School District to Charter School: Hell No, You Can't Have Our Empty Building.

Debates over education policy often proceed on the assumption that the things that motivate ordinary business people--earning more money and garnering a larger market share--do not apply to the people who work in and manage public schools. But at least one school district in Michigan is showing some pit-dog business ethics.

The Walnut Elementary School sits in Lansing, Michigan. The building's owner is the Lansing School District, which closed the facility at the end of the 2004-2005 school year.

Smart management might call for the board to sell the building to somebody else, and use the proceeds to, oh, pay for some deferred maintenance in other district buildings.

And who might be interested in buying a school building?

How about the management of a charter school? Pretty obvious, don't you say?

The Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy, a charter school, would like a new campus.

The Academy tried to purchase the building from the school district. The district's response: No. Way.

In a remarkable exhibition of candor, district officials admit that they are refusing the Academy's offers because they don't like the competition that the charter school represents.

Listen to the representatives and allies of the Lansing School District:

-- "From an ideological standpoint, it might be difficult for me to swallow," the idea of selling to the charter school. -- Board member Hugh Clarke Jr

-- "'We have the first right of refusal for a charter school.' She was then asked if the district would likely exercise that right. 'Definitely.'” -- Superintendent E. Sharon Banks.

-- Banks has also said "We would like to keep it as a learning place for children to go." Yes, as long as she is in charge.

-- "I’d hate to see charter schools expanding, because they create havoc on the public school system." -- Tim Kaltenbach, member of the city council for the ward that includes Walnut Elementary.

Meanwhile, the property is sitting vacant, and as such, is already falling prey to vandalism.

Worse yet, the wants and needs of a school district are trumping the needs of education.

(The article has been taken down in the hours since I started this post. Click here for a Google cache. I have no idea how long it will work.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

About that 65 Percent Solution.
The latest fad in education reform--the 65 percent solution--is the subject of some, well, gaming.

Texas has instituted a rule (currently being talked about around the country) requiring that 65 percent of all K-12 school money be used for "classroom spending."

Ah, but what exactly is "classroom spending?"

The Houston Chronicle picks up the story:

Houston ISD Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra said the district is facing uncontrollable expenses, including rising utility bills and fuel costs for buses and higher property insurance due to hurricanes.

"If I put 11 million new dollars into utilities, I'd have to identify another 22 million in new expenses on the instructional side," he said. "Any logical business person would understand the challenges districts will have concerning meeting this rule."

Saavedra said he doesn't like the NCES definition because it values football over libraries. He hopes that Texas writes its own standards for classroom expenses."

The NCES is the "National Center for Education Statistics," a division of the U.S. Department of Education. According to the Chronicle (I have not verified this myself), "expenses for extracurricular activities" (presumably including football) are included as "classroom expenses" under federal guidelines.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Cameras, Cameras, Everywhere.
Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago, has called for the city to require security cameras of every business that is open 12 hours or more a day. His rationale: "Cameras really prevent much crime. Cameras also solve a lot of crime. The terrorist attacks in London were solved by cameras. The whole incident was solved by cameras."

There are at least two policy problems with this idea: the first is the obvious fear of "big brother," whether or not the surveillance is conducted by city police or not.

The question that arises has to do with government mandates. Businesses that have seen a financial requirement for the cameras will have already gotten them by this point; beyond this, any further installation would occur by city mandate.

Ironically, the mayor invokes the notion of private property to call for the violation of private property rights: "Look at the police radio [log]. ... Why should we be clearing every parking lot out for the owner of the drive-in? That's their responsibility. It's their land."

Perhaps Da Mare Jr. would prefer private law enforcement?

If this proposal is enacted, expect a number of businesses to close up shop early. (permalink)

Enough with Drunken Sailors. We Want Shoes!
Maybe it's time to retire the phrase about politicians "spending money like drunken sailors." At least sailors earn their money--and their spending binges often leave no long-term ill effects on anyone else.

Writing in the op-ed page of today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), David Boaz uses a different metaphor: "big-government conservatives [are] spending money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store." Like the drunken sailor image, this one suggests over-indulgence.

But the sailor image brings to mind binge spending and drinking, while adding to the federal budget, much like adding to a shoe collection, is a long-term project. So the a long-term obsession with shoes may give a better picture. In addition, Marcos' shoe money, like that spent by Congress, is taken from the public at large. And I suspect, not having been a veteran watcher of Filipino politics, the shoes were meant to draw attention to Mrs. M, much like federal projects are meant to draw flattering attention to their congressional advocates.

Now if we could come up with another analogy that incorporates other facets of ballooning spending growth, such as cynicism, Kafkaesque regulatory requirements, crowding out of private sector initiative, rent seeking, etc. (permalink)

News on Charter Schools.
A good resource for what's up with charter schools is the Center for Education Reform. Here's a sampling of some of the latest information from or through them:

The Simple Guide to Charter School Laws (PDF) gives A-F grades to states based on the autonomy they give to charter schools, as well as how difficult or easy it is to open a charter school.

Meanwhile, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools offers another look at the restrictions on charter schools. The PDF-format report Stunning Growth: The Impact of State-Imposed Caps on Charter Schools reviews one specific form of restriction on charter schools, numeric caps.

There are multiple versions of caps. The most obvious one is the number of charter schools that may operate within a state. Other restrictions include:

- The number of new charter schools that may be opened in a given year;

- For states where more than one authority can grant a charter, the number of charters that can be granted by a particular authority (e.g., Michigan universities have reached their cap of 150 charters);

- Number of students who may be enrolled statewide in charter schools;

- Percentage of students who may be enrolled statewide in charter schools;

- Percentage of K-12 funding in the state that may be spent on charter schools;

- Geographic restrictions on where charter schools may operate (e.g., in Missouri, only St. Louis and Kansas City);

- Regional caps on the number of charter schools (only 15 for downstate Illinois);

The group recommends putting sunsets on the restrictions.

The Boston Herald calls for removing some (all?) of the raising caps on charter schools in Massachusetts. As it observes, "Opponents will recycle the tired argument that it would drain traditional public schools of resources that are already insufficient. But charter schools are public schools. Artificial limits serve no purpose other than appeasing the teachersÂ? unions."

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Education: A Q&A With Jay Greene.
ABC News has a handy chat with Jay Greene about competition and school performance.

Among the topics covered:

- Will school choice make public schools worse off?
- Will school choice bring disparities to schools?
- Do "Church and State" concerns rule out school choice?
- Why don't we go for smaller class sizes instead?
- Shouldn't we be paying teachers more?

If you've been around the block a few times on the question of competition and choice in education, there's nothing new here. But it's a good reminder of what's in the popular debate.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Bill Introduced in South Carolina.
The idea of making it easier for parents to pay for K-12 education in schools of choice is getting another hearing in South Carolina this year.

What's good is that the idea is back. What's not so good is that the size and scope of the proposal has been scaled back. Says the Charleston Post and Courier:

"Supporters pared down the original legislation, decreasing the size of the tax break for parents who send their children to private schools and directing the private-school vouchers to the most needy students: those from low-income families and those in poor-performing public schools."

Why the change? Rep. Dan Cooper, chairman of the Ways and Means committee, wants any effort to change the status quo to be limited to low-income families and students in the worst schools. Why this should be so, I don't know--e-mail from readers would be welcomed.

The greatest benefits (up to $4,500 in vouchers) would be available only to students in low-income families attending the poorest-performing schools; everyone else would have to make due with tax credits of no more than $1,000.

The Port and Courier article points out the value of media reports in propelling reform:

What changed some lawmakers' minds was the recent school documentary on ABC's "20/20" called "Stupid in America." The report featured an 18-year-old South Carolina public school student who was struggling to read.

"That opened my eyes and helped push me across the line," said Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, a co-sponsor. "American students are not stupid. We have problems in our system.

Also on the plate for lawmakers: a proposal to make it easier to open charter schools (good as far as it goes) and another one to create open enrollment in public schools (again, good as far as it goes.)

Opponents of the significant reform come through with the same old mistake of identifying confusing the desired policy outcome (an educated public) with one means (the public school as we know it) with that outcome.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Can I Get Some Credit?
School choice--the ability to direct money taxpayer money already devoted to educated to the school of the parent's choice--exists on a small scale. The Minnesota House Research Department offers a quick outline of tax credits and deductions in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

The Minnesota law was one of the first (if not the first) in the nation, but it's rather limited. For a family with two children, the tax credit is adjusted for income; it is completely phased out at $37,500 for a family with two children. Median family income, way back in 1999, by contrast, exceeds $47,000. The tax credit, unlike the tax deduction, cannot be applied to tuition at privately run schools.

The average value of the tax credit is $259; the average value of the tax deduction: $78. Better than a poke in the eye, but more valuable as setting a precedent than being a large financial boost, even for private schools with minimal tuition rates.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

For Every Action, There is a ... Lawsuit.
Man publishes a tell-all story of dependency and recovery, makes millions, and then is exposed as a fraud for making up some portions of his memoirs.

One result, according to the Wall Street Journal (link for subscribers), should not be a surprise: a big fat lawsuit:

Late Friday afternoon, plaintiff's attorney Marc Bern said he filed a lawsuit against Random House and its Doubleday imprint in U.S. District Court in Manhattan charging that the publishers misrepresented that book as nonfiction. His client, California resident Karen Futernick, alleges in the suit that she purchased "A Million Little Pieces" on that basis but that the defendants "failed to conduct a reasonable investigation or inquiry regarding the truthfulness or accuracy" of the material. Mr. Bern said that he will seek more than $50 million in damages for the plaintiffs. "Nobody can get away with profiting with a product that you represented as something that it is not," says Alan Ripka, another partner in Napoli Bern Ripka LLP, the New York City law firm that filed the suit.


On the other hand, lawyers can profit from making a big deal out of nothing.

Fraud? I suppose so. The harm? What harm? Emotional distress stemming from shattered illusions about the sacred integrity of the publishing world? (permalink)

Who Gets the Union Dues Your Child's Teacher Pays Out to the NEA?
Teacher unions are just another special interest. Nothing wrong about that, but it's a fact often overlooked in education debates.

The National Education Association (NEA) is one of the largest unions in the country. It's an active force in the Democratic Party, and donor to left-of-center causes. The Wall Street Journal has noted before some findings from a web site run by the U.S. Department of Labor. Today, they've got some more interesting findings (available to subscribers).

In many states, membership in the NEA is a requirement of employment. Some of the money goes for contract-related work, while some of it goes to political causes. (Members must take an extra step to stop the withdrawal of the portion used for politics.)

Some of the political spending of the NEA goes more or less directly to education, to combat any form of school choice. In such a way the union contributes to the conflation of the goal of education--an educated population--with one (dysfunctional) method of achieving that goal, the residential-based method of school assignment. Thus, the Journal tells us after reviewing the DOL web site, the NEA gave $500,000 to an anti-charter school group in Washington state, "never mind that charters are 'public schools,' albeit ones allowed to operate outside the teachers' union education monopoly."

Other donations from the NEA show the union to be simply another element of the "progressive left" -- $250,000 to a group lobbying for an increase in the minimum wage; $400,000 to another group fighting the idea of personal investment accounts in Social Security, and $40,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus, a dependable element of the congressional left wing.

Again, there's nothing wrong about employees in the same occupation banding together for political activity, even when it is far afield from the daily concerns of their workplace. But the NEA has for too long been given a pass as a disinterested source of information, an honest broker, when in fact, the interests of union officials and the interests of parents and students are not necessarily aligned.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Innovation From the Feds?
Can an office within the world’s largest government lead to more competition in education?

The federal government is everyone's favorite whipping boy when it comes to K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act is a special focus of criticism. Some people don't like it because, they say, it is an "unfunded mandate," or at the least, because they like the federal money that does come with the program, but would prefer to get the money without complying with the requirements. Others object to the national government getting its nose in the way of state and local matters. Still others are concerned that one of the stated goals of the act--100 percent student proficiency a few years from now--is both unrealistic and by the way, hideously expensive.

Yet NCLB has had a few positive effects. It has focused some needed attention on education in general, and on the achievement gap (whites versus non-whites) in particular. It also represented the tiniest movement towards school choice.

The administration that brought us NCLB also (I may be wrong on this) gave us yet another federal office, yet one that may (or not, you know how bureaucracy works) have some positive effects that linger beyond the history of its political patrons. The Office of Innovation and Improvement within the U.S. Department of Education describes itself this way:

The Office of Innovation and Improvement is a nimble, entrepreneurial arm of the U.S. Department of Education. It makes strategic investments in innovative educational practices through two dozen discretionary grant programs and coordinates the public school choice and supplemental educational services provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by No Child Left Behind. It also serves as the Department's liaison and resource to the nonpublic education community and oversees the Family Policy Compliance Office. The Office helps to develop guidance on provisions and programs related to its work under No Child Left Behind.


Put aside the question of how long a government office can be "nimble" and "entrepreneurial." There's something to be said for what might be called the institutional approach to de-institutionalization. In this case, creating a government office may be a useful element in promoting less dependence on other government institutions. The office has promoted choice within and even outside of the traditional model of "you live here, your child will attend THIS school" model of school governance: anti-trust, on a small scale, applied to K-12 education.

I write this because I noticed, in a recent letter from the office, that its leader, Nina Rees, has (or will soon) leave for the private sector. I've met Nina once or twice, though I'm not sure she would remember the occasion.

One legacy that she will leave is the web site BuildingChoice.org. It's got best practices in public school choice. Fourteen districts (as of this writing) out of thousands is a drop in the bucket, but large ideas sometimes start small. For source for school administrators who are willing to practice some school choice, there's a lot of "rubber meets the road" information--sometimes literally, as in "how do you manage transportation when students are going to schools all over the city, and not simply the school they used to be assigned to?"

Advocates of school choice who envision a world that includes government-run schools, for-profit schools, and non-profit schools are on the right path when they observe that competition should be applied to the provision of taxpayer funded education. After all, the policy goal is to have an educated population, not run specific school systems. But the path to full choice may take a long time. If a federal office helps advance us to that way of delivering education, then something useful may come out of the Department of Education after all.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Eminent Domain: What is Blight?
Even before last year's Kelo decision, removing "blight" was a legal ground for eminent domain. Now the question is before the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Institute for Justice (which lost the Kelo case) is representing some residents of Norwood, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati. Jeffrey R. Anderson, a private developer, and city are seeking to condemn several properties to make way for Anderson's latest commercial adventure. According to IJ, the properties are anything but blighted. (Be sure to check out some photos of the "blighted" homes.)

The latest question, according to the Institute: "whether Ohio law prevents a home or business owner from enjoining a private developer from demolishing his property during an appeal." (permalink)

Spending More is Not Enough.
Vickie Murray gives us an interesting factoid: in Arizona, general fund spending on K-12 education has nearly doubled in the last decade. Test scores have not.

Perhaps non-general fund spending has declined such that overall taxpayer funding on education has been flat. But that's not likely. Instead, Arizona taxpayers have been putting more money into a system that still has a long ways to go to embrace choice and competition. (permalink)

Will Court Decision Lead to Face Masks on Golf Courses?
A golfer was injured when he was hit by the errant tee shot of a duffer. The Iowa Supreme Court says that course owners must pay.

The golf course owners, in this case, are the taxpayers of the City of Des Moines, Iowa. According to a report from Radio Iowa, "The Iowa Supreme Court ruled the city could have taken steps to protect golfers from errant shots, like planting trees or shrubs to shield the fairway on 18 from sliced shots off the first tee."

Golfers, next time you curse that low-hanging branch that is thwarting your attempt to get out of the rough, remember this: maybe it was required by law.

(Hat tip to Golf Blogger.)

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Better than Average? Yes, and Your Point Is?
A state can be "better than average" in its education system and still fall short.

Kansans like to think that their schools do better than the national average. They do. But its graduation rate is still only slightly better than 75 percent (that is, only 3 out of 4 high school freshmen graduate in 4 years).

Better than average?

Oh, did we mention that the graduation rate for African-Americans and Latinos is not much better than one in two, or 50 percent?

On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only a third of students are "proficient" or better (that is, have mastery over the subject matter suitable for their grade level) when tested for reading at grades 4 and 8, and math at grade 8. The picture is slightly better for grade 4 math, where the proficient-or-better percentage clocks in at just under half--47 percent.

Better than average?

Not too comforting.

That's the national test. What about test assessments? There we find something more interesting.

The tests look at students in four subjects: reading, math, science, and social studies. The students are tested at each school level: elementary, middle, and high schools.

When we look at how well students do at each school level, here's what we find: elementary school students do better than middle school students who do better than high school students.

If you want to want a careless take on it, you might say that students lose ground the more time they spend in school. (Since these are not longitudinal exams that track the same cohort over time we can't say that, but it is tempting.)

Kansans, like people anywhere in the U.S., are reluctant to bring competition and choice to the delivery of schooling. One reason: "we don't need to, our schools are doing just fine."

Really?

Read the report (PDF, 7 pages) at the web site of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Symposium on Education Reform
When it's not busy endorsing pot use, Reason magazine can provide some insightful material.

For example, last month it rounded up the leading lights of the market-based school reform movement. No surprise: there are some significant disagreements to be found. Here's a sampling:

Lisa Snell thinks that advocates of market-based reform are selling charter schools short:

"With close to 1 million students enrolled nationwide and more than 3,400 contracts between charter schools and their government authorizers, charter schools may be the most common example of school choice. . . . in order to have substantial growth, school choice programs need students with substantial purchasing power, and they need to be open to a larger student population."

Andrew Coulson argues that the greatest challenge for reform is the conflation of ends (an educated public) with one method of trying to get there ("public schools" as we know them):

"The greatest barrier to reform is that, when it comes to education, Americans have lost sight of the distinction between means and ends. Our state-run school system is no longer recognized as just one possible tool for pursuing universal education; it has come to be misperceived as an ultimate goal in and of itself. The term '?public education' has come to refer to both the institution of public schooling and the ideals that the institution is meant to advance."

Coulson seems to come out against all refundable tax credits, which could pose political problems for tax credits--a problem that might be ameliorated by generous caps (or none at all) for donations to scholarship funds.

Marshall Fritz wants to do away with government involvement, period, including any taxation. He opposes vouchers, calling them the biggest obstacle to his goal:

"Vouchers replace today'?s monopoly with a 'monopsony' (single buyer). Schools will have only one customer to serve--and it's not you. Follow the money." Actually, he's got harsh words for vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Just pull your kids out of the schools, he says: "You'?ll not be paying twice for education: You'll pay taxes for the state to harm other people'?s children, but you'?ll pay only once for education--?your children's."

Williamson Evers favors decentralization and pluralism--in content, (presumably) pedagogy, and in what is the appropriate age for a child to leave school:

"We would advise a student to stay in school. Indeed, we know that finishing school and delaying marriage and babies is excellent advice for avoiding poverty. But in a framework of liberty, dropping out is allowed, even if it isn'?t advisable.

Clint Bolick says take whatever you can get:

"Given the tenacity and power of those who have a powerful stake in the status quo, freedom advocates cannot afford to oppose anything that meaningfully expands parental choice."

A market-driven approach to education will produce some losers: unions, local politicians, and schools of education.

Howard Fuller says that only the poor should receive vouchers:

"I'm not a supporter of universal vouchers. I support targeted vouchers for low-income and working-class people. People with money have always had choice."

On the other hand, thexercisedis excercised only at a significant cost in real estate commissions, moving expenses, and emotional turmoil--costs that must be borne only because we have a residential-based system of assigning students to schools.

Fuller also points out that "The people who support the status quo are much more politically powerful at this point than people who are supporting reforms such as parental choice."

True enough--but it would then be unwise to make the coalition in favor of reform smaller by denying meaningful vouchers or tax credits to the middle class.

Terry M. Moe lays out the biggest obstacle to market-based reforms, grounded in public choice theory:

"Political power is the obstacle. There are reformers who are concerned about what's best for kids, but the vested interests that arise are more concerned with protecting the status quo; thatÂ?s their livelihood. The unions in particular are extremely powerful and want to prevent any kind of threatening changes. And I don'?t know that there'?s an answer to that other than to amass power on the choice side."

Jacob G. Hornberger echoes Marshall Fritz: "No compulsory attendance laws, and no school taxes. No government involvement at all."

While I and most reforms accept the argument that government financing of at least some level of education (if not a monopoly on the delivery of it) is justified on the grounds of public goods, Hornberger will have none of it:

"If they truly believe that a free market in education would succeed, why would they feel the need to advocate welfare, which is what vouchers are, as a way to get there?"

John Merrifield says that if knowledge about economics was more widespread, there would be more pressure to change:

"The differences between political and market accountability are poorly understood, and the present system'?s failure to teach basic economic principles helps it survive withering criticism."

