What an incredible front page article in the Oregonian today.
The Corbett School District is a little district wedged between a couple east county districts and the Columbia River. Over the years, it has developed some very strong academic programs that gained the notice of a lot of parents in the area.
Parents who don't live in the Corbett district could still have their kids attend the Corbett schools as long as their resident district gave permission - which for several years most of them willingly gave. The superintendent signs an "inter-district transfer" form, and the district passes on the roughly $6,000 the state allocates to that student over to Corbett.
But as money became increasingly tight this last year, most of the east county districts said "no more inter-district transfers." They started refusing to sign the forms. Parents who loved the Corbett schools but didn't live in the district were out of luck. Their own district wanted to trap their kids into schools the parents didn't want, because each of those children had $6,000 taped to their foreheads.
But Corbett found a workaround. Charter schools in Oregon can enroll kids without regard to school district boundaries. And if a district wants to turn create a charter school inside one of its own buildings, it is a pretty easy exercise.
So Corbett created a charter school inside its K-12 school building, and now it is free to enroll as many kids as it can accommodate. And THAT is what has the other districts' noses out of joint.
The Gresham superintendent, John Miner was quoted: "We can't cannibalize one another under the guise of curriculum," Miner said. "There is a fundamental flaw in the charter school law that the Legislature must address."
In other words: The charter law allows parents to choose their kids' school, without going on bended knee to their resident bureaucrats. The legislature must fix this.
What Miner calls a "fundamental flaw" is really a fundamental PRINCIPLE of charter schools - parental choice and competition. District bureaucrats don't want to have to compete. It is much easier to have their students assigned to them.
Reynolds School District's superintendent doesn't like it one bit: "This new charter school definitely impacts our district finances negatively," he said. "And it blatantly circumvents the interdistrict transfer process."
If his district is losing students to Corbett, perhaps he should offer what Corbett offers. That's kind of the point of the whole thing: competition drives improvement, because you have skin in the game.
Also, it is absolutely true that charter schools "blatantly circumvent the interdistrict transfer process." In fact it is so blatant that the legislature designed the charter school law specifically to circumvent it!
What we are seeing here is the competitive dynamic at play. It was the whole idea of the charter school law in the first place. For ten years since we passed the law, districts have been able to keep the competitive pressure to a minimum through all sorts of quasi-legal shenanigans that I have spent the last decade fighting.
But finally, the pressure is being felt. It took a deep recession and an innovative, courageous leader from inside the education establishment to bring it to a head.
Corbett's Superintendent, Bob Denton, explained why he used the charter option when local districts started refusing transfers: "I wasn't going to let them take kids who want to be here, whose parents want them to be here. Kids are not a means to an end, to financially support you as a district. That is unethical."
Imagine a school system in which ALL of the school leaders held this view. THAT is the promise of charter schools.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Potpourri
A few things that have accumulated over the last few days:
The Clackamas Teachers Union insisted on receiving their contractual pay raise, so the district had to lay off 60 teachers. This is a great illustration of what is wrong with how the public sector operates.
The existing collective bargaining contract called for a 3% pay hike this school year. The district asked them to accept no raise, some furlough days, but keep their step raises. No way, said the union. The district used the only cost cutting tool at its disposal in the world of collective bargaining. They had to lay off teachers. Sixty of them.
I'm sure those 60 teachers felt they got good value for the $600 or so a year in union dues they pay. And I am sure the people of Clackamas School District feel that the union is really looking out for the quality of the education they provide.
While people employed in the private sector are taking hefty real pay cuts (in some cases 100%) it is unconscionable for a teachers union to refuse to accept the reality of the deep recession, and basically screw the taxpaying public and the parents of school kids.
Why does ANYONE still believe that teachers unions are a good thing for our society? It is morally corrupt to its core.
Another monument to sustainability is being built with your wasted tax dollars in Portland. The Edith-Green Wendell-Wyatt federal building is getting a $133 million renovation courtesy of stimulus funds. And of course they are going to make it oh-so-sustainable, so efficient that it could qualify for LEED certification. The Oregonian headline hinted at how smart this is: "Makeover motivation: It's eco-logical."
Yes, very logical indeed. Spending $133 million to renovate a 350,000 square foot office building. That only comes to about $386 per square foot!
In Oregon, "sustainability" is defined as "spend a whole lot of money to achieve a very small decrease in energy."
Logical indeed.
Another Clackamas School District controversy has a school board member, Sam Gillespie, complaining publicaly about his own incompetence. Seems the district lent over half a million dollars to one of its quasi charter school organizations. I say quasi, because the schools are really not independent charters. Thier employees are disrict employees and union members.
The schools, the Clackamas Web Academy and the New Urban High School, got a loan from the district, and now are asking for ten years to pay it back.
Sam Gillespie, long time board member who is no pal of charter schools of any stripe, complained about the dsitrict being forced to accept this payback deal, and criticized the charter school movement, saying "That's the problem with charters - there's no accountability."
Huh? His own board authorized the loan, and his own board oversees these two charter schools. If they haven't been overseeing it properly, there is only one person to blame: Himself!
The Clackamas Teachers Union insisted on receiving their contractual pay raise, so the district had to lay off 60 teachers. This is a great illustration of what is wrong with how the public sector operates.
The existing collective bargaining contract called for a 3% pay hike this school year. The district asked them to accept no raise, some furlough days, but keep their step raises. No way, said the union. The district used the only cost cutting tool at its disposal in the world of collective bargaining. They had to lay off teachers. Sixty of them.
I'm sure those 60 teachers felt they got good value for the $600 or so a year in union dues they pay. And I am sure the people of Clackamas School District feel that the union is really looking out for the quality of the education they provide.
While people employed in the private sector are taking hefty real pay cuts (in some cases 100%) it is unconscionable for a teachers union to refuse to accept the reality of the deep recession, and basically screw the taxpaying public and the parents of school kids.
Why does ANYONE still believe that teachers unions are a good thing for our society? It is morally corrupt to its core.
Another monument to sustainability is being built with your wasted tax dollars in Portland. The Edith-Green Wendell-Wyatt federal building is getting a $133 million renovation courtesy of stimulus funds. And of course they are going to make it oh-so-sustainable, so efficient that it could qualify for LEED certification. The Oregonian headline hinted at how smart this is: "Makeover motivation: It's eco-logical."
Yes, very logical indeed. Spending $133 million to renovate a 350,000 square foot office building. That only comes to about $386 per square foot!
In Oregon, "sustainability" is defined as "spend a whole lot of money to achieve a very small decrease in energy."
