Flunked II (Update)
Hey, me again, Mr. Snell.
In my furor, I failed to mention that Lisa provided much of the impetus and connectivity that went into the making of the documentary Flunked (trailer here) . You'll see her name in the credits of the film itself and she appears in the outtakes.
BTW, I just got a text message that she was zipping down Splash Mountain at the Magic Kingdom, which [gasp] stays open until the bars close here in the Golden State. Can't say that about the Mouse House in Anaheim.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Foundation for Education Excellence
Just thinking about school and finance in the same sentence flames me out. Californicate spends over $22,000.00 A YEAR to educate my two kids. Yet I get a letter (Lisa hid it from me for weeks) from the school district explaining that this isn't enough to cover the cost of busing. They want us to cough up another $700.00. For busing. I'm hopping mad, apoplectic. And where's the notice of the school board meeting where this was discussed? Didn't get to my house.It's simple math really, and when we're done, you'll see what I mean.
34 kids per classroom
$11,000.00 per kid in education spending
Good Morning, it's Mr Lisa Snell, subbing in for my better half.
Lisa is in Fla. for a few days at the Foundation for Education Excellence conference. That's Jeb Bush's baby. Pretty sure those guys are focused on Florida schools and reforming some of the legal impediments to implementing tiny little bits and pieces of school choice. I think she's interviewing a New Jersey Senator for something else. John Stossel is a keynote speaker. She's is moderating the panel on school finance. I try to keep up.....
Just thinking about school and finance in the same sentence flames me out. Californicate spends over $22,000.00 A YEAR to educate my two kids. Yet I get a letter (Lisa hid it from me for weeks) from the school district explaining that this isn't enough to cover the cost of busing. They want us to cough up another $700.00. For busing. I'm hopping mad, apoplectic. And where's the notice of the school board meeting where this was discussed? Didn't get to my house.It's simple math really, and when we're done, you'll see what I mean.34 kids per classroom
$11,000.00 per kid in education spending
Follow along boys and girls, that's.....
$374,000.00 per classroom.
Peel off a hundred grand for teacher salaries and benefits and that leaves.....
$274,000.00 per classroom, per year. For that kind of folding long green I'd expect a limo out front at 7:30 AM every weekday.
What, exactly, are you people doing with that money?
Yes I'm aware that school funding is complex. Why is that?
The conference is also screening this:
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
New Orleans' Kids Get Vouchers
Tonight, more good school choice news for New Orleans.
From Education Week:
Nearly 60 percent of the city’s 33,000 public school children attend 40 charter schools now, the highest percentage in any district. The number is likely to rise as several more charters open in the fall. Paul G. Vallas, the superintendent of the state-run Recovery School District, talks of giving the 33 schools he manages “charter-like” independence, with principals who will choose their own faculty members and manage their own budgets, and school-based committees that will help select principals. Only five schools still answer directly to the elected Orleans Parish school board that ran the district before the storm struck in August 2005.
In the near future New Orleans will continue to see a decentralized system with students using vouchers for private schools, even more charters, and public schools that are also autonomous and decentralized where principals control their budgets and personnel.
Tonight, more good school choice news for New Orleans.
It looks like New Orleans is shaping up to fit Myron Lieberman's conception in Public Education: An Autopsy of a three-sector education industry, where the K-12 education market consists of public schools, nonprofit schools, and schools for profit.In a major legislative success for Gov. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Senate voted 25-12 Wednesday for a bill that would let up to 1,500 low- to middle-income students in New Orleans attend private schools at taxpayer expense.
Already approved by the House, the school voucher bill by Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans, needs one more routine vote in that body on Senate language changes before it goes to Jindal for his signature.
From Education Week:
Nearly 60 percent of the city’s 33,000 public school children attend 40 charter schools now, the highest percentage in any district. The number is likely to rise as several more charters open in the fall. Paul G. Vallas, the superintendent of the state-run Recovery School District, talks of giving the 33 schools he manages “charter-like” independence, with principals who will choose their own faculty members and manage their own budgets, and school-based committees that will help select principals. Only five schools still answer directly to the elected Orleans Parish school board that ran the district before the storm struck in August 2005.
In the near future New Orleans will continue to see a decentralized system with students using vouchers for private schools, even more charters, and public schools that are also autonomous and decentralized where principals control their budgets and personnel.
Friday, June 06, 2008
More on Universal Preschool
Today at Education Week, Linda Jacobson reports on the long-term benefits of universal preschool from the Chicago Child Parent Program.
I am the one and only skeptic in the article:
But some experts caution that the children served by the Chicago program and similar efforts were very disadvantaged, and that providing such services to middle-class families in universal preschool programs are unlikely to result in the same return on investment.
