just a reflection of grade inflation at the high school level. As with monetary inflation, higher number = decreasing value. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc13jul13,1,203420.story?coll=la-headlines-california
“School
Construction” – August 28, 2006
One of the choices voters will face on this November’s ballot is Prop.
1D, a $10+ billion school bond. Knowing that, I read with interest an Ohio
Legislative Service Commission study about the costs of school construction in
that state. The study found that a 1997 law exempting public school
construction from prevailing wage laws reduced the cost of school construction
by more than 10 percent. I suspect the difference in California would be more
pronounced, and imagine what an extra $1 billion could build.
“Expertise and
Bias” – September 18, 2006
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, another misnamed special
interest group, is attacking Speaker Nunez for appointing a leader of the
California Teachers’ Association to the Stem Cell Research Citizens Financial
Accountability and Oversight Committee. Their attack centers on the fact
that John Hein is not an expert on stem cells. Given the unbelievable
conflict of interests in the scientific research community, I think it is
important that the appointee not be a stem cell expert, but instead be an
expert in smelling out corruption. John Hein, who has always been a
straight shooter on behalf of the teachers, is perfectly qualified to recognize
financial abuses.
I compare it to the days when I served on the budget subcommittee on
education. I am not a certificated teacher, but I could do the math and
figure out that less and less money was getting to the classroom while more and
more money was being diverted to administrators and consultants who never had
any contact with students. Some considered me to be the skunk at the
administrators’ trough of money, but my duty was to the taxpayers and the
students, not the bureaucrats. Best wishes to John Hein as he reviews the
stem cell trough of money. It certainly is a target rich environment.
“Survey Shames America’s Elite Colleges” – November 6, 2006
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a new study out that is a
comprehensive survey of how well America’s colleges are teaching basic
civics. The results are a wake-up call. The University of
Connecticut Department of Public Policy assisted with the survey to produce the
results in “The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to
Teach America's History and Institutions”
In the fall of 2005, UConn surveyed more than 14,000 randomly selected college
freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities across the country to
measure their knowledge in American history, government, America and the world,
and the market economy. ISI characterize the results as constituting
nothing less than a coming crisis in American citizenship. I agree.
Just a few of the findings:
“Seniors scored just 1.5 percent higher on average than freshmen…At many
colleges, including Brown, Georgetown, and Yale, seniors know less than
freshmen about America's history, government, foreign affairs, and economy. We
characterize this phenomenon as "negative learning. "A majority
of the 16 schools where senior scores were actually lower than freshman scores
are considered to be among the most prestigious colleges in the United States.”
Here is their sample quiz if you are like me and wondering if you can do better
than today’s college seniors (answers below). I found them to be
depressingly easy. A specific date to the second question might have
stumped me, but not the range.
1) Which of the following are the
unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?
2) During which period was the American Constitution amended to guarantee women the right to vote?
A. 1850 – 1875
B. 1876 – 1900
C. 1901 – 1925
D. 1926 – 1950
E. 1951 – 1975
3) In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
A. argued for the abolition of slavery.
B. advocated black separatism.
C. morally defended affirmative action.
D. expressed his hopes for racial justice and brotherhood.
E. proposed that several of America’s founding ideas were discriminatory.
4) Which of the following was an alliance to resist Soviet expansion?
A. United Nations.
B. League of Nations.
C. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
D. Warsaw Pact.
E. Asian Tigers.
5) Which of the following is the best measure of production or output of an economy?
Answers: 1E, 2C, 3D, 4C, 5A
Read the whole report and check out ISI’s recommendations to turn this around:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html
“Judges Should Not
Legislate” – January 2, 2007
An LA County judge has read into the state's constitution that a 1946
vote to remove restrictive language requiring school governance by cities from
the Constitution was really an order for the Legislature to never allow schools
to share power with cities. The truth is that the people were removing a
restriction from the Constitution and giving the Legislature power to develop
the best methods for school governance. Now after 60 years of schools being
governed by single interest-- school boards dominated by single interests-- it
is time to try new methods.
I do not know if Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bold plan to have the Mayor share
power with the school board will work, but I defend his and the Legislature's
ability to try different methods that will push our public schools to do the
job. What is wrong with tailoring governance over school policy to fit the
community? What is wrong with the Legislature authorizing experiments and
demonstrations in how to deliver education services like charter schools,
larger school boards, elections by area or district-wide? There is no bar in
the Constitution to these actions, and this judge should run for the
Legislature if she wants to vote on school governance.
“Missing Senators”
– January 16, 2007
The mainstream press has again missed a political story. Governor
Schwarzenegger's appointee to the State Board of Education, Joe Nunez, was on a
deadline to be confirmed to that board by the Senate. The vote was
scheduled by the Senate leadership with only days to go. Republican
Senators had been in opposition to the nominee for months and it should not
have been a surprise to the press that the Republicans voted against Nunez’s
confirmation. Democrat Senators had been supportive of this teacher/union
leader nominated by the Governor. Yet the headlines all say “GOP kills
appointment”. The truth is that two Republican Senators crossed over and
voted for Nunez. Their two votes combined with all 25 Democrat Senators
would have given Nunez the 27 votes he needed, but he lost 25-11. That means
that the Democrats actually killed his appointment. The press should be
asking Senators Vincent and Calderon if their abstentions were purposeful.
“Kudos to West Covina School Board” – January 29, 2007
Kudos to my friend Mike Spence, the West Covina School Board Member who successfully
passed a resolution that will have the school district using the Department of Homeland
Security’s Basic Pilot Program to screen employees for their eligibility to work legally in the
U.S. According to Carl Olson, Chairman of State Department Watch, West Covina is the first
school district in the nation to take this important step. Spence won the unanimous support of his
colleagues for this common sense approach to employment screening and it shows that there are
some in government who still care about being role models for the Rule of Law.
If you are a business owner who wants to take advantage of this free online system to help ensure
that you do not unwittingly hire an illegal immigrant, go to:
https://www.vis-dhs.com/EmployerRegistration/StartPage.aspx?JS=YES&AccessMethod=
“Education
Underfunded, So Are We All” – March 12, 2007
The press is buzzing with leaks from big studies about education. The
"news" angle is that education is underfunded. Yet, asking anyone if
they want more money is the wrong approach. We already know the answer to that
question and the obvious answer is not newsworthy.
What would be useful is to ask educators for ideas about how to spend school dollars more effectively. Or ask what programs could be axed and the money shifted to another with no loss. Or ask teachers what one thing the district could do more them to help them avoid failure with their students.
I know the studies have not yet been released, but unless there is better quality than what has been leaked thus far, then this “new” study of education will be a waste.
“Schools Send Home
a Bill” – March 12, 2007
I just read that some school districts around the state are sending
voluntary bills to parents whose children miss school for reasons other than
illness. One district’s bill says, “Are the ski slopes calling? Are you taking
the kids to Disneyland midweek to avoid the crowds? If so, we would encourage
you to reconsider. When your child misses school, there are consequences for
the student and the district.” The invoice that accompanies the note is for
$36.13 per day per student.
While some parents are sending in the check, others are laughing at the absurdity of getting a bill from a government monopoly attempting to enforce a criminal code that says your child must be in school. Why do parents have their children not attend school sometimes? Maybe some of them question the value of the education that is being provided. Parents are paying property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes to fund these government schools, and still they decide that a day off school with the family is more important. My take is that it is their choice. This is another line in the battle of who owns your kids: you or the government? How about this turn-about is fair play? For every day that kid comes home and says that he learned nothing in school, maybe you should send the school district a bill for $36.13.
“The Private Sector is Leading an Education Revolution” – March, 12, 2007
Education is going through profound changes and the changes are coming at lightning speed. The traditional media may miss large parts of this story, but parents will not. In the February edition of Popular Science we are given a glimpse of this in an interview with Sun co-founder Scott McNealy about his nonprofit, Curriki. The article notes that California spends around $400 million per year to replace old textbooks. McNealy wants to take that down to near zero. He is progressing toward this goal by posting entire textbooks online at his site, curriki.org: http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome
McNealy plans to add lesson plans and other resources to the site. He got the idea when his daughter asked him about electricity. He went searching for some web-based way of teaching this to his daughter and ended up on a welding site. Curriki is his solution, and the Sun open-source philosophy allows users to participate by adding new content themselves. Brilliant.
“Frustrated with
English Learning” – March 19, 2007
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education’s Director of the
Office of English Language Acquisition, Kathleen Leos, held an on-line chat
about the subject of teaching English to non-English speakers. The link below
will take you to the full transcript of the chat, which may frustrate you as
much as it did me. The complaints from educators around the country are serious
and heartfelt. The Director’s response are stilted and bureaucratic,
referencing funding available for various programs but seemingly disconnected
from the passion of the subject. Most disturbing, however, was the airing
given to a 2005 Urban Institute Report showing that 56% of children who enter
high school with limited English language ability are actually born in the U.S.
One in nine U.S. students are labeled “limited English proficient” now and by 2025, that ratio will be one in four. How on earth we think we can maintain our status as a world leader in the economy, in ideas, in science, in anything, when 25% of our students cannot speak English proficiently is beyond me. That children can be born in this country, spend their early years in public school classrooms and yet make it to high school without having mastered the language is unfathomable. And how parents, who should by nature want the very best for their children, put up with such underachievement and allow their children to continue in this educational slump, is deeply disturbing. Parents must demand more from themselves and their children, and educators must be freed to use the best language teaching methods instead of being hampered by regulations and restrictions.
See the transcript of Leos’s on-line chat at this link:
"Documentary on the Corruption of Universities" - April 2, 2007
Evan Coyne Maloney is a talented young documentary film maker. His low-budget, no-frills work has gotten a lot of attention over the last few years in conservative circles. One work of his I particularly enjoyed was of him interviewing anti-war protesters in which he asked the protesters to guess the author of a quote about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. The actual speaker of the quote was Al Gore, which made for some amusing reactions from those being interviewed as they guessed Bush instead. It’s Maloney’s willingness to engage far left people along with his self-effacing style and fairness that make him stand apart.
His latest film is wonderful and disturbing at the same time. It is called “Indoctrinate U” and focuses on the intellectual atmosphere on campuses across the nation. This film is long overdue. For way too long, people have been tolerant in letting a certain point of view dominate America’s campuses. Conservative-leaning students have known for last 30 years – at least – that in order to succeed, especially in the liberal arts, they have to hide who they really are because it is well known that professors punish conservative students for not towing their line. Young conservatives are given the friendly advice to “just get through it” or “tell them what they want to hear” and then upon graduation they are only then allowed to be their real selves. That is shameful and it needs to stop.
What I really like about Maloney’s approach is he is not shilling for the Republican Party. That is not the issue. Rather, Maloney just wants universities to go back to being a safe place for people to voice ideas without fearing damage to their future prospects in life for doing so. That is the correct approach. What is also wonderful about the film is that Maloney does not just cherry- pick disgruntled conservative students, he interviews many professors as well. Some of these are self described architects of the political correct atmosphere on campus and they agree that things have gone too far toward a certain narrow vision that is not healthy for the schools, nor the nation
Check out this site for a showing of this movie near you. If you have kids nearing college age, this movie is an eye-opener. http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
"Students of Liberty" - April 30, 2007
Much of the news about public policy proposals in California this year has demonstrated the need for refresher courses in the concept of liberty. While it may be too late for many legislators, I encourage college students to participate in one of the many free seminars offered this summer by the Institute for Humane Studies. IHS is run out of George Mason University, but the seminars are held at locations all over the country. The seminars are heavy on fascinating discussions lead by distinguished faculty and tremendous opportunities to socialize with other students who are committed to the ideals of liberty. They are free to participants and range from the beginning level, “Exploring Liberty” to more specific topics of journalism or globalization. One of my staff members has participated in several IHS seminars and speaks highly of the intellectual stimulation, historical background and fascinating reading. If you, or a college student you know are intrigued by personal freedom and responsibility, then I encourage you to check out these seminars and see how you can advance the cause of liberty.
“Still
No Satisfactory End to Eastin Scandal” – May 7, 2007
A small news item in the Sac Bee took me down memory lane.