Logical indeed.
Another Clackamas School District controversy has a school board member, Sam Gillespie, complaining publicaly about his own incompetence. Seems the district lent over half a million dollars to one of its quasi charter school organizations. I say quasi, because the schools are really not independent charters. Thier employees are disrict employees and union members.
The schools, the Clackamas Web Academy and the New Urban High School, got a loan from the district, and now are asking for ten years to pay it back.
Sam Gillespie, long time board member who is no pal of charter schools of any stripe, complained about the dsitrict being forced to accept this payback deal, and criticized the charter school movement, saying "That's the problem with charters - there's no accountability."
Huh? His own board authorized the loan, and his own board oversees these two charter schools. If they haven't been overseeing it properly, there is only one person to blame: Himself!
Friday, August 21, 2009
The incredible shriking credibility of Obama
President Obama is taking heat from the left, people such as columnist Paul Krugman, for not being tough enough on the opponents of his health care plan and for backing off on the centerpiece, the "public option."
Krugman says
"there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him."
As usual, Krugman gets it wrong. Obama has tried to rebuke his opponents and people aren't buying it. He is coming off as a tin man, and people aren't buying his sales pitch.
Obama doesn't fill the suit of President. Why would this be a shock to anyone? A person with his limited life experience simply cannot possibly have the field vision to do anything but fail.
Who is advising him? A bunch of hack Chicago machine pols who are driving things as if they were back in the swamp they feel comfortable in.
Obama has overreached big time, and the country is rejecting his agenda. Backing off the public option is not a sellout like Krugman's "progressives" are saying, it is a political failure brought on by the same inexperience and hubris that brought the HillaryCare disaster for Clinton.
Clinton, after that failure and the 1994 rebuke in the mid-term election, dramatically changed course, started triangulating, governed more from the center, and had a successful presidency (if marred by his tawdry scandals.)
What will Obama do? Does he have the skills to change course? If not, he is a one termer pure and simple. The country has never liked his agenda nearly as much as they liked him personally. Now voters are starting to inextricably connect the two. Obama IS his agenda in the voters mind, so they are starting to reject him.
As long as he pushes for Cap & Trade, Pubic Option, and the like, his presidency will continue to sink.
Krugman is and has always been blinded by his ideology. He thinks all Obama has to do is get tough, call out the opponents for their demagoguery, and the nation will be convinced.
No, that won't work. The demagoguery on things like the Death Panels works because there is a thread of truth to it. Everyone knows that government takeover of insurance will lead to rationing decisions by government.
As uncomfortable as people are with health care rationing by insurance companies (which undeniably is the reality,) they are FAR more uncomfortable with having those decisions made by the federal government.
And Obama has been totally unconvincing on this point. He tries to pretend that rationing will not be necessary, and people simply do not buy it.
So his credibility shrinks as people realize he is not telling it straight. He starts compromising, and says that which he once insisted upon was never the centerpiece of his plan. Which of course is a lie, and everybody knows it. Credibility shrinks more.
It is early in his presidency, so he does have time to recover. For Clinton it took an historic election in 1994 that gave Republicans control of both houses for the first time in 40 years before he changed course.
The 2010 election could shape up along similar lines if Obama ignores folks like Krugman and starts realizing that this is a center-right nation that won't tolerate his far left agenda.
The next six months will be interesting indeed.
Krugman says
"there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him."
As usual, Krugman gets it wrong. Obama has tried to rebuke his opponents and people aren't buying it. He is coming off as a tin man, and people aren't buying his sales pitch.
Obama doesn't fill the suit of President. Why would this be a shock to anyone? A person with his limited life experience simply cannot possibly have the field vision to do anything but fail.
Who is advising him? A bunch of hack Chicago machine pols who are driving things as if they were back in the swamp they feel comfortable in.
Obama has overreached big time, and the country is rejecting his agenda. Backing off the public option is not a sellout like Krugman's "progressives" are saying, it is a political failure brought on by the same inexperience and hubris that brought the HillaryCare disaster for Clinton.
Clinton, after that failure and the 1994 rebuke in the mid-term election, dramatically changed course, started triangulating, governed more from the center, and had a successful presidency (if marred by his tawdry scandals.)
What will Obama do? Does he have the skills to change course? If not, he is a one termer pure and simple. The country has never liked his agenda nearly as much as they liked him personally. Now voters are starting to inextricably connect the two. Obama IS his agenda in the voters mind, so they are starting to reject him.
As long as he pushes for Cap & Trade, Pubic Option, and the like, his presidency will continue to sink.
Krugman is and has always been blinded by his ideology. He thinks all Obama has to do is get tough, call out the opponents for their demagoguery, and the nation will be convinced.
No, that won't work. The demagoguery on things like the Death Panels works because there is a thread of truth to it. Everyone knows that government takeover of insurance will lead to rationing decisions by government.
As uncomfortable as people are with health care rationing by insurance companies (which undeniably is the reality,) they are FAR more uncomfortable with having those decisions made by the federal government.
And Obama has been totally unconvincing on this point. He tries to pretend that rationing will not be necessary, and people simply do not buy it.
So his credibility shrinks as people realize he is not telling it straight. He starts compromising, and says that which he once insisted upon was never the centerpiece of his plan. Which of course is a lie, and everybody knows it. Credibility shrinks more.
It is early in his presidency, so he does have time to recover. For Clinton it took an historic election in 1994 that gave Republicans control of both houses for the first time in 40 years before he changed course.
The 2010 election could shape up along similar lines if Obama ignores folks like Krugman and starts realizing that this is a center-right nation that won't tolerate his far left agenda.
The next six months will be interesting indeed.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
BlueOregon's Chisolm reveals himself as propagandist
Over at BlueOregon, blog founder Kari Chisolm has the funniest post ever.
He wants the left's narrative of "violent conservative protests against ObamaCare" to stick, but other than some shouting at various town hall meetings (which I think is not the greatest idea, BTW) they don't have any evidence of any real conservative violence or threats.
So Chisolm trumps some up, and gets his plus-sized knickers in a twist at his own propaganda.
First, he posts the audio from a phone call to SEIU from a woman named Diana. In the call, she tells the SEIU to "stop the violence" and to stop suppressing people's first amendment rights, lest they "come up against the second amendment."
Kari Chisolm, with another of his chronic episodes of the vapors, thinks this is a "violent threat."
So if I warn you to stop committing acts of violence, or I will meet your violence with some force of my own, that is a threat? Sounds more to me like Diana is saying folks will defend themselves, and use their constitutionally protected gun rights to do so.
Is that the best they can do to pretend that conservatives have turned into health reform Brownshirts?
But the best part of Chisolm's post is where he claims he has video proof conservative "mobs" assualting SEIU "purple shirts." He posts an SEIU video that juxtaposes peaceful SEIU rallies and protests with clips from recent town halls where politicians are being shouted at by angry participants. At the very end, there's a few short seconds of a clip that supposedly shows an SEIU purple shirt being attacked.
One slight problem with that clip. Look at the whole video - not just the few seconds that the SEIU showed - and guess what? It's the SEIU purple shirt thug who gets arrested! You can clearly see the guy run into the scuffle, grab the black guy who had just got up from the pavement, and throw him to the ground!
Now, to be perfectly accurate (which Kari Chisolm doesn't appear to feel is required) when the video starts you cannot tell what has just occurred. There is a purple shirt on the pavement, and the black guy is also on the pavement. You can't see how they got on the ground.
The black guy gets up, stands on the sidewalk, and that's when the other purple shirt thug literally runs up, grabs him, and throws him to the ground.
And for several minutes, this thug, cigarette dangling from his lips, shouts at bystanders, in a very threatening way, who accuse him of assaulting the black guy. The police come, and the black guy waves them over. The police arrest the purple shirt who assaulted the black guy.
THAT is Kari's proof that "conservative mobs" are resorting to violence! Nice job Kari! Your credibility is, shall we say, on the wane.
What a joke.
He wants the left's narrative of "violent conservative protests against ObamaCare" to stick, but other than some shouting at various town hall meetings (which I think is not the greatest idea, BTW) they don't have any evidence of any real conservative violence or threats.
So Chisolm trumps some up, and gets his plus-sized knickers in a twist at his own propaganda.
First, he posts the audio from a phone call to SEIU from a woman named Diana. In the call, she tells the SEIU to "stop the violence" and to stop suppressing people's first amendment rights, lest they "come up against the second amendment."
Kari Chisolm, with another of his chronic episodes of the vapors, thinks this is a "violent threat."
So if I warn you to stop committing acts of violence, or I will meet your violence with some force of my own, that is a threat? Sounds more to me like Diana is saying folks will defend themselves, and use their constitutionally protected gun rights to do so.
Is that the best they can do to pretend that conservatives have turned into health reform Brownshirts?
But the best part of Chisolm's post is where he claims he has video proof conservative "mobs" assualting SEIU "purple shirts." He posts an SEIU video that juxtaposes peaceful SEIU rallies and protests with clips from recent town halls where politicians are being shouted at by angry participants. At the very end, there's a few short seconds of a clip that supposedly shows an SEIU purple shirt being attacked.
One slight problem with that clip. Look at the whole video - not just the few seconds that the SEIU showed - and guess what? It's the SEIU purple shirt thug who gets arrested! You can clearly see the guy run into the scuffle, grab the black guy who had just got up from the pavement, and throw him to the ground!
Now, to be perfectly accurate (which Kari Chisolm doesn't appear to feel is required) when the video starts you cannot tell what has just occurred. There is a purple shirt on the pavement, and the black guy is also on the pavement. You can't see how they got on the ground.
The black guy gets up, stands on the sidewalk, and that's when the other purple shirt thug literally runs up, grabs him, and throws him to the ground.
And for several minutes, this thug, cigarette dangling from his lips, shouts at bystanders, in a very threatening way, who accuse him of assaulting the black guy. The police come, and the black guy waves them over. The police arrest the purple shirt who assaulted the black guy.
THAT is Kari's proof that "conservative mobs" are resorting to violence! Nice job Kari! Your credibility is, shall we say, on the wane.
What a joke.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Public option leads to single payer
You've probably already heard or seen this video, where Pres. Obama basically admits that a public option will lead to the end of private insurance. I just wanted to post it on my blog so I would have it handy when I needed it.
There's also some other good quotes from Obama in this NRO Corner post.
Oh... BTW.... be sure to check out the comments in the thread two posts down. Amazing! Our friend David Appell thinks he is no better than a squirrel!
There's also some other good quotes from Obama in this NRO Corner post.
Oh... BTW.... be sure to check out the comments in the thread two posts down. Amazing! Our friend David Appell thinks he is no better than a squirrel!
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Clunker program hurts the poor and unemployed
I can't believe that some people think it is a good idea for the government to pay people to destroy things of value. Are you in the habit of taking valuable durable goods that could be easily sold on Craigs List and ruining them?
That is what the federal government is doing with the nation's fleet of used cars.
Imagine if the government bought Maytag, and then announced a program in which you could buy a new Maytag at a reduced price if you destroyed your current one? That's basically the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It is idiotic.
You know what one of the biggest obstacles for the chronically unemployed? John Charles at the Cascade Policy Institute has done a lot of research into this question. The answer is: reliable transportation.
It makes sense. You have to be able to get to a job to have a job. Lots of jobs aren't near enough public transportation to make that feasible. Lots of poor people can't afford to buy a car. So their job prospects are extremely limited.
Charles' research showed that if you provide these folks with a reliable automobile, they can get a job and keep it.
So with unemployment approaching 10% in this great economy, what do we do? Take perfectly funcionable cars permanently off the road, and give the middle class a big subsidy to upgrade to a newer more expensive car.
Great idea. It increases the average cost of the nation's fleet of cars, putting further out of reach that which the poor need to be gainfully employed. It removes from the market millions of low cost cars, which they could otherwise someday perhaps purchase.
All in the name of marginal increases in fuel economy. Screw the poor. Great idea.
That is what the federal government is doing with the nation's fleet of used cars.
Imagine if the government bought Maytag, and then announced a program in which you could buy a new Maytag at a reduced price if you destroyed your current one? That's basically the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It is idiotic.
You know what one of the biggest obstacles for the chronically unemployed? John Charles at the Cascade Policy Institute has done a lot of research into this question. The answer is: reliable transportation.
It makes sense. You have to be able to get to a job to have a job. Lots of jobs aren't near enough public transportation to make that feasible. Lots of poor people can't afford to buy a car. So their job prospects are extremely limited.
Charles' research showed that if you provide these folks with a reliable automobile, they can get a job and keep it.
So with unemployment approaching 10% in this great economy, what do we do? Take perfectly funcionable cars permanently off the road, and give the middle class a big subsidy to upgrade to a newer more expensive car.
Great idea. It increases the average cost of the nation's fleet of cars, putting further out of reach that which the poor need to be gainfully employed. It removes from the market millions of low cost cars, which they could otherwise someday perhaps purchase.