“The biggest argument against the Chicago economic data is that it is still largely a ‘boutique’ program that cost more and provided more services than most current universal and preschool programs,” said Lisa Snell, the director of education and child welfare at the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, a free-market-oriented think tank. “It is hard to imagine that current programs will have the same kinds of economic payoffs as the Chicago program.”
Today at Education Week, Linda Jacobson reports on the long-term benefits of universal preschool from the Chicago Child Parent Program.
I am the one and only skeptic in the article:
But some experts caution that the children served by the Chicago program and similar efforts were very disadvantaged, and that providing such services to middle-class families in universal preschool programs are unlikely to result in the same return on investment.
“The biggest argument against the Chicago economic data is that it is still largely a ‘boutique’ program that cost more and provided more services than most current universal and preschool programs,” said Lisa Snell, the director of education and child welfare at the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, a free-market-oriented think tank. “It is hard to imagine that current programs will have the same kinds of economic payoffs as the Chicago program.”
Senator Obama Should Reconsider Universal Preschool
In today's Reason Foundation column, I look at Obama's early education plans. I decided to look at how the one state that has been the model for universal preschool for over a decade, Oklahoma, was performing on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Curiously, in the twelve states that are scolded by preschool advocacy groups for failing to offer any state-funded preschool program, eight of the states score higher than Oklahoma on the NAEP's fourth grade reading assessment and unlike Oklahoma all twelve have made measurable gains in fourth grade reading over the last decade. In the column below I argue that universal preschool is not the silver bullet Senator Obama is looking for.
Failing Public Schools Wipe Out Any Preschools Gains
Sen. Obama's education plans should focus on charter schools, other reforms, not universal preschool
By Lisa Snell
In Sen. Barack Obama's June 3rd victory speech, after wrapping up the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he told Americans that "we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education." Obama promises a preschool agenda that begins at birth. His early education plan includes a major role for the federal government in spreading universal preschool to all states. He calls for a total federal expenditure of $10 billion a year to promote early education. And a central component of his plan would offer grants as incentives to states to accelerate the trend toward "universal preschool for all."
At a 2008 Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, Obama talked about the payoffs of early education to disadvantaged children:
"What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That's why I've said that I'm going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters. Every dollar that we spend in early childhood education, we get $10 back in reduced dropout rates, and improved reading scores."
Obama is right about looking for ways to help poor, disadvantaged kids learn their numbers, colors, and letters in preschool and preparing them for elementary school, but he should re-examine his priority list. Yes, several studies that show preschoolers enrolled in universal preschool make modest gains in kindergarten and the early grades. For example, a 2007 study of five state preschool programs, by the National Institute for Early Education, found that children entering kindergarten who went through a universal preschool program made significant gains in early language, literacy, and math.
Unfortunately, these gains have not translated into lasting, higher academic achievement for the states who have invested heavily in universal preschool. The overlying problem: our broken, under-performing public school system can't maintain any gains that early education may provide. By the fourth grade all of the gains are washed away. So until we fix the public schools, universal preschool is a waste of precious education resources.
This is illustrated by the experiences of disadvantaged fourth graders in Oklahoma and Georgia, the two U.S. states that have had universal preschool for over a decade. Despite a fully implemented universal preschool system, students in Oklahoma and Georgia have not improved significantly on the National Assessment of Education Progress, the nation's report card for reading and math proficiency.
Oklahoma is considered the current U.S. leader on the universal preschool front. The state has received rave reviews for its program and is the model that many states aspire to become. Oklahoma enrolls more than 70 percent of four-year-olds in preschool and is considered a "high quality" program by the National Institute for Early Education at Rutgers University and national preschool advocacy groups such as Preschool Now. Oklahoma's program has strong curriculum, public school provision, and utilizes teachers with teaching credentials.
Yet, the picture is not so rosy when one considers overall academic achievement in Oklahoma. After a decade of universal preschool, Oklahoma has not made gains on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) fourth grade reading test.
The NAEP is the most objective test of academic performance for Oklahoma students because it serves as a quality benchmark for proficiency in reading and math. And it is a test against which all states can be evenly compared. The American Institutes for Research recently showed that the NAEP's definition of proficiency was also very similar to the standard used in international tests, giving the NAEP a "world class" standing. As long as the NAEP standard is employed, proficiency in the United States has roughly the same meaning as in Europe and Asia.
In reading, Oklahoma students remain below the national average and have actually lost ground since universal preschool was implemented. Today, Oklahoma students have lower reading scores than they did when universal preschool was enacted in 1998. In 1992, Oklahoma's fourth graders had an average scale score of 220, on a 0-to-500 scale, on the fourth grade reading test. By 2007, after years of universal preschool, that reading score had fallen slightly to 217.