“A Sacramento jury has awarded $7.6 million to a California Department of
Education whistle-blower who was retaliated against after he reported the
misappropriation of millions of dollars in government funds. The funds
were handed out to community-based organizations between 1995 and 2000 to teach
English as a second language to adults. Some of the schools turned out to
be non-existent.”
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160661.html
---- more background:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2004/cap_04-06-17.html
According to Pacific Research Institute, during the period in question the
Department of Education failed to conduct a single on-site audit of any school
district in the state.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/grand_theft_education.pdf
First of all, thank goodness that Jim Lindberg at the Department of Education
did the right thing and blew the whistle on this massive fraud. It was
found that both the Department, and former Superintendent of Public Instruction
Delaine Eastin, retaliated against the whistleblower rather than stop the
fraud. A jury had originally awarded the whistleblower $4.5 million in
2002, but the state stupidly appealed. Now, this new jury has almost
doubled the award. Clearly, it is time for California to cry uncle and
pay this guy.
Since these were actually federal grant monies, the feds did their own
investigation, and in 2001 indicted a couple of the groups’ leaders who falsely
took this money. No one from the Department of Education was
indicted. The Department gave the federal government back $3.3
million for the fraudulent dispersal of the federal money. Millions in
state funds are still not accounted for.
The state should hold hearings on this matter. State Superintendent Jack
O’Connell should be asked whether the recommendations in the state auditor’s
report were ever instituted and whether additional efforts have been made to
get the peoples’ money back.
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/99121.pdf
“Memo to Eastin:
You Lost” – May 14, 2007
Kudos to Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Yorba
Linda) for holding the Department of Education’s feet to the fire. The
San Jose Mercury News reports that Duvall has been pressing the department for
details how they are paying for the attorneys that have thus far not succeeded
in prevailing against a department whistleblower. The department says $4
million has been set aside just to pay for private attorneys to defend the
department and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine
Eastin. The story is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5856349?source=email
What I find incredible is the statements by the department, and in particular,
Delaine Eastin, who along with the department was found liable by two
juries. The first jury found that Eastin “acted with malice” and held her
personally liable for $1.45 million in damages. That jury awarded the
whistleblower $4.5 million in total. The department appealed the
decision at public expense. Last month, a second jury upped the damages
to $7.6 million.
In the Mercury-News article last week Eastin was quoted saying, “It really is
taking money away from the children to give to a guy who’s really no more
entitled to it than a man on the moon.” Think about the chutzpah of
that statement.
The former superintendent was in
charge when more than $3.3 million in federal money and untold millions in
state education money were given to people to buy Mercedes Benzes and other
luxuries with no oversight whatsoever. Then, to make it worse, she
treated the revealer of this fraud not with respect or appreciation, but in a
way that is now going to cost the state another $7 million in damages, plus
perhaps $4 million in legal fees and she is accusing OTHER people of taking
money away from California schools.
“Evaluating
Education” – May 14, 2007
“Spending on education has gone up, but the way tax dollars are spent
has not changed much over the years. On some programs…California Department of
Education officials still have no idea where the money goes or what it does.
Government education programs are poorly evaluated, if they are at all. Even if
there is decent evaluation work done, lawmakers largely ignore the research
evidence when making funding decisions.” Those few sentences should compel you
to want to read the Pacific Research Institute’s fourth annual California
Education Report Card by Lance Izumi and Rachel Chaney with Xiaochin Claire
Yan.
The Report Card grades the state on 17 categories, giving only one “A” but six “F”s. Let’s start with the good news. The “A” grade came in the category of Standards. Izumi writes, “California has one of the best sets of academic standards in the nation. The problem for the state and its students has been inconsistent implementation of the standards in the classroom.” That takes us to the failing grades. Among the Report Card’s observations:
I have a keen interest in education policy and when I was a legislator, I clamored for more research about the school bills we were voting on. I did not want to simply ride the pendulum back and forth from one education fad to another. Yet, that is what the system did then and it is what continues to mire it down today. Legislators must have access to and take the time to study evidence and research, and the educrats in Sacramento and in school administrative offices around the state must do better than merely oversee a system that gets a report card like the one Pacific Research Institute has issued.
For the full report, go to:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/2007/Report_Card/index.html
“Free Speech for
Thee, but Not for Me” – July 2, 2007
Senator Kuehl is advancing a bill (SB 777) that will make it harder for
Christians, Jews, Moslems, and members of other traditional faiths to enroll
their children in public schools and make it even harder for public school
teachers who are religious to reconcile their day job with their faith.
The bill seeks to prohibit textbooks, teaching or activities from promoting
bias against homosexuals, transgenders, or bisexuals. Harassment is wrong, but
I am not aware of public school textbooks or curriculum that rile up students
to attack or demean homosexuals. What this bill really does is prohibit
truthful information while suppressing affirmation of the traditional family
structure. For teachers who respect chastity and family integrity this
makes for a contradiction between what they believe and what they can
say.
While most people in American today are tolerant of people with different behaviors, it is a very big step for the law to prohibit teaching that certain behaviors are often risky to health, or that these behaviors are different from historical families. At a time when the public is pushing for more ethics and character-education in schools, this bill -- it is just a few votes from the Governor's desk-- would force drastic changes in the free flow of ideas and honest discussion in schools. I would not be surprised to see lots of early retirements from teaching if this controversial and contradictory burden is placed on teachers.
“’Advocates’ for
What?” – August 27, 2007
One news story about last week about the state budget passing with the votes of two Republican Senators included a list of the compromises and concessions that were made by all sides. The first item on the list caught my attention for its irony: “Republican efforts to send more money to suburban school districts was dropped amid opposition from school advocates.” Think about that for a moment. A group of lawmakers were trying to get additional money to certain school districts around the state. Opposition to that additional education money came from “school advocates.” Two questions: 1) who are these “advocates”? and 2) do any of the school districts that just lost out on more money pay any part of their salaries? The answers are obvious to anyone familiar with the making of educational policy in California: 1) teachers’ unions and 2) yes. This also demonstrates the supreme power of the major urban school districts (i.e., Los Angeles and San Francisco) to the detriment of students around California. The Republicans wanted to send more money to the schools in their part of the state, but the bird dogs on the block would not hear of it. Keep in mind, I do not believe that more money equates to improved education for our kids, but usually when more money is offered, “advocates” scoop it up. In this case, they turned up their noses and schools in other areas of our state lose.
“Volunteering to be Fired” – August 27, 2007
Most people dread being fired. The economic uncertainty, the
damage to personal reputation, etc., are discouraging, to say the least. Yet,
if I were the president of the University of California, I would volunteer to
be fired and do it for a lot less than the Regents are paying President Robert
Dynes to leave. See the link below for details on his leaving salary, home loan
help and pension.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/20/BAFDRKMES.DTL
It is unfortunate that the leaders of our top universities are now fund raisers
rather than academicians, and they are paid as rainmakers not educators.
“Privatization” – October 1, 2007
The Governor is proposing to sell off two California
government departments because they are really businesses. That is, they make
money on their own, and whatever services they perform the public can choose
whether to use them. Both the Ed-Fund, which is a bank making loans to college
students, and the State Lottery, which is a government run casino, are the kind
of entities government should not be running
I propose another that meets these same standards and should thus be
privatized: the University of California. UC is also a business that competes
with the private sector (USC, Stanford) and it makes tons of money with its
high tuition charges and patents on its inventions, as well as Federal
contracts (like Halliburton and Blackwater). Certainly with a mandate to only
admit the top 12% of the high school class it does not serve even a majority of
Californians. Given the recent headlines of corruption, mismanagement, lack of
oversight and violations of academic freedom, UC really should be reconstituted
away from state government. As a charitable educational institution it would
then be subject to Franchise Tax Board audits just like the private college and
universities are now.
We could save millions of taxpayer dollars by this privatization and if someone
really wanted to buy the headache, we the people might be able to break even.
“Get
Ahead of the Text” – October 1, 2007
The Governor has two bills on his desk about the costs of college textbooks:
The College Textbook Affordability Act, SB 832 (Corbett) and the College
Textbook Transparency Act, AB 1548 (Solorio). According to the LA Times, both
authors say their goal is to give professors more information about textbook
pricing and what has changed in the books’ newest editions so that they can
decide whether it is worth requiring students to purchase new books. One study
shows that California college students spend nearly $900 per years on texts and
that the average prices for one is over $100. Professors should look even
beyond the information that these bills would supposedly give them. There are
websites that offer free licenses for full texts with embedded advertising or
charge a small fee for a printable version. Technology and starving students
may well get ahead of the Legislature, Governor and professors on this matter.
Try:
http://www.freeloadpress.com/
which lists several topics, or
http://www.introecon.com/
to see how one economic text has made this work.
“Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” – October, 22, 2007
Students on college campuses are afforded the opportunity to
learn about and participate in all sorts of radical movements of questionable
value, but today marks the beginning of national Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
on more than 200 campuses around the country. The purpose of the week is simple
according to the organizers: “to confront the two Big Lies of the political
left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a
greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.” Events during the week
include: memorial services for the victims of Islamic terror both in America
and around the globe; a student petition denouncing Islamo-Fascist violence
against women, gays, Christians, Jews and non-religious people; a teach-in on
“The Oppression of Women in Islam”; sit-ins in Women’s Studies Departments and
campus Women’s Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women
in Islam.
While that purpose makes perfect sense to me, I have no doubt that the leftists
who dominate our college campuses will not take kindly to those students who
exercise their First Amendment rights by participating in Islamo-Fascism
Awareness. I am sure they will be harassed and criticized and run into all
sorts of roadblocks. The students who are willing to face these obstacles will
be doing an important service to our nation, which has to a large extent chosen
to pillory President Bush instead of recognizing the threat to liberty that
Islamo-Fascists present.
For more information about the activities of the week or the Terrorism
Awareness Project, go to:
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/
“Educating Mexicans, Here & There” – December 17, 2007
One of the most controversial aspects of illegal immigration is how children are educated. A recent Moore Information survey found that a majority (56%) of U.S. voters nationwide believe children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend local public schools, but only 49% believe that these children are also entitled to U.S. citizenship. Since our current laws require that children of illegal immigrants attend public schools, and since so many people attribute our schools’ poor performance to the presence of illegals, who often do not stay in school the entire year. I was interested to read an article by H. James McLaughlin that explains what education is like in Mexico.
In Mexico, education is free, nonreligious and obligatory, through the ninth grade. There is a high dropout rate and there are many rural communities where there is high poverty and Spanish is a second language. There are three different types of middle schools for grades 7-9: schools for non-rural and college-bound students; vocational schools for those who are not college-bound; and rural schools where the curriculum is provided over television. Going into high school, students must choose whether to pursue a college-bound curriculum, prepare for a technical career, or select a business track. The government pays for textbooks for grade school students, but from grade 7 on, students must pay for their books.
Students must take a national exam at the conclusion of each school year. The exam is graded on a 1-10 scale and any student who scores less than a 6 must repeat that grade the next year. Mathematics increases in complexity beginning in grade seven and by ninth grade, everyone studies trigonometry. All students take a foreign language course each year, plus art classes and technology. Although many schools lack equipment, science and technology are still part of the curriculum.
McLaughlin makes several points about key differences in schooling in the two countries:
- “Mexican students are accustomed to seeing and producing art…. A focus on the arts may help U.S. teachers engage immigrant students…. Mexican students often have strong math and language backgrounds, which may exceed the expectations they face when entering a school in the United States.”
- “The sense of time and pacing can differ greatly from U.S. schools, where time is tightly scheduled and recreational activity is closely monitored….Mexican immigrant children are not accustomed to the long hours, the decreased time for social interaction, and the more rule-driven culture of most U.S. schools.”
- “Mexican students are expected to show respect to the ‘maestro/a’ (the teacher). Parents usually assume that teachers will make the best decisions for their children, and it is not the norm for parents to intervene in school matters unless asked.”
