Tuesday, January 31, 2006

REVOLUTIONARY IDEA: SPEND EDUCATION FUNDS ON TEACHING

Everybody wants more money in the classroom. No one wants a tax increase. The solution? Distribute education dollars differently, pouring money into classrooms without raising taxes. The idea is the basis of the 65 Percent Solution, a proposal that would require school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their budgets on classroom expenses. Proponents want to see all 50 states and the District of Columbia impose the requirement by 2008.

The notion has at least one deep-pocketed backer: Patrick Byrne, the president of Overstock.com, Inc., who has pledged $1 million to the cause. At least 12 states are considering the idea, with one - Texas - already implementing it. California voters may see the idea on a ballot as early as 2008. Proponents of the plan say it will make school districts spend money more efficiently. They say it also will improve student achievement by funneling dollars - $14 billion nationally and $1.5 billion in California - away from administration and toward student learning.

Districts nationwide spent an average of 61.3 percent of their budgets on in-class expenses in 2002-2003, the last year for which figures are available from the National Center for Education Statistics. California spent 60.8 percent. Only two states - New York and Maine - exceeded the 65 percent mark. "Before every dollar is spent outside the classroom, we want asked, could this dollar be spent inside the classroom?" Republican political consultant Tim Mooney said. Mooney runs First Class Education, the nonprofit group dedicated to advancing the proposal. "Right now, it seems like the default is outside the classroom," he said.

Lawmakers in Kansas and Louisiana already have set the 65 percent mark as a goal. Proponents plan to propose legislation - or have already done so - in Minnesota, Illinois, Georgia, Missouri and Florida. Mooney's group hopes to carry voter referendums in Ohio, Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Arizona this year.

Critics here recognize the plan's strength is its simplicity. That's also its weakness, they say. "It's a terrible idea," said Bob Wells, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators. "There is no free money out there where this would magically get more money into classrooms. ... The one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work for a state this size." Part of the problem, critics say, is the plan's definition of classroom expenses. The 65 percent includes teacher salaries and benefits, supplies, classroom aides, and sports and arts programs. But it doesn't include key items such as transportation, food service, maintenance, librarians, and teacher training. "It's an arbitrary standard," said Rick Pratt, executive director of the California School Boards Association. "Schools are expected to feed kids, provide after-school programs, provide transportation. ... Will we have to scale back on these things? These are decisions you don't make with formulas."

There's little evidence to support a direct link between student achievement and the percentage of funds that districts spend on classroom instruction. A recent study by Standard & Poor's found no significant relationship between the two.

Mooney pointed out that the five states that scored highest on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or the "nation's report card," spent a bigger percentage of funds on instruction, on average, than did lower-ranking states. The five lowest-scoring states (including California) spent the least on instruction.

But critics say measuring student achievement isn't a simple thing. The top-scoring states also spent more per pupil overall - $3,000 more, on average - than did the bottom-scoring states that year. They also had significantly fewer racial minorities and lower poverty rates. The five states testing in the 20th percentile spent more in the classroom, on average, than did the five states testing in the 90th percentile.

The Austin-American Statesman reported in August that it had obtained a First Class Education memo that listed the 65 Percent Solution's "political benefits," including sowing dissent within education unions and helping build Republican credibility on education issues - thereby creating a base of support for charter schools and vouchers, which education unions say detract from public school systems. Mooney said this week that he penned that memo. "I'll stand by everything said in it," he said. The 65 percent plan would probably divide unions, he said. "That's not our goal. Our goal is simply to pass this policy." He added "good policy makes good politics, and whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, backing an issue this popular makes sense."

Pratt, of the state School Boards Association, said states should increase the flow of money to education, rather than forcing districts to shift existing dollars around. But Mooney said districts need to streamline spending before they ask for more funding. "Voters are saying, 'Show us you're spending your current dollars wisely,' " he said. "Then we'll talk to you about more dollars."

Source






UC CORRUPTION CONTINUES

It shouldn't be long now before abnormal psychology experts begin camping out at the University of California's 10 campuses for some field research. The constantly emerging stories over the last few months about UC leaders spending vast amounts on bonuses, perks and other compensation for top administrators without proper authorization initially seemed to be just an extreme version of institutional arrogance. But given the report this week about a UC Berkeley administrator receiving a $237,000 parting gift, this hauteur seems to have morphed into institutional derangement.

Remember, these sorts of outrages were supposed to be a thing of the past. In the wake of the worst of the revelations - a San Francisco Chronicle report in November detailing how UC doled out $871 million in hidden cash compensation - UC's leaders vowed they had learned their lesson. While they would continue to push to stay competitive on compensation with the nation's other top universities, they would do so in much more open fashion - and they would follow state rules.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer abuse reflected in the case of former UC Berkeley Chancellor Rogert Berdahl shows those promises were worthless. Berdahl resigned in 2004 under an agreement in which he took a 131/2-month leave while continuing to receive his chancellor's salary. In return, per UC policy, he promised to return to teaching for at least 131/2 months. If he didn't stay all 131/2 months, Berdahl agreed to pay back a prorated share of the $355,000 he was paid while on leave.

But during his leave, Berdahl lined up a new job - starting in May 2006 - as president of the Association of American Universities. It paid even more than his old UC gig. He notified UC officials that he would only teach for one semester, not the three he had promised. So Berdahl was required to pay back two-thirds of the $355,000, right? Wrong. That's what would be done in an ethical, honest government agency - but not the University of California.

Instead, according to reports this week, current UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgenau decreed on Jan. 4 that Berdahl didn't have to pay the money back because he would be of help to UC in his new job. Birgenau's lavish gift came 14 days after UC President Robert Dynes announced the hiring of an auditor to study UC's compensation practices and vowed a campaign to "gain total public confidence." Who does Dynes think he's kidding?

It gets worse: UC Santa Cruz officials confirmed this week that $30,282 in taxpayer money had been spent to build an "enclosure" for Chancellor Diane Denton's "two large and very active dogs." Does every UC campus act as if it is spending Monopoly money, not public funds? Enough is enough. Heads must roll. If UC's Board of Regents won't end this gross malfeasance, then the governor and the Legislature must step in - because there is no reason in the world to think UC will reform without a boot on its neck.

Source






The boring Left

Leftist professors are not enthusing the young. Post lifted from No Left Turns

Sam Graham-Felsen writes a long and boring article in The Nation titled, "The New Face of the Campus Left." Kind of a rah-rah-rah, we're finally getting organized, by something called Campusprogress, from the living-wage campaign (cleverly renamed the 1 John 3 Campaign when it wasn't getting anywhere; it still isn't), to anti-war, to guilt-free caffeine. It's all kind of pathetic, really. This sentence near the start of the story amused me -- they really want to pretend that university campuses are not overwhelmingly liberal:

"The assumption that America's campuses are impenetrable bastions of liberalism--where left-leaning faculty predominate, progressive student activism flourishes and conservatism is fiercely marginalized--still rules the day. But in reality, since the 1970s the conservative movement has become the dominant political force on many American campuses."

Since the 1970's? Are you kidding? I could help figure out their meaning with the following example. The day we went into Iraq a dozen or so Ashland faculty (all my age, have been on the Left their whole life, I am betting) picketed against the war on the corner of Claremont and College. The next day a dozen or so students were picketing in favor of the war. Still no students on the anti-war side.

What is most irritating to the Left professors--the ones that dominate the humanities and social sciences--and The Nation mag, is that they are not persuading the youth. They are there, but they can't reproduce themselves. Frustration sets in and the result is a focus on guilt-free coffee and other such serious causes.

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************

No comments: