One of out two?
One out of two is a great batting average--but a horrible statistic if it describes the number of students who enter high school and graduate four years later.

The group Clergy for Educational Options reminds us why a state's poor record (in this case, South Carolina) matters:

----------------------------
For Immediate Release

June 29, 2006

GRADUATION RATE HANDICAPS STATE PROGRESS
The NBA Finals just concluded and for those of you who care, the Miami Heat beat the Dallas Mavericks in six games. I’m a major fan of the NBA, but didn’t follow the season like I have in years past. But I did watch the finals. And as much as I think I know about basketball, I was somewhat amazed that one of the most dominant players of our time, Shaquille O’Neal, was not in during the final stretches of most games. Shaq, being such a dominant force on the court, would often cause me to forget that Shaq’s free throw percentage was 47% during the regular season and only 37% during the playoffs, knowing this, it’s easy to understand why their coach made that decision – Shaq would have been a handicap to their winning the title.
While I’ve heard numerous excuses as to why Shaq cannot make free throws. However, the fact remains that he cannot get the job done from the free throw line. Consequently, the coach made needed changes to help ensure they accomplished their goal of winning the title.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the “coach” of South Carolina’s education system. Despite another dire report that shows South Carolina graduating only 52.5% of its students, Coach Tenenbaum and her “assistants” refuse to make needed changes to a system that clearly is not producing as it should. Instead, they continue to make excuses, saying it’s not fair to compare states because we have different graduation requirements.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that comparisons are not what matter most – it’s production. In this case, having a system that is producing only one graduate for every two that enter high school is the problem – not the comparison with other states. It’s time for the education establishment to wake up and realize that their excuse making only exacerbates the real problems associated with our low- graduation rate.

Regardless of where we rank nationally, the simple fact is that only 52.5% of our children are graduating. That is a horrendous statistic that cannot be discounted or excused simply because we make our high school students take a 10th grade level exit exam or require that they pass with 24 credits rather than the 20 many other states mandate.

Education and elected officials across South Carolina are doing a disservice to the state by not implementing real reform that will help increase graduation rates.

South Carolina needs to decide how we can better prepare more of our students for college and life beyond high school. That’s the only way South Carolina will better its economy and the quality of life of its citizens. The cost of not graduating more students has a tremendously adverse affect on our state. According to the Education Week report:

FYI: Subcommittee members voted 4-1 to adjourn debate on this bill - which was a procedural move to kill the legislation for this year. Rep. Lewis Vaughn voted against the adjournment motion while Reps. Adam Taylor, Lanny Littlejohn, Jim Battle and Herb Kirsh voted against children, parents and their colleagues by supporting the motion.


Over a lifetime, an 18-year-old who does not complete high school earns about $260,000 less than an individual with a high school diploma, and contributes about $60,000 less in federal and state income taxes. The combined income and tax losses aggregated over one cohort of 18-year-olds who do not complete high school is about $192 billion, or 1.6 percent of the gross domestic product. (Cecilia Elena Rouse, economist, Princeton University)
Individuals with a high school diploma live longer, have better indicators of general health, and are less likely to use publicly financed health-insurance programs than high school dropouts. If the 600,000 18-year-olds who failed to graduate in 2004 had advanced one grade, it would save about $2.3 billion in publicly financed medical care, aggregated over a lifetime. (Peter Muennig, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University)
Adults who lack a high school diploma are at greater risk of being on public assistance. If all dropouts receiving assistance had a high school diploma instead, the result would be a total cost savings for federal welfare spending, food stamps, and public housing of $7.9 billion to $10.8 billion a year. (Jane Waldfogel et al., Columbia University School of Social Work)
High school dropouts are far more likely to commit crimes and be incarcerated than those with more education. A 1% increase in the high school completion rate of men ages 20 to 60 would save the United States as much as $1.4 billion a year in reduced costs from crime incurred by victims and society at large. (Enrico Moretti, economist, University of California, Berkeley)

Additionally, the United States Census Bureau estimates that on average, workers with a high school degree earn 30% more than those who drop out of high school and that a worker with a bachelor’s degree earns 72% more than one with only a high school degree. And, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, college graduate can expect to earn on average $2.1 million in his lifetime, nearly twice as much as a worker with only a high-school diploma.

With only 1 in 2 students graduating in South Carolina, the resulting costs associated with these statistics are staggering. We are clearly doing the state great harm by not implementing programs that can help graduate more students.

School choice is a proven method for accomplishing that goal. It is time to acknowledge that the public school system is not the answer for every child. We must offer children educational alternatives so that their individual needs can be met, leading to a better chance of graduation and a more prosperous life.

Labels: Health care, School choice

(permalink)

We're #1! We're #1!
Here's one place where you may not want to be #1: total per-capita tax burden. Here's a link to the latest full-year ranking from the Census Bureau. (Here is the referring page.)

Even if a state slides down in the ranking, that's not necessarily a sign that government is getting smarter, right-sized, or anything like that. It could simply mean that other states have been more spendthrift. (permalink)

300 Million and Counting.
I just noticed that the front page of the Census Bureau's web site shows that the U.S. population is almost at 300 million.

That's not a bad thing. How government responds to population increases, on the other hand, could be good or bad. (permalink)

Help! My neighbor wants a nicer house!
When people aren't busy trying to ape the wealthy, they are trying to control them. At least that's one way of looking at the controversy surrounding "McMansions" and teardowns.

I've lived in all sorts of neighborhoods: acre-plus sites in rural areas with dirt roads, apartments in neighborhoods on the edge of crime-ridden areas (or not), and older but tidy blue-collar neighborhoods.

My favorite neighborhood, however, was on the edge of a wealthy suburb in a major metropolitan area. The house was taken up in large measure by modest 2 or 3-bedroom single-story houses from the late 1950s. A short distance away--perhaps half a mile away--were even older, more stately buildings, some from the turn of the century. A half-mile away from them were genuine mansions fetching $1.3 million or more.

In my time in that neighborhood, busybodies in the suburb kept themselves occupied by tut-tutting the growth of the teardown phenomenon. Homeowners (either the current occupants, or more likely, new buyers) would tear down a building that was 50 years older, or older. In its place would go a multi-story building, often with brick, that would take up an even larger amount of the lot, and offer more bedrooms, more bathrooms, and in general, more space.

I didn't always care for the design of the newly established buildings. But then again, I figured that it wasn't my problem. If nothing else, I ought to have been happy, for two reasons: the value of my land (I had a cheap house, but expensive land) went up, and the supersized valuation of the new dwelling meant that someone else was going to take on an ever-larger share of the local tax burden.

But of course some people are not satisfied to leave well-enough alone, or should I say the well-being of others, alone. Wherever this phenomenon is taking place, you find worried neighbors, study commissions, calls for respecting "neighborhood character," and the like.

People are getting wealthy, and improving their surroundings. This ... is ... a ... problem.

Or so you think if you listen to any number of "activists" and "concerned citizens."

Well, the hand-wringing--call it the fretting over wealth--has infected Minneapolis. Given the "social solidarity" (read: we love taxes, the higher the better) of Minnesota, I shouldn't be surprised.

The Southwest Journal, a weekly newspaper in the city, recently ran a front-page article titled "Southwest Super-Sized."

Among the alleged troubles brought by the new dwellings: they can be much larger than nearby houses; they "don't blend in with the character of neighboring properties," and (horror of horrors to some urbanites), "the new properties would fit better in the suburbs."

You know, those soulless hells of anomie and bowling alone.

The Fulton Neighborhood Association, for one, is asking that the city "adopt zoning codes to make newly constructed homes and remodeled homes, more closely match the surrounding properties, in style, in the amount of lot consumed by the home and in height."

And I thought that the problem with suburbs was their rampant conformity. It turns out that some folks want to impose conformity on city neighborhoods as well. (I should point out here that I do find many suburban neighborhoods, especially ones less than, say, 20 years old, hopelessly dull from an aesthetic standpoint.)

The Journal points out that the latest trend in Minneapolis teardowns is the demolition of "alley houses," which are "small, quickly built homes originally intended to be temporary."

John Finlayson, president of the neighborhood association, said that "It's an issue of how do you balance private property rights against the historic character of the neighborhood?"

That doesn't sound like much of an issue to me. People have rights. "Historic character" does not.

If you’re neighbor is spewing toxic fluids on your lawn, you should be concerned. If he’s replacing a structure that no longer fits the needs and wants of today’s Americans with something that has a more luxurious look and feel?

There are much graver problems to think about. (permalink)

Entrepreneurial Schools.
The value of charter-school fundraising.

Recently I toured several charter schools. None depends solely on taxpayer support, each engages in development work, seeking volunteers and financial backing from foundations and individuals.

This is not unusual; many traditional public schools as well as public universities do fundraising. But charter schools are more consumer-sensitive than traditional public schools. There are several reasons:

One, they must persuade potential donors to actually contribute.

Two, they cannot rely on persuading a bare majority of voters to compel everyone else to pay more each day for the school's operating expenses. (Traditional public schools can place measures on the ballot, often timing them in ways as to maximize the likelihood of passage.)

Three, each family must take the active step of actually rejecting the default option of the standard school district, and actively select and apply to a charter school.

Charter schools do not operate uniformly well, no more than do all traditional district-owned schools. Yet they face more incentives to actively listen and respond to willing customers. If for no other reason, they are worthy elements of "public education."

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

On the highway to hell.

Are our laws taking us to the promised land, or are we really on the highway to hell?

No, I'm not asking anyone to walk to the front of the church, or even to crank up the AC/DC tunes.

I'm thinking of the sentiments I often read about politics and public policy. It's far too easy to think that good intentions are good enough. Concerned for the plight of the poor?

Raise the minimum wage, and ignore the fact that doing so will make it more attractive for business to substitute machinery for workers, making it even harder for the people at the bottom of the ladder to find a job.

Condemn pharmaceutical companies for selling a lifesaving pill for a dollar a piece. "How can anyone make money off of human misery?" Yet forget that research and development is costly. Want to bring the stream of new, innovative, life saving and life enhancing drugs to a halt? Slap on price controls and make it financially unattractive to develop new products. Then we will see that nothing is so costly as "free" health care.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We've got plenty of good intentions in our laws.

What road are we on? Maybe it’s time to stop and ask directions. (permalink)

No Child Left Behind ... Left Behind?
Alexander Russo says that No Child Left Behind is being gutted by administrative measures.

While the law is troublesome for several reasons, especially the federalization of education policy, it has had a few good results, including putting a spotlight on poor academic performance of schools.

The law is provides a long path towards some increased use of school choice--weak forms, perhaps, but options nonetheless. But the administration that pushed for NCLB is now taking away what little pressure it has put on schools.

One rule of politics is "follow the money." The threat of losing money--or even seeing more money go to outside agents--was supposed to be the stick to prod districts into reform.

No more?

Last summer, when the law was on the verge of shifting tens of millions of federal education dollars from urban school districts to outside tutoring companies, Spellings created a "pilot" program that allowed several big-city districts to keep on doing their own tutoringÂ?and to keep the money.

If this pilot program is expanded, much of the value of NCLB will have been wiped out. It will have turned into just another story in the story of putting more money into the sane old system.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Can school choice work in rural areas?
One objection to school choice is "it can't work in rural areas." According to this line of thought, the economics won't support more than one school system.

But the Alliance for School Choice says that it is possible--and looks to Iowa as an example.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Department of Irony.
Can you complain about plagiarism if the person you wrote to write that term paper did a cut-and-paste job from someone else?

Some college students hire other people to write term papers for them. One service that appears in this market space is EssayWriters.net, which "specializes in writing essays, term papers, course works, MBA projects and dissertations on any subject matter."

Dissertations?

Meanwhile, the web site EssayFraud runs with the slogan "Stop plagiarism now!"

So does EssayFraud help professors detect fradulent essays? Not quite. Its purpose is to smoke out writing mills operated outside the U.S.

Protectionism, meet academic fraud. (permalink)

Competition in off-air television service?
Monopolies prosper over the long-term only if they are imposed or abetted by government. We see this in communications, for example. The following note from the Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore talks about how governments may sometimes actually encourage monopolies:

---------------

Some of us rejoice when a monopoly gets taken down a notch or ten by new competition. Others do not. Cell phones are a great example, a new technology that has really changed how the old monopoly land line companies operate, and brought huge benefits to consumers.

A similar change is now happening with television. Telecom companies can now provide video services just like the monopoly cable companies have done for decades. We should be rejoicing that soon customers will have choices of television services and not a single provider. But many cities instead are fighting the change, eager to keep the franchise fees they charge monopoly cable providers and the power to dictate some of the content they provide.

A few states, like Texas and Ohio, have passed legislation requiring that cities allow competing services. And a few mayors have spoken out in favor of competition in television providers and an end to the old monopoly regulations and franchise fees.

Mayor Curt Pringle of Anaheim has been out front on this. Many of you know Anaheim because of Disneyland, but it is also one of the largest cities in America and has enjoyed a great deal of high quality development thanks to great leadership from the Mayor and city council and good policy decisions that embrace competition and markets. Mayor Pringle’s perspective on competitive telecommunications providers is that will give city residents more choices, a better deal, and make the city more competitive with its neighbors.

Anaheim filed a statement on the issue with the FCC. I highly recommend it and the principals it espouses as educational and as a model to emulate. You can read their press release on it here and their full statement to the FCC here.

I am eager to know if any other communities have taken similar stances, or would like to. Please let me know if you have done so or are aware of any who have.

A few lines from Anaheim’s press release sum it up:

"By eliminating franchise fees and impediments, Anaheim leaders believe there will be equitable competition amongst the variety of video service providers. In this way, and without local government interference, the various systems compete in price, quality and quantity and consumers decide which service provider they prefer.

In the past, local governments have used money collected by the franchise fee to help pay for basic city services, such as public safety, traffic management and street and sidewalk preservation. But, in fact, cities have created an unfair tax on cable companies and limited competition in a fast-paced, competitive marketplace. Furthermore, many cities have used these fees to fund essential municipal services unrelated to cable.

Some believe that private companies should be required to give free services for police and fire stations, schools and libraries in exchange for doing business with and in their city. But Anaheim’s leaders don’t believe that free services like these justify allowing a single company to have a de facto monopoly on the market.

Mayor Pringle invited FCC commissioners to visit Anaheim and see a local community that is able to deliver top-quality video service without a franchise fee, giving its residents real choice in the marketplace." (permalink)

Prices go up ... So do taxes.
I got my phone bill the other day. The rate for basic service went up $2, or nearly 12 percent. Fortunately, I do have options when it comes to phone service, and it's fairly easy to choose among them. I can get telephone service from a cable TV company or from the old-fashioned telephone company. Or as more people are doing these days, I can cut the telephone wire completely (if not literally) by going to an Internet-based service such as Vonage, or relying on cellular service.

So I can perhaps change the amount that I pay each month, or at least, the basket of services that I buy.

But there's one part of my telecommunications bill that I can't do much about. That's the section devoted to taxes. Oh, I might be able to move to a place where the local or state rate is lower--at a significant price itself. And of course I can't get around federal taxes short of leaving the country, and the options don't look too good on that count.

So if I stick with my current carrier, they get more money from me each month. That's if I prefer them from among the alternatives. But it's much more difficult to avoid higher payments to another group of entities that find a place on my phone bill: governments.

Now, governments do on occasion provide useful and necessary services. Roads. Cops. National defense.

Notice, however, that in this case, governments don't have to do anything to get more money from me. They don't have to give me faster service, better service, or even more service that I don't want than they did before. It simply has to ... wait.

Did you ever think that by reducing the prices of retail sales, Wal-Mart "starves" tax collectors? Maybe that's another reason for the demonization of America's most successful company.

[Reprinted from the Detroit News] (permalink)

Comparison Shopping for Schools.
Will the WWW foster consumer-driven education? Here's hoping. Competitive markets depend on the free flow of information. Of the web sites I have come across lately, two provide information about schools.

Great Schools.Net encompasses both government and privately run schools. Private School Review, as the name suggests, limits its coverage to privately owned and operated K-12 schools.

Labels: Education

(permalink)