To read the full article and see the sources, go to:
http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/mexico.html
“Virtual High School” – January 28, 2008
It does not take a technically savvy person to know that the next generation of workers needs to be more tech savvy than current workers. The global economy and nature of tomorrow’s work simply require it. Combine that fact with the many pressures facing our public schools (overcrowding, high costs, etc.) mean that we should be looking at ways to improve students’ technical knowledge and improve education by using technology. I just learned that Michigan requires every high school graduate to have taken at least one course on-line so I visited the Michigan Virtual School site and was impressed. There are courses on fixed timelines and flex courses. The courses accommodate home schoolers or students participating on public or private campuses, as well as gifted or special needs students. The site allows for students to take courses, like Chinese, that are not offered at their school. As I reviewed the many options and was taken by the high caliber of the offerings, I had to ask myself: where is California?
On-line Education Resources – February 18, 2008
My recent article commending Michigan for its on-line high school courses and wondering where California’s on-line effort was prompted one reader to write with her family’s experience. She pointed me to three sites. One is run out of UC Irvine and is designed for high school students who need to prepare for Advanced Placement exams or want other classes that are not offered by their high school:
http://unex.uci.edu/collegeprep/
Then the UC system offers “college prep on-line,” which is targeted to underserved students preparing for college eligibility:
The final site is a clearing-house for on-line courses offered in California. The site does not offer classes itself, but features a course catalog to help you find resources to meet your needs:
http://www.cvc.edu/students/courses
If any of you have had experiences with these sites, or knows of other quality, California sites, please let me know.
Check the Cuts—March 24, 2008
You have just begun to be besieged by the public relations onslaught that the educrats are unleashing on us to combat the proposed budget cuts to education. What got me this week was a California School Boards Association memo about the “disastrous” cuts that would “devastate public schools.” It then gives “examples” of what would be necessary to achieve the $4.4 billion cut proposed: “shutting down every school in the state for one month; laying off more than 107,000 teachers; increasing class size by as much as 35%; reducing per pupil spending by more than $800; laying off over 137,000 bus drivers, janitors, food service workers, maintenance workers, nurses, and other education support professionals; cutting more than $24,000 per classroom; cutting $7.76 million per school district (assuming district enrollment of 10,000); eliminating all music, art, career technical education programs statewide.” There is a huge category of education spending missing from this list: administration. Instead of talking about taking away what little music education remains, let us finally have an honest dialogue about what value is added to your child’s learning by the bureaucrats who sit in district, county and state offices of education. Our local school boards need to be free of state requirements and able to decide for themselves how best to spend whatever amount the state passes onto them. Education administrators need to view this budget crisis as an opportunity to gain for their local elected officials greater budget authority than currently exists. By eliminating restrictive categorical programs and other state mandates, we can accomplish more even with fewer education dollars. But of course, that does not make for a sexy PR slogan nor does it preserve as many administrative positions, so you will not be hearing much about that from educators during this budget debate. Instead, they will continue to threaten your child’s teacher and art class.
Phony Pink Slips – March 31, 2008
There have been a number of press events lately with teachers in the back row holding “pink slips.” I do not know what the color really is, but I do know that these papers are the PRELIMNARY notices of potential lay-offs and that they are mandated by state law. If the notice is not given by March 15 then the district cannot lay-off the teacher next fall even if the district closes entirely. This sounds overly threatening to teachers, but the truth is that this state mandate on local school districts was sponsored by the California Teachers’ Association to separate teachers out from any budget cutting. No other public employee in California has this protection. And as far as I remember, no teacher has ever been laid off because of state budget shortfalls. So if history holds, none of thee 9,000 teachers who got these scary notices will actually be laid off. The teachers’ union did this to make it harder for districts to balance budgets by cutting back on teachers, but the awful side effect is that it looks like districts are singling out teachers for extra pain, and it makes it look like teachers are being terminated when they really are not. This silly law should be repealed.
The Root
of Money Problems – April 28, 2008
Several Leonard Letter readers, as well as pundits and columns, have written recently about the current education funding crisis and pointed the finger of blame at Prop. 13. I am disappointed when Prop. 13 blamed for all the woes of California. As far as schools are concerned, the culprit is the California Supreme Court in 1971 and not Prop. 13 in 1978. The court ruled in Serrano v. Priest that property taxes could not be used as the sole source of school funding and that schools should not have the right to set tax rates that result in unequal education. The court ordered the legislature to develop a school finance system that did not fund schools locally. The result is the mess you see today. I, too, wish there was local control and local decision making ability. In fact, even if Prop. 13 were repealed there would still be no local control of schools.
Read more about Serrano v. Priest at these sites:
http://www.hjta.org/commentaryV5-34
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/129939.html
http://www.californiaschoolfinance.org/Portals/0/PDFs/EdS_hist_serrano.pdf
Questions to Ask of Your School District – April 28, 2008
Richard Rider, chair of the San Diego Tax Fighters, has done some excellent research about school funding in San Diego. The answers he received to his questions should prompt you to ask similar, straightforward questions of your local school officials. You may be surprised at the answers and how the facts differ from the public relations war being waged in the media right now. He asked, “How does a district coming year's budget compare with the previous year's budget?” He found out that, “the vaunted 10% ‘cut’ really is a cut from this year's projected spending, not last year's actual budget. The actual year-to-year district cut is usually under 4%, not the 10% so widely publicized.”
He asked about student enrollment over the last decade and found that contrary to public perception, many districts have declining enrollment, not burgeoning attendance. In one instance, he identified more than a 20% decline. He asked how much of a district's budget goes for employee compensation? He found a district with 87% of the money being used to pay employees. I wonder how many of those employees actually work directly with students every day.
And finally he wonders whether taxpayers are paying too much for K-12 public schools and gives this example: The San Diego USD budget for 2007-2008 was about $2.2 billion. There are about 135,000 students enrolled in K-12 in the district. Divide 2.2 billion by 135,000 students, and you discover that we are paying about $16,300 per student.
CSBA to Wealthy Californians: Run, Run Away --- May 5, 2008
I was contacted recently by a California School Boards Association member who was preparing for the group’s May meeting and wanted my comments on the preparatory materials sent out to Association members. At the meeting the Association will on its policy platform, which is essentially the members’ position on the state budget, which the Governor now pegs at $20 billion in the red. The CSBA has already decided that it will oppose a budget that is only balanced by cuts and says it is looking for “additional revenues.” Sadly, to justify looking for more revenue, CSBA points to the Legislative Analyst’s alternative budget that finds revenue by doing away with “tax expenditures” like the home mortgage deduction, the Sales and Use tax exemption on food, employer contributions to pension and health plans. These are the top of the list, they are politically ridiculous, and the remainder of the list does not get us $20 billion.