In 1998, 19 percent of disadvantaged kids were proficient in reading on the NAEP. In 2007, after years off giving low-income children access to preschool, still only 19 percent were proficient in reading. For non-disadvantaged kids the news is worse. In 1998, 42 percent were proficient in reading, but in 2007 only 36 percent were.
In addition, the reading achievement gap between Hispanics and whites in Oklahoma is higher now than it was before universal preschool was enacted. In 1992, fourth grade Hispanic students had an average reading scale score of 207 (on a 0 to 500 scale). In 2007, that score had fallen to 198. The achievement gap between Hispanic and white students was 16 points 1992 and grew to 25 points in 2007.
Clearly any academic gains that preschool gives to low-income and minority students disappear once they enter our failing public schools. And Oklahoma isn't alone.
In Georgia, reading scores for fourth graders have remained flat despite a large investment, starting in 1995, in a universal preschool system that enrolls 60 percent of the state's kids.
Another telling indicator of the weakness of Georgia and Oklahoma's academic standards is revealed in the Summer 2008 issue of Education Next, which analyzes which states have "world class" standards and which do not. Scholars Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess compare how students do on each state's own assessment test versus how they perform on the national NAEP tests. By comparing the percentage of students deemed proficient on each, it is possible to determine whether states are setting expectations higher, lower, or equal to the NAEP standard. If the percentages are identical (or roughly so), then state proficiency standards can be fairly labeled as "world-class."
In Oklahoma, an impressive 90 percent of fourth graders were proficient on the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test. But a miserable 22 percent of Oklahoma's fourth graders were actually proficient on the NAEP. Similarly, Georgia declared 88 percent of its eighth graders proficient in reading, even though just 26 percent scored at or above the proficiency level on the NAEP. Georgia joined Oklahoma and Tennessee as the only three states to earn an "F" in comparison to the NAEP for their state standards.
To date, early education has not been a silver bullet for Georgia or Oklahoma. Clearly universal preschool isn't entirely to blame. For that, we need to focus on the public school system that is failing our kids. These states do not have "world class" schools or academic standards that can deliver the long-term gains Sen. Obama is looking for.
Obama has said, "It is a sense of urgency that we've got to restore if we're going to be able to remain competitive in this new global economy. We've got to improve early childhood education, because that's the area where we can probably most effectively achieve the achievement gap that exists right now."
Without high quality K-12 education, no amount of investment in early education can close the achievement gap or make the United States globally competitive. To his credit, Obama seems to recognize that the government doesn't have unlimited resources to tackle this challenge, stating, "If you're a progressive, you've got to be worried about how the federal government is spending its revenue, because we don't have enough money to spend on things like early childhood education that are so important."
To that end, he has signed Reason Foundation's "Oath of Presidential Transparency," promising the most transparent and fiscally accountable executive branch in history. He's also wisely argued in favor of merit pay for teachers and charter schools, telling Politico, "I've consistently said, we need to support charter schools. I think it is important to experiment, by looking at how we can reward excellence in the classroom."
Some of Obama's instincts on education issues, like that stance on charters, break from traditional Democratic Party positions and can seriously help reform our public schools. For the best results, and to truly help disadvantaged kids, Obama should shift from pushing universal preschool to calling for meaningful reforms in our K-12 public schools.
In today's Reason Foundation column, I look at Obama's early education plans. I decided to look at how the one state that has been the model for universal preschool for over a decade, Oklahoma, was performing on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Curiously, in the twelve states that are scolded by preschool advocacy groups for failing to offer any state-funded preschool program, eight of the states score higher than Oklahoma on the NAEP's fourth grade reading assessment and unlike Oklahoma all twelve have made measurable gains in fourth grade reading over the last decade. In the column below I argue that universal preschool is not the silver bullet Senator Obama is looking for.
Failing Public Schools Wipe Out Any Preschools Gains
Sen. Obama's education plans should focus on charter schools, other reforms, not universal preschool
By Lisa Snell
In Sen. Barack Obama's June 3rd victory speech, after wrapping up the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he told Americans that "we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education." Obama promises a preschool agenda that begins at birth. His early education plan includes a major role for the federal government in spreading universal preschool to all states. He calls for a total federal expenditure of $10 billion a year to promote early education. And a central component of his plan would offer grants as incentives to states to accelerate the trend toward "universal preschool for all."
At a 2008 Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, Obama talked about the payoffs of early education to disadvantaged children:
"What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That's why I've said that I'm going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters. Every dollar that we spend in early childhood education, we get $10 back in reduced dropout rates, and improved reading scores."
Obama is right about looking for ways to help poor, disadvantaged kids learn their numbers, colors, and letters in preschool and preparing them for elementary school, but he should re-examine his priority list. Yes, several studies that show preschoolers enrolled in universal preschool make modest gains in kindergarten and the early grades. For example, a 2007 study of five state preschool programs, by the National Institute for Early Education, found that children entering kindergarten who went through a universal preschool program made significant gains in early language, literacy, and math.
Unfortunately, these gains have not translated into lasting, higher academic achievement for the states who have invested heavily in universal preschool. The overlying problem: our broken, under-performing public school system can't maintain any gains that early education may provide. By the fourth grade all of the gains are washed away. So until we fix the public schools, universal preschool is a waste of precious education resources.
This is illustrated by the experiences of disadvantaged fourth graders in Oklahoma and Georgia, the two U.S. states that have had universal preschool for over a decade. Despite a fully implemented universal preschool system, students in Oklahoma and Georgia have not improved significantly on the National Assessment of Education Progress, the nation's report card for reading and math proficiency.
Oklahoma is considered the current U.S. leader on the universal preschool front. The state has received rave reviews for its program and is the model that many states aspire to become. Oklahoma enrolls more than 70 percent of four-year-olds in preschool and is considered a "high quality" program by the National Institute for Early Education at Rutgers University and national preschool advocacy groups such as Preschool Now. Oklahoma's program has strong curriculum, public school provision, and utilizes teachers with teaching credentials.
Yet, the picture is not so rosy when one considers overall academic achievement in Oklahoma. After a decade of universal preschool, Oklahoma has not made gains on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) fourth grade reading test.
The NAEP is the most objective test of academic performance for Oklahoma students because it serves as a quality benchmark for proficiency in reading and math. And it is a test against which all states can be evenly compared. The American Institutes for Research recently showed that the NAEP's definition of proficiency was also very similar to the standard used in international tests, giving the NAEP a "world class" standing. As long as the NAEP standard is employed, proficiency in the United States has roughly the same meaning as in Europe and Asia.
In reading, Oklahoma students remain below the national average and have actually lost ground since universal preschool was implemented. Today, Oklahoma students have lower reading scores than they did when universal preschool was enacted in 1998. In 1992, Oklahoma's fourth graders had an average scale score of 220, on a 0-to-500 scale, on the fourth grade reading test. By 2007, after years of universal preschool, that reading score had fallen slightly to 217.
In 1998, 19 percent of disadvantaged kids were proficient in reading on the NAEP. In 2007, after years off giving low-income children access to preschool, still only 19 percent were proficient in reading. For non-disadvantaged kids the news is worse. In 1998, 42 percent were proficient in reading, but in 2007 only 36 percent were.
In addition, the reading achievement gap between Hispanics and whites in Oklahoma is higher now than it was before universal preschool was enacted. In 1992, fourth grade Hispanic students had an average reading scale score of 207 (on a 0 to 500 scale). In 2007, that score had fallen to 198. The achievement gap between Hispanic and white students was 16 points 1992 and grew to 25 points in 2007.
Clearly any academic gains that preschool gives to low-income and minority students disappear once they enter our failing public schools. And Oklahoma isn't alone.
In Georgia, reading scores for fourth graders have remained flat despite a large investment, starting in 1995, in a universal preschool system that enrolls 60 percent of the state's kids.
Another telling indicator of the weakness of Georgia and Oklahoma's academic standards is revealed in the Summer 2008 issue of Education Next, which analyzes which states have "world class" standards and which do not. Scholars Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess compare how students do on each state's own assessment test versus how they perform on the national NAEP tests. By comparing the percentage of students deemed proficient on each, it is possible to determine whether states are setting expectations higher, lower, or equal to the NAEP standard. If the percentages are identical (or roughly so), then state proficiency standards can be fairly labeled as "world-class."
In Oklahoma, an impressive 90 percent of fourth graders were proficient on the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test. But a miserable 22 percent of Oklahoma's fourth graders were actually proficient on the NAEP. Similarly, Georgia declared 88 percent of its eighth graders proficient in reading, even though just 26 percent scored at or above the proficiency level on the NAEP. Georgia joined Oklahoma and Tennessee as the only three states to earn an "F" in comparison to the NAEP for their state standards.
To date, early education has not been a silver bullet for Georgia or Oklahoma. Clearly universal preschool isn't entirely to blame. For that, we need to focus on the public school system that is failing our kids. These states do not have "world class" schools or academic standards that can deliver the long-term gains Sen. Obama is looking for.
Obama has said, "It is a sense of urgency that we've got to restore if we're going to be able to remain competitive in this new global economy. We've got to improve early childhood education, because that's the area where we can probably most effectively achieve the achievement gap that exists right now."
Without high quality K-12 education, no amount of investment in early education can close the achievement gap or make the United States globally competitive. To his credit, Obama seems to recognize that the government doesn't have unlimited resources to tackle this challenge, stating, "If you're a progressive, you've got to be worried about how the federal government is spending its revenue, because we don't have enough money to spend on things like early childhood education that are so important."
To that end, he has signed Reason Foundation's "Oath of Presidential Transparency," promising the most transparent and fiscally accountable executive branch in history. He's also wisely argued in favor of merit pay for teachers and charter schools, telling Politico, "I've consistently said, we need to support charter schools. I think it is important to experiment, by looking at how we can reward excellence in the classroom."
Some of Obama's instincts on education issues, like that stance on charters, break from traditional Democratic Party positions and can seriously help reform our public schools. For the best results, and to truly help disadvantaged kids, Obama should shift from pushing universal preschool to calling for meaningful reforms in our K-12 public schools.
Will a Democrat Please Stand Up?
Will a Democrat Please Stand Up? Looking for someone to help kids stuck in California's failing schools
By Lisa Snell
Across the nation, Democrats are helping make 2008 a banner year for school choice, allowing parents to select the schools that are best-suited for their kids.
Nationwide, there are now 24 school choice programs in 15 states. In 2008 new choice programs have been enacted in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. And school choice is a increasingly becoming a bipartisan issue, with three quarters of legislative victories over the past two years resulting because of Democratic support.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry wrote, "I know it may surprise some that I would support a school voucher program, but I am proud to do so."
While Republicans may still be the lead sponsors of most school choice legislation, they are passing new programs with the help of their Democratic colleagues.
In 2006, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) signed a big expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) allowed the creation of a tax-credit scholarship program and signed two new voucher programs into law. In Iowa, a new tax-credit scholarship program gained overwhelming Democratic support and Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) signed it into law. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) signed a $10 million expansion of his state's tax-credit scholarship program which provides disadvantaged children with scholarships to private schools.
In Florida, in 2001, only one Democrat voted for the corporate tax credit program to provide scholarships to low-income children. By 2008, however, when the legislature passed a $30 million expansion of the "Step up for Students" corporate tax credit program for private school scholarships with the help of a third of the Democratic caucus. The program provides scholarships to 20,000 students with about 64 percent Black and Hispanic students. Apparently, the Democrats took note because 13 of 25 members of the state's black caucus and every member of the Hispanic caucus voted for the expansion. The program will now provide students with 5,000 new scholarships to private schools.
In Louisiana a voucher program for New Orleans passed with a large bipartisan majority, 60-42 in the Louisiana House. The New Orleans voucher program would use $10 million in state taxpayer money to pay private school tuition for as many as 1,500 New Orleans children. The legislation is sponsored by Representative Austin Badon, a New Orleans Democrat, in the House and the Senate version is sponsored by Senator Ann Duplessis, also a Democrat.
In New Jersey, the Senate Economic Growth Committee voted to pass S-1607, the Urban Enterprise Zone Jobs Scholarship Act. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Raymond Lesniak, and supported by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, would allow corporations to make tax-deductible contributions to scholarship organizations. The dollars would be used by children in Newark, Camden, Trenton, Elizabeth, Lakewood, Paterson, Orange and Jersey City to attend participating public or private schools of a student's choice.
In March 2008 a Maryland tax credit scholarship program passed the Maryland Senate. The program, which would provide school choice options to disadvantaged children, was sponsored by Democratic Senator Ed DeGrange and would allow corporations that donate up to $200,000 per year to school tuition organizations to receive a 75 percent state income tax credit for their contributions.
Perhaps Maryland State Senator Nathaniel McFadden (D-Baltimore) sums up the new Democratic attitude towards school choice best when he said in support of the Maryland school choice bill that that the Maryland legislature "helps all kinds of industries here with tax credits-big business, horse racing, biotech. . . . If you call the bill a sham, then I am shamming for children today."
Unfortunately, California Democrats are not "shamming" for California children. California Democrats have spurned any opportunity to offer disadvantaged children and their families more access to quality schools.
In April 2008, State Assembly Republicans introduced a package of education reform measures designed to empower California parents to take a greater role in their kids' education. The proposal included bills to allow disability scholarships for special needs children, tax credits for private and home schooling, pupil transfer and tax credits for students in failing schools, and a safe schools guarantee for all California children.
But not one of the bills got out of the Democratic-controlled committees. And not a single Democrat even offered an amendment or an alternative to the school choice proposals.