All in the name of marginal increases in fuel economy. Screw the poor. Great idea.
Friday, July 31, 2009
"Trees have rights too"
Remember when Commissioner Dan Saltzman uttered these now-famous words when advocating for a Portland tree ordinance?
Yes, the notion of inanimate objects having legal standing is absurd. Yes, to actually believe it requires a rejection of the American concept of "rights" upon which this nation was founded, and which to a large degree is responsible for the success of the American experiment.
But sadly, advocating for such an idiotic idea in Democrat circles won't marginalize a person in the slightest. In fact, not only will it not prevent you from being appointed to the highest tier of national environmental policymakers, but the mainstream media doesn't think a belief in such things is anywhere near as scary for a government official as a belief in ....... Christianity.
President Obama's "Science Csar," John Holdren (the guy who is on record in his 1970's book advocating forced abortion or adoption of illegitimate children, sterilizing women after two kids, and even putting sterilizing chemicals in the drinking water of undesirable populations) also supported the notion of giving trees and other natural objects legal standing:
From a post on NRO Corner:
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.
So Obama's "Science Csar" is a fringe kook. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
But for the New York Times, which has not printed a single news article discussing Holdren's scary and extreme views, this stuff isn't anywhere near as damaging for a public official as the views held by the guy Obama has nominated to head up the National Institute of Health.
This guy, Dr. Francis S. Collins, led the effort to map the human genome. One of the major scientific accomplisments in history. The Times has already printed a news story and an op-ed piece decrying the Collins appointment on the grounds that he is ...... A Christian!
Sacre Bleu!
Apparently, a high level public official in charge of environmental policy being a thoroughgoing eugenicist and wanting to give trees rights doesn't raise any eyebrows at the New York Times. But an official with an avowed belief in God?
That just can't be allowed.
Yes, the notion of inanimate objects having legal standing is absurd. Yes, to actually believe it requires a rejection of the American concept of "rights" upon which this nation was founded, and which to a large degree is responsible for the success of the American experiment.
But sadly, advocating for such an idiotic idea in Democrat circles won't marginalize a person in the slightest. In fact, not only will it not prevent you from being appointed to the highest tier of national environmental policymakers, but the mainstream media doesn't think a belief in such things is anywhere near as scary for a government official as a belief in ....... Christianity.
President Obama's "Science Csar," John Holdren (the guy who is on record in his 1970's book advocating forced abortion or adoption of illegitimate children, sterilizing women after two kids, and even putting sterilizing chemicals in the drinking water of undesirable populations) also supported the notion of giving trees and other natural objects legal standing:
From a post on NRO Corner:
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.
So Obama's "Science Csar" is a fringe kook. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
But for the New York Times, which has not printed a single news article discussing Holdren's scary and extreme views, this stuff isn't anywhere near as damaging for a public official as the views held by the guy Obama has nominated to head up the National Institute of Health.
This guy, Dr. Francis S. Collins, led the effort to map the human genome. One of the major scientific accomplisments in history. The Times has already printed a news story and an op-ed piece decrying the Collins appointment on the grounds that he is ...... A Christian!
Sacre Bleu!
Apparently, a high level public official in charge of environmental policy being a thoroughgoing eugenicist and wanting to give trees rights doesn't raise any eyebrows at the New York Times. But an official with an avowed belief in God?
That just can't be allowed.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Beer Summit
So today is the breaking of the bread between Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. Crowley.
This could actually be interesting. Remember, this meeting was suggested by Crowley when Obama called him - so it wasn't just a damage control idea of the Obama handlers. Obama agreed to it, certainly, because it would help wipe his own gigantic misstep off the front pages, but it wasn't his idea.
My friend and partner Jim Pasero points out that Obama is at some significant risk here. Crowley has been empowered by Obama to essentially represent and speak for the entire nation's law enforcement professionals. Obama insulted them all in his statement last week.
Crowley now goes to a White House meeting with both Obama and Gates. Obama probably figures Crowley will be so intimidated by the surroundings that he will go along with whatever reconciliation narrative his handlers want to portray from the meeting.
But what if Crowley doesn't go along with the narrative?
There will be that moment when Crowley emerges from the White House to a crush of gathered media waiting for his report. What if he uses that "teachable moment" to make a point? Isn't Obama playing a high risk game here, assuming that Crowley will go along with Obama's purpose for the meeting?
What if he doesn't?
What if he emerges, and says: "I really hoped I could get an apology from the President for smearing the good work of a nation's law enforcement officers and from Professor Gates for his ridiculous behavior that resulted in his arrest, but they were more interested in a charade...."
Oh my, that would blow this whole thing into the stratosphere. And Obama has set himself up for it, giving the power to a single man whom he has already insulted.
Chances are, Crowley does play along with Obama's narrative and emerges with all the happy talk about breaking of bread and reconciliation. But there is at least some chance Crowley will use the moment to make a point.
Wouldn't that be fun?
This could actually be interesting. Remember, this meeting was suggested by Crowley when Obama called him - so it wasn't just a damage control idea of the Obama handlers. Obama agreed to it, certainly, because it would help wipe his own gigantic misstep off the front pages, but it wasn't his idea.
My friend and partner Jim Pasero points out that Obama is at some significant risk here. Crowley has been empowered by Obama to essentially represent and speak for the entire nation's law enforcement professionals. Obama insulted them all in his statement last week.
Crowley now goes to a White House meeting with both Obama and Gates. Obama probably figures Crowley will be so intimidated by the surroundings that he will go along with whatever reconciliation narrative his handlers want to portray from the meeting.
But what if Crowley doesn't go along with the narrative?
There will be that moment when Crowley emerges from the White House to a crush of gathered media waiting for his report. What if he uses that "teachable moment" to make a point? Isn't Obama playing a high risk game here, assuming that Crowley will go along with Obama's purpose for the meeting?
What if he doesn't?
What if he emerges, and says: "I really hoped I could get an apology from the President for smearing the good work of a nation's law enforcement officers and from Professor Gates for his ridiculous behavior that resulted in his arrest, but they were more interested in a charade...."
Oh my, that would blow this whole thing into the stratosphere. And Obama has set himself up for it, giving the power to a single man whom he has already insulted.
Chances are, Crowley does play along with Obama's narrative and emerges with all the happy talk about breaking of bread and reconciliation. But there is at least some chance Crowley will use the moment to make a point.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
"Birther" mystery solved!
The Obama birth certificate controversy has been interesting to watch.
Here's the bottom line: Even if the birthers are correct, and Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president, what then? The constitution has only a single mechanism for removing a sitting president - impeachment - and that is for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Is running for President as a non-citizen an impeachable offense? If not, then what exactly would we then do if indeed it were proven that Obama was not a U.S. citizen? There just isn't any constitutional method of removing him. Once the electoral college has voted and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has sworn him in, he is president. Even if he isn't a citizen.
That said, I put almost no stock in the conspiracy theories of the 'birthers." What the controversy HAS done, however, is give the left a good way to ridicule the right. Just look at liberal blogs like BlueOregon. The birther issue gives them a way to pretend that conservatives and Republicans are all harping about this conspiracy (which we aren't) and dismissing us as wing-nuts, even racists.
When I was subbing for Lars Larson a couple weeks ago, we were discussing some other topic and a caller slipped through who brought up the birth certificate issue. My producer said "Uh-oh, I let one through now here they come."
He was right. Immediately the phones lit up, with every single line on hold wanting to add something to the conspiracy. It wasn't even the topic of the day. I actually had to announce I was killing every single call, and would not take any more calls on the topic.
Which is why I say the "mystery" has been solved. The mystery I refer to is the one decent question the birthers are asking: "If Obama does indeed have a long-form birth certificate, why not just release it and make this issue go away?"
For the last couple of weeks I pondered this question. Now I think I know why.
What better way to marginalize the opposition than to draw as many as willingly go down this bunny trail, and then produce the proof.
Right now it is still just a vocal fringe, but as the Obama folks stonewall, it could grow bigger and louder, drawing a lot more mainstream folks into the mix. And the BLAM! Release the long-form birth certificate, and marginalize large swaths of the opposition.
Could that be what he is doing? Is he that clever?
Could be. Which means we have to be clever enough not to chase down this bunny trail in the first place, and concentrate on killing the ObamAgenda.
Here's the bottom line: Even if the birthers are correct, and Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president, what then? The constitution has only a single mechanism for removing a sitting president - impeachment - and that is for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Is running for President as a non-citizen an impeachable offense? If not, then what exactly would we then do if indeed it were proven that Obama was not a U.S. citizen? There just isn't any constitutional method of removing him. Once the electoral college has voted and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has sworn him in, he is president. Even if he isn't a citizen.
That said, I put almost no stock in the conspiracy theories of the 'birthers." What the controversy HAS done, however, is give the left a good way to ridicule the right. Just look at liberal blogs like BlueOregon. The birther issue gives them a way to pretend that conservatives and Republicans are all harping about this conspiracy (which we aren't) and dismissing us as wing-nuts, even racists.
When I was subbing for Lars Larson a couple weeks ago, we were discussing some other topic and a caller slipped through who brought up the birth certificate issue. My producer said "Uh-oh, I let one through now here they come."
He was right. Immediately the phones lit up, with every single line on hold wanting to add something to the conspiracy. It wasn't even the topic of the day. I actually had to announce I was killing every single call, and would not take any more calls on the topic.
Which is why I say the "mystery" has been solved. The mystery I refer to is the one decent question the birthers are asking: "If Obama does indeed have a long-form birth certificate, why not just release it and make this issue go away?"
For the last couple of weeks I pondered this question. Now I think I know why.
What better way to marginalize the opposition than to draw as many as willingly go down this bunny trail, and then produce the proof.
Right now it is still just a vocal fringe, but as the Obama folks stonewall, it could grow bigger and louder, drawing a lot more mainstream folks into the mix. And the BLAM! Release the long-form birth certificate, and marginalize large swaths of the opposition.
Could that be what he is doing? Is he that clever?
Could be. Which means we have to be clever enough not to chase down this bunny trail in the first place, and concentrate on killing the ObamAgenda.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Oregon: ObamaCare laboratory
Want a good preview for what health care would look like under ObamaCare? Well, Oregon is a pretty good petri dish. The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) is basically the equivalent of the "public option" envisioned by Obama.
To be sure, the OHP doesn't go near as far as ObamaCare portends to go. There isn't any mechanism in Oregon to force everyone onto either an "exchange participating" plan or the OHP. And there is no employer tax for companies that don't offer health coverage (despite Gov. Kitzhaber's wishes at the time for exactly such a tax.)
But if we look at how the OHP operates, we can envision the world of ObamaCare. The main difference would be that ObamaCare would eventually cover a far greater percentage of the population than does the OHP in Oregon.
The OHP, remember, has been in financial straits literally since it was started. The original idea was an overt rationing mechanism: the state bureaucrats would prioritize medical procedures in a ranking system, and then they would draw a line based on available resources. Depending on how much money the system has, procedures above the line (this year drawn at procedure #503) would be covered, and below the line, tough luck.
Even if your medical need is above that magic 503rd procedure, it will be paid for only if there is money left after everyone with a higher ranking priority has been served.
This is all decided by the Oregon Health Services Commission. They set the ranking - the most current version of which is this wonderful 143 page document. See any similarities between this commission and the ObamaCare idea of a "panel of experts" who will decide on the relative effectiveness of various health care treatments?
At the very least, one thing the OHP has been honest about from the start was in acknowledging that the publicly funded health services had to be explicity rationed. Obama has tried to deny this reality, even while openly discussing his"panel of expets."
The problem becomes, of course, when any commission, panel of experts, or bureaucrats are given the power to prioritize medical procedures. There are LOTS of perverse examples just in Oregon's list. For instance, as pointed out in a recent article:
"... a person in need of an emergency appendectomy (prioritized 84th by the the state of Oregon) would be denied that treatment before an individual in need of treatment for “tobacco dependence” (ranked 6th)."
And:
"... the state rationing board ranked abortion 41st overall in state-funding priority, meaning the bureaucrats who designed the priority structure in this “public option” program determined that the use of taxpayer funds for abortion is more important (and more medically necessary) than covering injuries to major blood vessels (ranked 86th), surgery to repair injured internal organs (88th), a “deep wound to the neck” or open fracture of the larynx or trachea (91st), or a ruptured aortic aneurysm (306th)."
It gets even worse when bureaucrats have to struggle with the ever-problematic end of life care issue. This is where health care dollars really get used up fast, and there really are no good answers to the problem, at least what I have seen.
But I am pretty sure the "Oregon way" is not the right thing to do. Which is, basically, refuse treatment for some terminal maladies but provide funding for services under the "Death with Dignity Act."