Another option the CSBA will consider is a higher sales tax. Senate President Don Perata (D – Oakland) has proposed a one-cent increase in the state portion of the sales tax, which by the way is a 16% increase in the tax (6.25% to 7.25%). Remember, this is a tax that must be paid by retailers only. In 1990 the state had roughly 900,000 retailers 18 years later, we have roughly 1 million. This is an 11% increase, which might sound good except the state’s population is up 44% in the same period. Yet, the Democrats are looking to this diminishing class of businesses for more revenue. Our retailers are under siege already. The vacancies in the strip malls will get even worse if this tax increase becomes law.
The materials the CSBA sent out heavily rely on research by Jean Ross and the California Budget Project, which lobbies every year for higher spending and higher taxes. I am in agreement with them on one thing -- that California's high and regressive sales tax results in the poor having the highest percentage of their income going to taxation than any other income group. Jean and I part ways when it comes to what policy change should arise from this information. I say her data show that lower and flatter taxes are both fairer and better for economic growth.
This leaves a higher income tax for wealthy Californians as CSBA’s last alternative.
When California raises taxes on people the liberals define as “wealthy,” the actual collections do not meet expectations. Back in 1991, Governor Wilson bought into the liberal logic for a moment and raised taxes on the upper-income brackets. The following two years, revenues were $1 billion short of forecast each year. Currently, the top one percent of taxpayers in California contributes 40 percent of the state income tax, and the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of the tax.
Our tax system has gotten so hyper-progressive that a single taxpayer can affect revenue estimates. Last year a wealthy taxpayer settled his tax liability for $200 million. How much will a Microsoft buyout of Yahoo investors yield? Hard to say, but what is clear is the state’s spending level is already overly dependent on a few wealthy individuals gaining financial windfalls, and then paying taxes on them. We are fast running out of Californians who can do this.
How did we get here? California had an extraordinary revenue boom in the late 1990s. The subsequent revenue bust in the early 2000s was the result of the popping Internet bubble, and the failure to recognize that revenues were in an unsustainable spike. The personal income tax soared from $28 billion in 1997-98 to a peak of nearly $45 billion in 2000-01, before plummeting to below $34 billion in 2001-02. The state’s fiscal problem has its roots in how we treated this spike in revenue. Had we treated it as one-time money and invested in capital projects rather than committing the state to those lofty spending levels permanently there would not be a budget deficit today.
Instead, as of 2002 the state had a $2 billion deficit and $5 billion more the
next. California went from a $5 billion surplus to a $5 billion deficit in just
two years, and now it is up to $20 billion and increasing. The state has
hit a revenue wall. Spending cuts and budget reform are needed to avoid
catastrophe.
A Free Public Education—May 27, 2008
The spotlight on public education funding is causing many parents to question the additional fees they are being asked to pay at schools despite the California Constitution’s requirement of a “free public education” to the children of the state. Parents are often told to pay for school-issued P.E. uniforms, or pay a “fee” for their child to participate in sports, band or other extracurricular activities. Most parents do not question such charges and fees, but some have and the courts have ruled with them. The key ruling on this matter is Hartzell v. Connell from 1984 which concluded “that the imposition of fees for educational activities offered by public high schools violates the free schools guarantee. The constitutional defect in such fees can neither be corrected by providing waivers to indigent students, nor justified by pleading financial hardship.”
Legislative counsel has interpreted the Hartzell ruling to mean that schools may not charge for school athletics, musical instruments used in extracurricular band, special uniforms and club dues. A subsequent settlement of a suit filed against the Pasadena school district demonstrates that paying additional fees in public schools amounts to double taxation.
Given the Hartzell ruling and application of it, parents should think twice before shelling out cash to schools. The following links provide additional information. First, the Hartzell decision is here:
http://www.donaldcollins.org/administrators_school_officials/Hartzell%20v.%20Connell.pdf
A news article explaining a situation in the L.A. school district is here:
http://parentsdemand.com/LAUSDfee.html
The U.S. Justice Foundation, which represents parents in such cases, provides summary information here:
http://forum.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=261
This memo from the Mt. Diablo school district superintendent lists the education codes dealing with specific fees:
http://www.mdusd.k12.ca.us/superintendent/studentfees.htm
A Hypothetical School Budget – June 2, 2008
Each year at this time, when I read the emails of outrage about school spending cuts, I am reminded of a simple analysis that helps bring perspective to the issue of public education budgets. I used the example when I served in the legislature, and Senator Tom McClintock writes frequently on the topic. Let’s look at per-pupil funding. In the revised version of the Governor’s budget, that will work out to about $8,610. A hypothetical elementary school of 500 students would then have a budget of $4.3 million. I would pay teachers $100,000 each (benefits included). At 25 teachers (so classes have 20 students), that is $2.5 million. Every teacher and student should have a laptop so I will allocate about $263,000 for that ($500 per laptop). I would hire a neighborhood gardener to keep the school yard in good shape and a local cleaning service to help maintain the place. I estimate that at $120,000 for the year, but I think it could be negotiated for less, and, frankly, if the kids pitched in with these campus chores we could save money, and they would get more exercise, take better care of the property they enjoy using, and learn the value of hard work. I recognize that I would still need to pay an administrator, secretaries, a nurse, IT staff, librarian, and some cafeteria workers, as well as pitch some money to the district for buses, testing coordinators, and payroll clerks. Let’s round that out to $1 million. That leaves me about $500,000 to buy books and other supplies, pay musicians, artists, coaches, and scientists to come by and work with the kids, etc.
This exercise shows a few things: there is no doubt that school budgets are tight. In that situation, we should foster creativity and cost savings; the current system is too regulated to allow that. Our public education system has been weighted down with the state, county and district bureaucracies that have very little to do with how our children learn on a daily basis. We need to refocus our energies and our scarce resources on the classroom. Finally, we need to leverage technology to enable learning different from that of our childhood. Used properly and creatively, technology may mean we do not need to buy textbooks for every student or photocopy tests. The current debate about school funding relies on too many assumptions that are “20th century.” Our teachers can do amazing things if we let them. Perhaps more budget crises like this will help policymakers and bureaucrats see their way to sending the money where it belongs and then getting out of the way to let each school serve its students.
Compulsion – June 9, 2008
Another wild and crazy thing I mentioned in my talk at the Claremont conference was that we revisit the idea of compulsory education. At first it seems ludicrous, but ponder it for a moment. Education is the U.S. is free and open to anyone who wants it through the 12th grade, and for all practical purposes for the first two years of college as well. What is the difference between the 12th grade classes and classes of freshmen at any community college? In the community college, the students want to be there. They are not there because the law compels them to attend or because their parents dragged them there (though the parents may well be exercising other dominion). In the 12th grade class many students do not want to be there. In fact, many are not. They have dropped out and we spend our scarce resources tracking them down and attempting to force them to attend. Those who do not want to be there make it harder for those who do want to be there to learn. They are the ones disrupting and disrespecting the teachers. They are the ones neglecting their studies and holding others back. They are, for the most part, the ones at whom we direct so many of the special topics that schools barely have time to squeeze in the basics much less the enrichment.
If education is so great a benefit—and it is— do we really need to compel people to avail their children of it? It is the flip side of the coin that has legislators currently trying to criminalize things like eating sugar. Think about the extent that so many parents are going to keep their children out of the public schools full of students who are not focused on learning. They are signing up with charter schools that actually allow the parents to home school most of the time and simply check-in with credentialed teachers or receive some tutoring from them. The parents get about $1,000 per student to pay for learning materials, physical education and other educational activities. I venture to say that students in such learning environments are highly motivated and successful.
As I have mentioned before, in this era of technology, the entire concept of education must be rethought. When we start by accepting certain parameters because we always have before, we limit our conclusions. The state need not compel people to do the right thing. Those who not do it will suffer the consequences themselves. In fact, those who are in school but not interested in learning already suffer those bad consequences and inflict harm on the rest of us. Without the compulsory education requirement they would still suffer, but the rest of the students and taxpayers would be less burdened. And perhaps if enough of them are not in traditional schools, we will find new ways of educating that does motivate them. Then everyone wins.
Schools Get Less, While Getting More—June 23, 2008
Is it really true that K-14 funding is being cut because of the budget crisis? It depends how you look at it. Calculations of all resources being proposed (including Federal funds) show an increase, with the caveat that the official actual per-pupil spending number will not be out for three years.
According to the Governor’s May Revise: 2008-09 Proposition 98 per-pupil spending will be $8,610, up from $8,509 in the current year. Total estimated spending per-pupil in 2008-09 will be $12,000, up from $11,997 in the current year.
Clearly, schools will have more resources than last year, and the year before. However, it is not untrue to say the Governor is proposing to spend less. How can this be?
Upon passage of the 2007-08 Budget Act, the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee was funded at $57.1 billion. However, there was additional one-time money outside of the guarantee for a programmatic funding level for K-14 education of $57.7 billion.
Upon the call of the March emergency special session, since revenues in the state were declining, the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee declined also. By some creative bookkeeping, the ‘07-‘08 Prop. 98 level was reduced from $57.1 billion to $56.6 billion without making any actual cuts to the classroom. The “programmatic spending” level for the current year is still around $57.5-$57.7 billion.
Fast-forward to the May Revision of last month, revenues had plummeted even further, along with enrollment, so the current-year minimum Prop. 98 guarantee dropped to the point that even spending $56.6 billion, the state will be spending $800 million over the minimum guarantee. Nonetheless, the Governor assumes that $56.6 billion will be the final 2007-08 Prop. 98 level, and from that he projects a minimum guarantee in 2008-09 of $56.8 billion, about $200 million over the official current year minimum guarantee.
Now, here is how one can say education is both being cut and being increased: Since the current-year programmatic spending level is $57.7 billion, the Governor’s May Revise proposal for next year looks $900 million below what we’re actually spending on K-14 education this year. Thus, looking ahead to 2008-09, there is a gap between what is required by the minimum guarantee and what schools are currently receiving. That is how you end up with “schools are being cut compared to the current year,” and at the same time, “schools will get $200 million over the current year.” Both are right.
All this said, there is $8 billion in real dollars more in K-14 since about 2003, and yet 50,000 fewer students in the system. But that is another discussion.
Classroom Spending Should be Higher – July 7, 2008
I saw an interesting breakdown in a California Budget Project fact sheet on school finance. While I consider the California Budget Project as a whole to be a left wing organization, I try to glean useful information from their publications. I was struck by the breakdown in school spending in their May 2008 issue. The Budget Project thinks the big story is that “More than four fifths of statewide spending for schools supported salaries and benefits in 2006-07.” However, when I look at the chart, I am struck how small the percentage of the whole is actually given to teachers. According to this data, teacher salaries accounted for 39.5% of the total, “other staff salaries” tally to 24.4%. There is another category of “employee benefits” that is 19% of the total. Presumably, these benefits are for non-teachers as well as teachers. From this, I can estimate that the total spent on teachers would be a little more than 50% of the pie. Some think this is too high. I disagree. If I were engaged in the business of making widgets, there would need to be some supervisors and sales people, but the lion’s share of the staff – much more than 50% – would be involved in the actual making of widgets. At the Board of Equalization, we distinguish between “revenue” and “non-revenue” employees. In the fiscal year that just ended, Finance says about 64% of our positions are for collecting revenue. These positions account for 60% of the BoE’s budget. Having 60% of the K-12 budget go directly to classroom instruction would be an improvement.
Get the Drop on Drop-Outs – July 21, 2008
The news last week was that California’s official drop-out rate shows one-in-four students do not complete high school. It is depressing that so many students care so little about their own future. Why is it if we all know if something is good for everyone that we need the government to make it mandatory? Free public education is one of the greatest gifts ever devised by society. It is a relatively new innovation in the history of education.