One of the bills, sponsored by Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), would have allowed students in failing public schools to attend a public or private school of their choice. You'd think getting kids out of failing schools would be something we could all agree on. The plan was to give a tax credit to parents who choose to leave failing schools for private schools.
But the California Teachers Association, American Civil Liberties Union, California School Boards Association, and Los Angeles Unified School District, all opposed the plan on the grounds that public schools would lose funding if the children - in failing schools - were allowed to leave those schools and participate in the tax credit program.
More than 900 of the state's schools can't even manage to score 600 on the state's academic achievement index--when the minimum standard for passing is 800.
The state also has 90 failing school districts, like Compton where less than 4 percent of eighth graders were proficient in math (6th and 7th grade standards) and less than 10 percent of 11th graders were proficient in language arts in 2007.
The state needs Democrats who are willing to stand up for kids stuck in California's lowest achieving schools. Let these kids leave their failing schools for one that offers them the hope and opportunity that comes with a quality education.
The teachers' union consistently gets solid support from Democrats in Sacramento. And the Democratic Party consistently fights for more money in schools. But who's looking out for the kids? It shouldn't be this hard to find a Democrat who will speak up for, and fight for, children stuck in failing public schools.
Will a Democrat Please Stand Up? Looking for someone to help kids stuck in California's failing schools
By Lisa Snell
Across the nation, Democrats are helping make 2008 a banner year for school choice, allowing parents to select the schools that are best-suited for their kids.
Nationwide, there are now 24 school choice programs in 15 states. In 2008 new choice programs have been enacted in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. And school choice is a increasingly becoming a bipartisan issue, with three quarters of legislative victories over the past two years resulting because of Democratic support.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry wrote, "I know it may surprise some that I would support a school voucher program, but I am proud to do so."
While Republicans may still be the lead sponsors of most school choice legislation, they are passing new programs with the help of their Democratic colleagues.
In 2006, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) signed a big expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) allowed the creation of a tax-credit scholarship program and signed two new voucher programs into law. In Iowa, a new tax-credit scholarship program gained overwhelming Democratic support and Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) signed it into law. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) signed a $10 million expansion of his state's tax-credit scholarship program which provides disadvantaged children with scholarships to private schools.
In Florida, in 2001, only one Democrat voted for the corporate tax credit program to provide scholarships to low-income children. By 2008, however, when the legislature passed a $30 million expansion of the "Step up for Students" corporate tax credit program for private school scholarships with the help of a third of the Democratic caucus. The program provides scholarships to 20,000 students with about 64 percent Black and Hispanic students. Apparently, the Democrats took note because 13 of 25 members of the state's black caucus and every member of the Hispanic caucus voted for the expansion. The program will now provide students with 5,000 new scholarships to private schools.
In Louisiana a voucher program for New Orleans passed with a large bipartisan majority, 60-42 in the Louisiana House. The New Orleans voucher program would use $10 million in state taxpayer money to pay private school tuition for as many as 1,500 New Orleans children. The legislation is sponsored by Representative Austin Badon, a New Orleans Democrat, in the House and the Senate version is sponsored by Senator Ann Duplessis, also a Democrat.
In New Jersey, the Senate Economic Growth Committee voted to pass S-1607, the Urban Enterprise Zone Jobs Scholarship Act. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Raymond Lesniak, and supported by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, would allow corporations to make tax-deductible contributions to scholarship organizations. The dollars would be used by children in Newark, Camden, Trenton, Elizabeth, Lakewood, Paterson, Orange and Jersey City to attend participating public or private schools of a student's choice.
In March 2008 a Maryland tax credit scholarship program passed the Maryland Senate. The program, which would provide school choice options to disadvantaged children, was sponsored by Democratic Senator Ed DeGrange and would allow corporations that donate up to $200,000 per year to school tuition organizations to receive a 75 percent state income tax credit for their contributions.
Perhaps Maryland State Senator Nathaniel McFadden (D-Baltimore) sums up the new Democratic attitude towards school choice best when he said in support of the Maryland school choice bill that that the Maryland legislature "helps all kinds of industries here with tax credits-big business, horse racing, biotech. . . . If you call the bill a sham, then I am shamming for children today."
Unfortunately, California Democrats are not "shamming" for California children. California Democrats have spurned any opportunity to offer disadvantaged children and their families more access to quality schools.
In April 2008, State Assembly Republicans introduced a package of education reform measures designed to empower California parents to take a greater role in their kids' education. The proposal included bills to allow disability scholarships for special needs children, tax credits for private and home schooling, pupil transfer and tax credits for students in failing schools, and a safe schools guarantee for all California children.