Chester E. Finn Jr. sees two major problems: interested adults (the education establishment) have lobbies, but children (who would benefit from change) do not, and most suburban parents (a key political force) believe, mistakenly, that all is well with their own school.

Uniting these themes, he adds is "the idea that the system's employees are experts who ought to be in charge of establishing the ground rules by which the system operates."

What's wrong with that? Nothing--except that their natural self-interest is not checked by competition, as happens elsewhere in life.

Jay P. Greene thinks what counts are better incentives, brought forth by expanded school choice, accountability testing, and merit pay for teachers.

His description of the obstacles to reform is so good it's worth reprinting in whole:

"When purchasing a service most people tend to think that they ought to be able "to choose among providers. Most people tend to think that those service providers are likely to do a higher quality job at lower cost if they have to earn business from customers. Most people believe that it is both fair and efficient for compensation in those service industries to be linked to performance. Most people believe in the desirability of choice and competition and the power of incentives--?except in education.

When it comes to education most people somehow believe that the rules should be different. We shouldn't allow choice, they argue, because people might make bad choices. Schools donÂ't need competition to perform better, they argue, they just need better resources. And assessing performance to compensate educators is fraught with error, they fear. Besides, teachers don'?t do it for the money; they do it because they love children.

These arguments for education being exceptional do not stand up to scrutiny. The government does not assign people to doctors, even though it is possible that people may choose poorly--?and health care is an area where the cost of failure can be catastrophic. And while we understand that almost everyone who works with kids, from doctors to babysitters, loves children, we also recognize that financial rewards for excellent performance inspire better service."

John Taylor Gatto, finally, calls for an end to compulsory attendance laws ("prison regulations," he says). He also fears the effects of vouchers: They will result in "a much deeper and broader reach of official pedagogy into every home and every small secular or religious group that puts together schools." He seems to endorse a model of anarcho-capitalism, where teenagers are free to be entrepreneurs rather than students.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Does the Florida Ruling Imperil School Vouchers?
Adam B. Schaeffer, of the American Enterprise Institute, thinks so, and says that efforts to reform may turn to tax credits: "Education tax credits are quickly becoming, out of necessity, the last best hope for school choice in most of the country."

He points out that there has been no legal challenge to education tax credits since 2001.

Advocates of tax credits and vouchers can sometimes get into heated debates (something that Schaeffer, to my knowledge, has never done). Picking a particular method to enhanced competition and choice in the delivery of k-12 schooling is less important than the fact that it gets started.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Stupid Is ... as a Stupid System Does.
Cue up the TiVO for John Stossel, who hosts a TV special "Stupid In America: How We Cheat Our Kids."

Fromthe announcement at ABC News:

"We're not stupid. But we could do better," one high school student tells Stossel. Another says, "I think it has to be something with the school, 'cause I don't think we're stupider."

That's the question Stossel examines in his special report: What is it that's going wrong in public schools?

There are many factors that contribute to failure in school. A major factor, Stossel finds, is the government's monopoly over the school system. Parents don't get to choose where to send their children. In other countries, choice brings competition, and competition improves performance.

--------
Friday, January 13, 10pm EST.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Some of My Friends Aren't Going to Like This ...
Britain is closing in on a total ban of smoking at pubs. This is sure to come up in debates over smoking bans here. (permalink)

More Money for Schools! Or Will it Be Wasted?
It seems like increased spending for public schools is an unqualified good. But what happens when schools waste money?

John T. Wenders offers some thoughts in this oldie-but-goodie that I found in the Kansas City Star.

Economists instinctively presume that costs are developed by cost-minimizing producers weighing the productivity of various inputs and choosing an optimal mix. Total expenditures are then built from the bottom up.

In the U.S. public education system, this assumption is dead wrong. There, total expenditures are allocated from the top down to mop up available revenues. How much any public school spends depends not on how much it “needs” for efficient operation but on how much it can extract from taxpayers. These revenues are then dissipated among various squabbling constituencies to feed their continuous demand for taxes.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

The Least Necessary Place for a Smoking Ban.
Officials in Eagle County, Colorado, are thinking about banning smoking on ski lifts and on or near lift lines. Yes, banning smoking, on the premises of a private business (technically, public land--most ski areas are on U.S. Forest Service land--used by a private business), outside.