For patients with maladies the Commission has decided have a less than 5% 5-year survival rate, here is what IS covered:
1) Medication for symptom control and/or pain relief;
2) In-home, day care services, and hospice services as defined by DMAP;
3) Medical equipment (such as wheelchairs or walkers) determined to be medically appropriate for completion of basic activities of daily living;
4) Medical supplies (such as bandages and catheters) determined to be medically appropriate for management of symptomatic complications or as required for symptom control; and
5) Services under ORS 127.800-127.897 (Oregon Death with Dignity Act), to include but not be limited to the attending physician visits, consulting physician confirmation, mental health evaluation and counseling, and prescription medications.
And here is what is NOT covered:
1) Chemotherapy or surgical interventions with the primary intent to prolong life or alter disease progression; and
2) Medical equipment or supplies which will not benefit the patient for a reasonable length of time.
Again - these decisions are being made by a Commission, not by doctors or families. You might say "Well, that's what you get when you are on publicly funded health care." Fair enough.
But then why would we want to make that kind of health care universal? Because make no mistake, what Obama is moving toward is precisely this kind of program. It is obvious with every single additional revelation of its details.
The uncomfortable fact of the matter is that one way or another, whether we are talking private insurance or some public program, health care has to be rationed. In a private market it is more or less rationed by price. In a public program, it will be rationed by bureaucrats.
Obama has tried to sell his plan by denying there will be the need for any rationing. He says he will find "cost efficiencies" in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs (which he can only do through rationing!) to pay for expanded coverage in the public option.
The veil is being pretty quickly lifted on ObamaCare, however. Pretty much everyone can see that his plan will necessitate Oregon style rationing. That is why support for it is falling apart.
As imperfect as our system now is, and as uncomfortable as we all are with price-rationing of health care and the skyrocketing costs of private plans, the people of the United States do NOT WANT federal bureaucrats deciding who does and who doesn't get health care.
That is why ObamaCare is going to go down in flames.
To be sure, the OHP doesn't go near as far as ObamaCare portends to go. There isn't any mechanism in Oregon to force everyone onto either an "exchange participating" plan or the OHP. And there is no employer tax for companies that don't offer health coverage (despite Gov. Kitzhaber's wishes at the time for exactly such a tax.)
But if we look at how the OHP operates, we can envision the world of ObamaCare. The main difference would be that ObamaCare would eventually cover a far greater percentage of the population than does the OHP in Oregon.
The OHP, remember, has been in financial straits literally since it was started. The original idea was an overt rationing mechanism: the state bureaucrats would prioritize medical procedures in a ranking system, and then they would draw a line based on available resources. Depending on how much money the system has, procedures above the line (this year drawn at procedure #503) would be covered, and below the line, tough luck.
Even if your medical need is above that magic 503rd procedure, it will be paid for only if there is money left after everyone with a higher ranking priority has been served.
This is all decided by the Oregon Health Services Commission. They set the ranking - the most current version of which is this wonderful 143 page document. See any similarities between this commission and the ObamaCare idea of a "panel of experts" who will decide on the relative effectiveness of various health care treatments?
At the very least, one thing the OHP has been honest about from the start was in acknowledging that the publicly funded health services had to be explicity rationed. Obama has tried to deny this reality, even while openly discussing his"panel of expets."
The problem becomes, of course, when any commission, panel of experts, or bureaucrats are given the power to prioritize medical procedures. There are LOTS of perverse examples just in Oregon's list. For instance, as pointed out in a recent article:
"... a person in need of an emergency appendectomy (prioritized 84th by the the state of Oregon) would be denied that treatment before an individual in need of treatment for “tobacco dependence” (ranked 6th)."
And:
"... the state rationing board ranked abortion 41st overall in state-funding priority, meaning the bureaucrats who designed the priority structure in this “public option” program determined that the use of taxpayer funds for abortion is more important (and more medically necessary) than covering injuries to major blood vessels (ranked 86th), surgery to repair injured internal organs (88th), a “deep wound to the neck” or open fracture of the larynx or trachea (91st), or a ruptured aortic aneurysm (306th)."
It gets even worse when bureaucrats have to struggle with the ever-problematic end of life care issue. This is where health care dollars really get used up fast, and there really are no good answers to the problem, at least what I have seen.
But I am pretty sure the "Oregon way" is not the right thing to do. Which is, basically, refuse treatment for some terminal maladies but provide funding for services under the "Death with Dignity Act."
For patients with maladies the Commission has decided have a less than 5% 5-year survival rate, here is what IS covered:
1) Medication for symptom control and/or pain relief;
2) In-home, day care services, and hospice services as defined by DMAP;
3) Medical equipment (such as wheelchairs or walkers) determined to be medically appropriate for completion of basic activities of daily living;
4) Medical supplies (such as bandages and catheters) determined to be medically appropriate for management of symptomatic complications or as required for symptom control; and
5) Services under ORS 127.800-127.897 (Oregon Death with Dignity Act), to include but not be limited to the attending physician visits, consulting physician confirmation, mental health evaluation and counseling, and prescription medications.
And here is what is NOT covered:
1) Chemotherapy or surgical interventions with the primary intent to prolong life or alter disease progression; and
2) Medical equipment or supplies which will not benefit the patient for a reasonable length of time.
Again - these decisions are being made by a Commission, not by doctors or families. You might say "Well, that's what you get when you are on publicly funded health care." Fair enough.
But then why would we want to make that kind of health care universal? Because make no mistake, what Obama is moving toward is precisely this kind of program. It is obvious with every single additional revelation of its details.
The uncomfortable fact of the matter is that one way or another, whether we are talking private insurance or some public program, health care has to be rationed. In a private market it is more or less rationed by price. In a public program, it will be rationed by bureaucrats.
Obama has tried to sell his plan by denying there will be the need for any rationing. He says he will find "cost efficiencies" in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs (which he can only do through rationing!) to pay for expanded coverage in the public option.
The veil is being pretty quickly lifted on ObamaCare, however. Pretty much everyone can see that his plan will necessitate Oregon style rationing. That is why support for it is falling apart.
As imperfect as our system now is, and as uncomfortable as we all are with price-rationing of health care and the skyrocketing costs of private plans, the people of the United States do NOT WANT federal bureaucrats deciding who does and who doesn't get health care.
That is why ObamaCare is going to go down in flames.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wasting your money on solar panels
You want to know why I am so reluctant to support any hike in the gas tax? Because I don't trust that ODOT will spend the money wisely. The gas tax increase that passed this summer at least had a list of road projects that the funds would pay for, but I still don't trust them.