But not one of the bills got out of the Democratic-controlled committees. And not a single Democrat even offered an amendment or an alternative to the school choice proposals.
One of the bills, sponsored by Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), would have allowed students in failing public schools to attend a public or private school of their choice. You'd think getting kids out of failing schools would be something we could all agree on. The plan was to give a tax credit to parents who choose to leave failing schools for private schools.
But the California Teachers Association, American Civil Liberties Union, California School Boards Association, and Los Angeles Unified School District, all opposed the plan on the grounds that public schools would lose funding if the children - in failing schools - were allowed to leave those schools and participate in the tax credit program.
More than 900 of the state's schools can't even manage to score 600 on the state's academic achievement index--when the minimum standard for passing is 800.
The state also has 90 failing school districts, like Compton where less than 4 percent of eighth graders were proficient in math (6th and 7th grade standards) and less than 10 percent of 11th graders were proficient in language arts in 2007.
The state needs Democrats who are willing to stand up for kids stuck in California's lowest achieving schools. Let these kids leave their failing schools for one that offers them the hope and opportunity that comes with a quality education.
The teachers' union consistently gets solid support from Democrats in Sacramento. And the Democratic Party consistently fights for more money in schools. But who's looking out for the kids? It shouldn't be this hard to find a Democrat who will speak up for, and fight for, children stuck in failing public schools.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Is Alice Cooper a Terrorist?
Via my husband, The Wine Commonsewer
Via my husband, The Wine Commonsewer
It occurs to me that by modern standards, this guy is a fargin' terrorist. I mean, look at these lyrics:
School's out for summer
School's out forever
School's been blown to piecesEmphasis mine. But can we be too careful? What would happen to a seventh grader running through the halls on the last day of school, not singing, but gleefully shouting.....
Not sure, but if you are horseplaying on a school bus, tossing around a kitchen timer in a game of hot potato, and somebody jokes that it's a bomb, you will be expelled. Or, if you make a crude drawing of something that looks like a gun, you will be expelled. Or if you accidentally bring a butter knife to school, you will be expelled.School's been blown to pieces
Whole thing here.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Charter School Competition Works: LA Edition
Over at Flypaper, Liam Julian offers more proof that competition has positive effects on public schools. He writes about how competition from charters is helping Houston public schools:
I’ve noticed an interesting effect of competition from charter schools here in Los Angeles. More than 7 Percent of Los Angeles students are enrolled in charter schools. The big education story in California this spring has been the school district pink slip mania where around 20,000 teachers were given preliminary layoff notices in March. Curiously, Los Angeles Unified, the largest school district in the state with 700K + students and more than a $430 million estimated budget deficit did not issue one single pink slip to a teacher.
In July 2006, the Los Angeles Times ran a story with the headline: L.A. Unified Losing Staff to Charters; Frustrated teachers and administrators are being lured by independent schools with promise of more support and freedom.
Flash Forward to 2007-2008
Green Dot takes over Locke High school and the district loses an entire high school staff.
Reason TV’s Drew Carey Project covered the takeover in: UnLocked: Education Revolt in Watts.
Therefore, with a recent history of teachers abandoning the district for charter schools, I guess the district administrators thought it was prudent to avoid teacher layoffs. The official version: Roger Buschmann, Los Angeles Unified's chief human resources officer, told the Los Angeles Times, "We gave it a lot of thought and decided, 'Why worry them unnecessarily?'"
The media has made a lot out of other states like Nevada recruiting California teachers. Yet, in Los Angeles the teachers would not have had to leave the state, they have local charter schools. Today when I went to EDJOIN.org which offers a comprehensive listing of teaching positions for the entire state of California, I counted more than 314 teaching positions listed for charter schools in Los Angeles for 2008-2009. Here’s a few examples from a long list: Alliance for College Ready Public Schools has 29 openings, Aspire has 10, Environmental Charter High School 8, Green Dot 13, KIPP LA 5, Rosie the Riveter charter 5, Accelerated School 4…. Bright Star Schools with six openings even advertised in their posting: “We pay 10 percent over LAUSD Scale.”
So who did get pink slips in Los Angeles? Los Angeles Unified notified about 3,000 administrators and senior management contract employees that they may not return next year. While it is doubtful that 3,000 central administrators would be let go in Los Angeles, it is apparent that except for a few principals, charter schools are not competing for administrators.
In two recent columns for Reason, I cover the education budget and teacher layoffs as a rhetorical strategy.
Closer Look at California's Proposed Education Cuts
Are Over 100,000 California Teachers Getting Pink Slips?
Over at Flypaper, Liam Julian offers more proof that competition has positive effects on public schools. He writes about how competition from charters is helping Houston public schools:
HISD school board member Diana Davilla told the Chronicle about KIPP,
“They’re attracting more students than we are. Somewhere, we’re missing
something because they’re building schools and we’re closing them.”