Since this free public education is also mandatory it makes it harder for school management to be creative because they have customers and make money (to use a business analogy) no matter what they offer. There are some great programs available in California schools today. There are some incredible teachers. I would love to see schools advertise and show off these great programs.
If they did, then those who are dropping out of regular programs might know better what an education can do for them and how they can get it for themselves.
The news last week was that California’s official drop-out rate shows one-in-four students do not complete high school. It is depressing that so many students care so little about their own future. Why is it if we all know if something is good for everyone that we need the government to make it mandatory? Free public education is one of the greatest gifts ever devised by society. It is a relatively new innovation in the history of education.
Since this free public education is also mandatory it makes it harder for school management to be creative because they have customers and make money (to use a business analogy) no matter what they offer. There are some great programs available in California schools today. There are some incredible teachers. I would love to see schools advertise and show off these great programs.
If they did, then those who are dropping out of regular programs might know better what an education can do for them and how they can get it for themselves.
Bridge to Success --- August 4, 2008
The story about drop-outs prompted Rick Piercy to write me and remind me of the Bridge Program. The program was designed by teachers who saw a disappointing number of students not pursuing higher education because of very surmountable obstacles. The program works with students to make sure they know about and are prepared for the opportunities available in colleges, particularly community colleges and training programs. To watch a very short video that demonstrates the power of this program go to:
http://k16bridge.org/index.html
I commend all those involved in helping students take advantage of all that is offered.
$3.1 billion For Teaching X Students Y --- August 25, 2008
At the urging of business leaders and our Governor, the state Board of Education in July set a three year deadline in which all California middle school students must take algebra I by the 8th grade. Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is asking for an additional $3.1 billion to get the job done. Peter Schrag wrote an excellent column in the Sacramento Bee explaining why this initiative is doomed to fail. Since there seems to be nothing new here in terms of teaching methodology, I agree with Schrag. His column is here: http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/1167002.html
Just for fun, let us pretend for a moment the money is actually available with no strings or conditions. The latest numbers show there are roughly 492,000 8th graders in the state. With $3.1 billion, that is an additional $6,302 per student to teach one class. Rather than just hire more teachers to lecture at chalk boards, why not think outside the box?
Here is one modest proposal off the top of my head:
First, we buy every 8th grader a new laptop with wireless internet connectivity: $700.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/laptops_great_deals?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Then we provide every 8th grader with a math tutor from India: $99 per month for unlimited 45 minute one-on-one tutoring sessions online.
Classroom and state standardized testing will measure the progress. Students who lag behind would be required to spend additional time with their tutor, either at school or home.
Assuming a 10-month school year, the total cost of my alternate intensive algebra program is $1,690 per student vs. $6,302 per student for O’Connell’s program.
Which approach do you think would work better?
Poking Fun at Educrats --- October 13, 2008
British humor has a way of getting to the core of an issue in a delightful and intelligent manner. A reader recently shared with me a YouTube clip of the British television program “Prime Minister”. The show is a comedy about British government, though this particular segment is perfectly suited to our domestic politics as well. In it, the Prime Minister and his advisor discuss their plan to allow parents to choose which schools their children attend and to eliminate the Department of Education. Their idea is met incredulously by the politician charged with implementing it, and the discussion that ensues as they debate the merits is very entertaining, perhaps because it hits so close to home here in California. Enjoy the antics and be prepared to laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLDb2V86Ei0
Budget Target: Schools --- November 3, 2008
The day after the election, the Governor has called a special session of the lame duck legislature to deal with the state budget. Everyone knew the budget they approved just a few short weeks ago was inadequate so now they will try once again to head off impending fiscal disaster. Already the budget is upside down by billions, ranging from $5 billion to $15 billion depending on which horror story you buy.
The Governor has said that this time the solution must include public education. I do not think it is a scare tactic or idle threat. The fact is that K-12 education takes the biggest portion of the state budget and simply must be part of any workable budget solution. My suggestion is the Governor target his school cuts. I believe the excess administrative expenses of schools could account for the entire amount he needs to trim education spending. In other words, we can achieve the savings needed without touching anyone who interacts with students on a daily basis. The state and district offices might have to make do with fewer staff, but there is no reason that teachers, aides and others who work on campuses need to be fired. Another way to save money without hurting children or teachers is to suspend purchasing new textbooks. The books are very expensive and the quality of instruction should not suffer because few-year-old books are being used. Schools should only purchase those books necessary to replace those that have gone missing or are in such bad shape that they are rendered useless. Such targeted cuts can help solve the state budget problem, take the sting out of the proposal, and help us begin to cut the fat in education spending.
It Doesn’t Add Up --- December 22, 2008
Are private schools inherently better than public schools? Check your gut on that one while considering Barry Garelick’s great piece about how math is taught at the private school chosen by the Obamas for their two young daughters. Garelick says, “The issue of whether a President who touts the value of a public school system should send his kids to a private school has taken center stage. I'm not particularly interested in that issue so much as I am the fact that Sidwell uses Investigations in Number, Data and Space, one of the NSF-sponsored atrocities that passes as a math course and grossly underprepares students for math.”
Garelick shared an example from the Investigations curriculum for teaching subtraction which demonstrates how a particular student solved the problem 924-672:
“Gil solved the problem by starting at 924 and subtracting back to 672.
924 – ___= 672
924 – 24 = 900
900 – 200 = 700
700 – 28 = 672
Gil: The answer is the total of all the jumps from 924 back to 672.
24 + 200 + 28 = 252.”
Garelick comments: “Ignore for the moment that it takes more effort to do it this way than simply subtracting 672 from 924, and that Gil still had to solve 700-28 in the process. And how did he know that 700 – 28 would get him down to 672? Seems like they left out a step: did he subtract 672 from 700 perhaps?”
Children around the world are memorizing mathematical rules and practicing concepts that American children will never be able to grasp if they are stuck taking four or five steps to do a simple three-digit subtraction problem.
Garelick’s piece is worth a read, as is the accompanying Washington Post article about the Investigations curriculum:
http://ednews.org/articles/31304/1/Obama-Sidwell-Friends-and-the-Achievement-Gap/Page1.html.