Eagle County, by the way, is the home to Vail. Nothing like sticking it to tourists--your paying customers. (permalink)

A Newspaper Gets the Internet.
Newspapers like to strike a stand of being the parties who inform the public. At least one paper has found a way to use the Internet to further that goal.

Controversies over school finance, relating to total spending, the distribution of it, or both, have roiled state after state. Kansas is the latest one.

Last year the legislature asked one of its research units to conduct yet another cost study. The report was released today. It's not pretty (lots more money expected). Among other papers, the Lawrence Journal-World gives a quick spin on the report: another $1 billion to a system already spending $3 billion a year.

What's especially helpful about the article, however, is that it contains links to the full report (353 pages) as well as the summary (31 pages.) Actually, they don't simply link to the report, they put a copy of it on the LWJ's web site, which should make downloading easier by providing yet another distribution channel. (permalink)

School Choice Setback: Florida Court Rules Against Program.
One of the most innovative programs in school reform has been dealt a body blow by the Florida Supreme Court.

Under the Opportunity Scholarship Program, each public school is rated for its performance. If a school gets an "F" two years our of four, the students in the school can transfer to any public or privately run school that abides by specified rules.

Teacher unions, among others, objected, and found a sympathetic ear in the Florida Supreme Court, which has struck down the program. The court says that it violates legal requirements for a uniform system of free public schools.

(Uniform? It's hard to find a state that has "uniform" public schools. Perhaps Hawaii, which is one big school district.)

The Alliance for School Choice vows to fight on. Says director Clint Bolick, "Given that parental choice is triggered only when kids are in a failing public school, this ruling turns the guarantee of high-quality schools on its head."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Competition Here, But Not There.
Competition does exist in education--to a point.

Kenneth Daniels (you can tell I'm going through my piled-up e-mails and web site reading today, can't you?) points out that competition is already used in K-12 education--except where it counts.

Sports competition is big in public schools. Academic competition is big in public schools. Competition for administrative jobs is big in public schools.

The only competition our educrats hate is competition for public funding," in the form of vouchers and even charter schools.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

When State Standards Make Everyone Above Average.
If you've got two tests, which one do you depend on?

Under No Child Left Behind, states administer reading and math tests (under the auspices of NAEP). But many have their own assessments as well.

And that's where it can become interesting, especially when the two tests give wildly different results. Writing for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Jamie Story says:

"At first glance, results from the state achievement test, the TAKS, paint a positive picture, as scores have steadily increased across grade levels and subjects since the test was implemented.

But the TAKS may not be the best measure of student achievement. While 81 percent of Texas fourth-graders exhibited proficiency on the Math TAKS this year, only 40 percent exhibited proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. This discrepancy between the Texas and national tests is one of the largest in the nation."

That's some discrepancy! (permalink)

How Much Does Schooling Cost?
Kansas (like many states) is debating the "right" amount of money to spend on schools. Kenneth Daniel\ offers some thoughts from the business world.

He believes that the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit may be using the right approach in at least one of the two studies it is expected to release next week. But he wonders whether if the proper policy responses will come about as a result:

"If the studies say K-12 needs a lot more money, legislators will have to give a lot more money. If the studies say certain groups are getting short-changed, legislators will have to give them more money.

On the other hand, if the studies say there is already plenty of money, or certain groups are already getting more than needed, it is highly doubtful that any cuts will occur or funds will be shifted. This just never happens in the Kansas legislature." (permalink)

Does Lake Superior College Favor High School Administrators Over Students?
For whose benefit are educational institutions run: students, or teachers and administrators?

One education program run by the state of Minnesota is the Post-Secondary Enrollment Option, or PSEO, under which the state pays college tuition for high school juniors and seniors, who also earn high school credit.

The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, at the University of Minnesota, released a report in December on the PSEO. It finds that the program is underutilized, in part because high schools and universities don't do enough to promote it.

And why wouldn't that be? Follow the money, and the social connections.

Says a press release from HHH, some high school counselors are unhelpful to students using the tuition funds. One possible reason: "The school district, which receives a portion of its state money based on each student, receives substantially less from the state for full-time PSEO students, who do not count toward enrollment."

But the blame doesn't extend only to high schools. Post-secondary institutions can undercut the program, too. Again, quoting the HHH: "Harry Cottrell, director of extended campus programs at Lake Superior College, said the institution does not recruit PSEO students largely because of the cost to K-12 schools.

'That wouldn't make for a good relationship,' he said. 'It would be counterproductive.'"

Counterproductive for the employees of the district and the college/university. But for the student?

Yet another case in which a government program meant to help people is captured by those who run it. How many students who could have benefited from the PSEO not done so because of the reluctance of school or university officials to put the interests of the students first?

While the PSEO is not the most important innovation that could or even has been implemented, it should get some credit for introducing a tiny bit of school choice into the K-12 scene. It says to the student "Hey, we'll pick up the tuition. You choose where to take these classes; we won't dictate that simply on your place of residence."

In addition, of course, the PSEO is useful to students who would otherwise not be stretched by their high schools. I could have used such a program in high school. Heck, even before that. I took some history and psychology classes before the walk in funny clothes to Pomp and Circumstance. I had to get the permission of my high school to take the classes, none of which, by law, could be applied toward high school credit. The result: I picked up some interesting classes (on my parent's dime) in college, but could not substitute them for some dull classes that repeated what I had already learned from college--or even, in one case, junior high school.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Where Your Tax Dollars Go.
Teachers in public schools are paid for by taxpayers--who may be surprised to find that their dollars then go to left-wing political groups.

Now of course what teachers do with their own money--spend it on slot machines or on orphanages--is their own business. But in many states, membership in teacher unions is a job requirement, so some members of the public might have some interest in knowing where union funds go.

The U.S. Department of Labor is putting the screws to big unions, trying to increase financial disclosure requirements. The Wall Street Journal comments favorably on this (no surprise there). But in so doing it passes along a few NEA (National Education Association) disbursals that have, at best, a tangential relationship to the business of schooling: money has gone to Amnesty International and an AIDS walk. (Couldn't union members who value these activities donate money themselves? I've studied AI and I don't recall that group having much to do with improving education in the U.S.)

Of course the NEA has given money to groups that seek to protect the status quo (i.e., anti-school voucher, anti-charter schools.)

The Department of Labor runs the LMRDA public disclosure web site where you can download such information. The interface is a bit cumbersome, but I did find that the Florida NEA made a payment of $11,586 in 2005 to Adeco Employment Services. That would be a temp agency

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Your Grandmother Was Right.
Peter Townsend (The Who) says that turning up the volume on those headphones too far can damage your hearing. He ought to know. (permalink)

Librarians Turn Stern.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

A growing number of routine municipal fines and fees -- including unpaid parking tickets, library fines, and trash-collection charges -- are starting to damage consumer-credit scores.

In the face of budget crunches, major cities, including New York, Chicago and Miami, are hiring private collection agencies to chase down small debts that are frequently shrugged off by consumers. Since an outstanding account handled by a private collection company can wind up in a credit file, more consumers are discovering that niggling government fees -- like unpaid speeding tickets or dog-catcher fines -- are marring their credit. It's up to each city to decide whether such information will end up in a consumer's credit file.


Good or bad? Incentives certainly do affect behavior; I have cut way back on borrowing books from the library after getting hit with some fines myself. I can always blame the inefficient practices of my graduate school library: no book was (effectively) "overdue" until it was declared lost--perhaps 3 months after the due date. At that point, the borrower was hit not with daily fines but with the cost of the book itself, and an acquisition fee to be used to purchase a new copy. Then again, if the borrower simply returned the book, all was forgiven.

Unfortunately, that practice, long ago, got me into a habit of not watching the calendar. So, along the lines of one of the persons interviewed in the WSJ article, I am more likely to buy what I want (Amazon and other sellers make it easy to purchase used, cheaper books) rather than go to the library. With rising affluence and access to digital technology, will support for libraries as we know them suffer?

Also of note in the article: the increased use of outside collection agencies to collect unpaid bills, such as parking tickets and fines for riding transit systems without a ticket.

On the plus side, it's good old outsourcing, plus simple fairness. (Why should some people enjoy a free ride with years of what amounts to interest-free financing of their debts?) Then again, when government agencies are involved, billing errors may be harder to fix, resulting in more needless damage to credit reports. In short, a possibly good move, with some pitfalls. (permalink)