And in today's Oregonian, there is a story giving a perfect example of why they don't deserve our trust.
They want to spend $20 million installing up to 17,000 solar panels near the I-205 10th Street exit, in order to produce 3.2 million kilowatt hours of electricity.
Do the math. Assume a 6% annual cost of capital. Even with zero maintenance costs, the cost per KWH is above 37 cents. We buy residential electricty from PGE at about 9 cents a KWH.
Oh, but the state government doesn't think in terms of cost of capital. For them, the money is free. It's you and me who have to go earn it. And they already own the land - another real cost not figured into the equation.
If you read the Oregonian story, which is mostly about the objections raised to the project by residents of Oregon City and West Linn, you will notice something missing: any discussion of the monumental stupidity of wasting taxpayer dollars like this. The reporter obviously didn't even think to ask if this project made economic sense.
I guess in Oregon, things like that don't matter. As long as the energy is "renewable" then it doesn't matter what it costs.
And that is why I don't trust ODOT with more money.
And in today's Oregonian, there is a story giving a perfect example of why they don't deserve our trust.
They want to spend $20 million installing up to 17,000 solar panels near the I-205 10th Street exit, in order to produce 3.2 million kilowatt hours of electricity.
Do the math. Assume a 6% annual cost of capital. Even with zero maintenance costs, the cost per KWH is above 37 cents. We buy residential electricty from PGE at about 9 cents a KWH.
Oh, but the state government doesn't think in terms of cost of capital. For them, the money is free. It's you and me who have to go earn it. And they already own the land - another real cost not figured into the equation.
If you read the Oregonian story, which is mostly about the objections raised to the project by residents of Oregon City and West Linn, you will notice something missing: any discussion of the monumental stupidity of wasting taxpayer dollars like this. The reporter obviously didn't even think to ask if this project made economic sense.
I guess in Oregon, things like that don't matter. As long as the energy is "renewable" then it doesn't matter what it costs.
And that is why I don't trust ODOT with more money.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The wrong solution to the achievement gap
There's a front page Metro Section article in today's Oregonian about how the Tualatin-Tigard School District is focusing anew on the achievement gap.
OK, fine. The achievement gap is without question the biggest problem in public schools today. Why is it the most pressing issue? Because if a large gap in achievement persists between kids in low income families (who are disproportionately minority) and middle and higher-income families, it calls into question the very premise of public schooling in the America.
The great promise (indeed, the central premise) of public schools is that it says to the people: "No matter the circumstance of your birth, whether you were born into a family of great wealth or of humble immigrants, the public schools will afford you the opportunity to become part of the great story of America."
But for the last 40 years, the public schools have increasingly failed to live up to this promise. And if it indeed cannot deliver on its very reason for existing, doesn't that beg the question of why we have public schools in the first place?
The fact is, we don't need a system of government-operated schools in order to educate the well off in society. The whole purpose of public schools is their role leveling outcomes. If they fail at that, why indeed have public schools?
Any time you hear an excuse from an educator explaining poor school performance on the socioeconomic status of the students, what you are hearing is an educator implicitly admitting that the very premise that justifies public schools is wrong!
Now, back to Tigard-Tualatin School District's recent effort at tackling their achievement gap. I can confidently predict that what they are doing will have absolutely ZERO effect on the problem. With 100% certainty. I will take any bet.
Read the story - the school district is asking the wrong questions because they are operating from the wrong premise about what is causing the problem. Their assumption is that the problem stems from insufficient racial and ethnic awareness on the part of the teaching staff. Indeed, they are basically saying the teachers are racist because they treat behaviors of different ethnic groups differently. So the solution, they think, involves sensitivity training for the teachers, so they adjust their treatment of minority students to rid themselves of their cultural bias.
In other words, they are basically saying the district's 90% white staff is racist. They point to different disciplinary rates between white and minority kids as evidence of racial bias. So they are having a "conversation about race," which they are pretending will raise the consciousness of the district's staff in a way that the achievement gap will disappear. And now they are all patting themselves on the back for having these "tough" conversations.
Wrong culprit. Wrong solution. Politically correct? Yes. Assuages their white guilt? You bet. Gives them accolades in their professional communities? Absolutely. Going to reduce the achievement gap? Not a chance.
If you want to reduce the achievement gap, you have to attack the cause of the problem. It's not caused by racism of the teaching staff.
One thing you might want to do, if you were really interested in reducing the gap more than you were interested in making some politically correct point on racism, is to find schools that have actually succeeded in eliminating the gap, and see what they do differently.
Nowhere in anything Tigard Tualatin is doing have they asked the question: "Hey, who has actually eliminated the gap? What did they do?"
The good news is that this question HAS been asked and answered. But the answer is one that our school leaders don't much like, because it completely flies in the face of the approach being taken by Tigard-Tualatin and the rest of the education establishment.
Back in 2002, the nation's pre-eminent scholar on racial progress in America wrote a book called "No Excuses - Closing the Racial Gap in Learning." The author is Abigail Thernstrom, who is currently the Vice-Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
In the book, Thernstrom looked at the academic achievement history of different racial and ethnic groups and drilled down to tease out the reasons for the disparity. Then she actually analyzed schools that have eliminated the achievement gap to see what they did differently from the rest of the public schools. Her findings were an indictment of the Tigard-Tualatin approach to the problem.
Thernstrom's findings were basically rejected by the education establishment because they contradicted their most fervently held attitudes and assumptions on culture and race - assumptions that are reflected in the Tigard-Tualatin effort.
Basically, this line of thinking says that our school kids come from many different races and cultures, and it is up to the educators to adjust their curriculum and teaching methods in order to accomodate the differences among these cultures.
Thernstrom's research showed that this approach will do nothing to raise the achievement of minority children. Why?
OK, brace yourself. Cover your child's ears, because what I am about to relate to you is politically incorrect heresy. I'm warning you. You are about to have your cultural relativism sensibilities trampled upon:
Thernstrom showed, through painstaking research on the academic achievement history of different ethic and racial groups going back through U.S. history, that "When it comes to academic achievement, all cultures are not created equal."
Imagine uttering this sentence in the Tigard-Tualatin "conversations on race." Heresy indeed. Thernstrom goes further. In her study of schools that have actually eliminated the gap, guess how they did it?
They changed the child's culture as it relates to academic achievement.
Imagine suggesting, in these Tigard-Tualatin workshops, that it is the child's cultural attitude that must adjust to the school, not the school's culture that must adjust to the child. I'm guessing a person suggesting such a thing would be reprimanded.