The district hopes to change that:Leaders said they’re also working on ways to use data, including
performance pay information, to create a profile of ideal teaching
candidates.
They plan, for instance, to use the data to determine which
universities are
producing HISD’s best teachers.
I’ve noticed an interesting effect of competition from charter schools here in Los Angeles. More than 7 Percent of Los Angeles students are enrolled in charter schools. The big education story in California this spring has been the school district pink slip mania where around 20,000 teachers were given preliminary layoff notices in March. Curiously, Los Angeles Unified, the largest school district in the state with 700K + students and more than a $430 million estimated budget deficit did not issue one single pink slip to a teacher.
In July 2006, the Los Angeles Times ran a story with the headline: L.A. Unified Losing Staff to Charters; Frustrated teachers and administrators are being lured by independent schools with promise of more support and freedom.
Amid the continuing growth of charter schools in Los Angeles, hundreds
of teachers and administrators have left the city's school system to take jobs
at the independently run campuses...
The loss of teaching and administrative talent has angered and
worried some members of the district's Board of Education.
"It is not a healthy competition. It's not healthy for us at all,"
said board member Julie Korenstein, a staunch critic of charters. "We have
groomed these teachers and they have risen up with us," and then the charters
"come in and harvest them."
Flash Forward to 2007-2008
Green Dot takes over Locke High school and the district loses an entire high school staff.
Reason TV’s Drew Carey Project covered the takeover in: UnLocked: Education Revolt in Watts.
Therefore, with a recent history of teachers abandoning the district for charter schools, I guess the district administrators thought it was prudent to avoid teacher layoffs. The official version: Roger Buschmann, Los Angeles Unified's chief human resources officer, told the Los Angeles Times, "We gave it a lot of thought and decided, 'Why worry them unnecessarily?'"
The media has made a lot out of other states like Nevada recruiting California teachers. Yet, in Los Angeles the teachers would not have had to leave the state, they have local charter schools. Today when I went to EDJOIN.org which offers a comprehensive listing of teaching positions for the entire state of California, I counted more than 314 teaching positions listed for charter schools in Los Angeles for 2008-2009. Here’s a few examples from a long list: Alliance for College Ready Public Schools has 29 openings, Aspire has 10, Environmental Charter High School 8, Green Dot 13, KIPP LA 5, Rosie the Riveter charter 5, Accelerated School 4…. Bright Star Schools with six openings even advertised in their posting: “We pay 10 percent over LAUSD Scale.”
So who did get pink slips in Los Angeles? Los Angeles Unified notified about 3,000 administrators and senior management contract employees that they may not return next year. While it is doubtful that 3,000 central administrators would be let go in Los Angeles, it is apparent that except for a few principals, charter schools are not competing for administrators.
In two recent columns for Reason, I cover the education budget and teacher layoffs as a rhetorical strategy.
Closer Look at California's Proposed Education Cuts
Are Over 100,000 California Teachers Getting Pink Slips?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
College in California: Still a Bargain
The big news today is that both California State University and the University of California will raise tuition fees. From the Sacramento Bee:
The cost of a university degree for the more than 500,000 undergraduate students at the state's public universities went up Wednesday.
Fees will increase 10 percent this fall for students in the California State University system, rising to nearly $3,800 a year for undergraduate students.
On University of California campuses, fees will climb 7.4 percent, bringing resident undergraduate fees to more than $8,000 a year.
The Sacramento Bee notes that "Student fees in California remain among the lowest in the country compared with similar universities."
Rather be here than anywhere: according to the College Board : The average college tuition for 2007-2008:
Private four-year $23,712
Public four-year $6,185
Cal. State is really a bargain at $3,800 and so is the UC system at $8,000 bucks--especially considering the prestige of UC schools.
The big news today is that both California State University and the University of California will raise tuition fees. From the Sacramento Bee:
The cost of a university degree for the more than 500,000 undergraduate students at the state's public universities went up Wednesday.
Fees will increase 10 percent this fall for students in the California State University system, rising to nearly $3,800 a year for undergraduate students.
On University of California campuses, fees will climb 7.4 percent, bringing resident undergraduate fees to more than $8,000 a year.
The Sacramento Bee notes that "Student fees in California remain among the lowest in the country compared with similar universities."
Rather be here than anywhere: according to the College Board : The average college tuition for 2007-2008:
Private four-year $23,712
Public four-year $6,185
Cal. State is really a bargain at $3,800 and so is the UC system at $8,000 bucks--especially considering the prestige of UC schools.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