Yet that is exactly what the research shows. It is 180 degrees different than what the prevailing thinking is among educrats in the achievement gap issue. Which is why is not just rejected - it is summarily ignored. The go out of their way to avoid confronting this issue. I would guarantee you that you would be hard pressed to find a single person in the Tigard-Tualatin School District who has ever even heard of Abigail Thernstrom, much less read her book.
And this is not some fringe person - she and her husband Stephen are the nation's pre-eminent scholars on the U.S. racial experience. They co-authored the seminal book on racial progress in America, called America in Black & White, back in the mid 1990's. They are both Harvard based.
The education establishment actively excludes the conclusions and recommendations from their research from being heard, much less considered. I have a personal story to relate on this front.
In 2003, Abigail Thernstrom was coming to Portland to give a speech about her achievement gap book. I had met her some months previous at a conference, having already read both her books, and I struck up a conversation with her. That evolved into a friendship.
It just so happened that her visit was coinciding with a state-wide conference on the achievement gap in Oregon, sponsored by the Oregon Department of Education. What a great opportunity! The conference had no keynote speaker. What a happy coincidence that the very same weekend that Sup't of Public Instruction Susan Castillo was holding a statewide conference on the achievement gap, the nation's most learned person on that issue, who sat on the US Commission on Civil Rights, was not only in town, but was willing to talk to the conference free of charge.
Castillo had no interest whatever. She passed the offer down to an underling, who "offered" Thernstrom a table in the lobby of the conference to hawk her book. What an insult.
But it reflected the typical education establishment's reflexive insularity. They actively exclude any viewpoint that challenges their own dearly held political viewpoint, no matter how rigorous, no matter the stature of the person.
So when I read yet another article about the achievement gap in Oregon, describing yet another attempt at adjusting the schools' cultures to accomodate the various cultures of the student as it pertains to academic achievement, I just want to scream.
Abigail Thernstrom's message is still being excluded. And that is why I can predict with 100% certainty that this effort, just like the dozens before it, will fail completely. And that failure will be ignored, piled on the ash heap of good intentions and flawed premises.
OK, fine. The achievement gap is without question the biggest problem in public schools today. Why is it the most pressing issue? Because if a large gap in achievement persists between kids in low income families (who are disproportionately minority) and middle and higher-income families, it calls into question the very premise of public schooling in the America.
The great promise (indeed, the central premise) of public schools is that it says to the people: "No matter the circumstance of your birth, whether you were born into a family of great wealth or of humble immigrants, the public schools will afford you the opportunity to become part of the great story of America."
But for the last 40 years, the public schools have increasingly failed to live up to this promise. And if it indeed cannot deliver on its very reason for existing, doesn't that beg the question of why we have public schools in the first place?
The fact is, we don't need a system of government-operated schools in order to educate the well off in society. The whole purpose of public schools is their role leveling outcomes. If they fail at that, why indeed have public schools?
Any time you hear an excuse from an educator explaining poor school performance on the socioeconomic status of the students, what you are hearing is an educator implicitly admitting that the very premise that justifies public schools is wrong!
Now, back to Tigard-Tualatin School District's recent effort at tackling their achievement gap. I can confidently predict that what they are doing will have absolutely ZERO effect on the problem. With 100% certainty. I will take any bet.
Read the story - the school district is asking the wrong questions because they are operating from the wrong premise about what is causing the problem. Their assumption is that the problem stems from insufficient racial and ethnic awareness on the part of the teaching staff. Indeed, they are basically saying the teachers are racist because they treat behaviors of different ethnic groups differently. So the solution, they think, involves sensitivity training for the teachers, so they adjust their treatment of minority students to rid themselves of their cultural bias.
In other words, they are basically saying the district's 90% white staff is racist. They point to different disciplinary rates between white and minority kids as evidence of racial bias. So they are having a "conversation about race," which they are pretending will raise the consciousness of the district's staff in a way that the achievement gap will disappear. And now they are all patting themselves on the back for having these "tough" conversations.
Wrong culprit. Wrong solution. Politically correct? Yes. Assuages their white guilt? You bet. Gives them accolades in their professional communities? Absolutely. Going to reduce the achievement gap? Not a chance.
If you want to reduce the achievement gap, you have to attack the cause of the problem. It's not caused by racism of the teaching staff.
One thing you might want to do, if you were really interested in reducing the gap more than you were interested in making some politically correct point on racism, is to find schools that have actually succeeded in eliminating the gap, and see what they do differently.
Nowhere in anything Tigard Tualatin is doing have they asked the question: "Hey, who has actually eliminated the gap? What did they do?"
The good news is that this question HAS been asked and answered. But the answer is one that our school leaders don't much like, because it completely flies in the face of the approach being taken by Tigard-Tualatin and the rest of the education establishment.
Back in 2002, the nation's pre-eminent scholar on racial progress in America wrote a book called "No Excuses - Closing the Racial Gap in Learning." The author is Abigail Thernstrom, who is currently the Vice-Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
In the book, Thernstrom looked at the academic achievement history of different racial and ethnic groups and drilled down to tease out the reasons for the disparity. Then she actually analyzed schools that have eliminated the achievement gap to see what they did differently from the rest of the public schools. Her findings were an indictment of the Tigard-Tualatin approach to the problem.
Thernstrom's findings were basically rejected by the education establishment because they contradicted their most fervently held attitudes and assumptions on culture and race - assumptions that are reflected in the Tigard-Tualatin effort.
Basically, this line of thinking says that our school kids come from many different races and cultures, and it is up to the educators to adjust their curriculum and teaching methods in order to accomodate the differences among these cultures.
Thernstrom's research showed that this approach will do nothing to raise the achievement of minority children. Why?
OK, brace yourself. Cover your child's ears, because what I am about to relate to you is politically incorrect heresy. I'm warning you. You are about to have your cultural relativism sensibilities trampled upon:
Thernstrom showed, through painstaking research on the academic achievement history of different ethic and racial groups going back through U.S. history, that "When it comes to academic achievement, all cultures are not created equal."
Imagine uttering this sentence in the Tigard-Tualatin "conversations on race." Heresy indeed. Thernstrom goes further. In her study of schools that have actually eliminated the gap, guess how they did it?
They changed the child's culture as it relates to academic achievement.
Imagine suggesting, in these Tigard-Tualatin workshops, that it is the child's cultural attitude that must adjust to the school, not the school's culture that must adjust to the child. I'm guessing a person suggesting such a thing would be reprimanded.
Yet that is exactly what the research shows. It is 180 degrees different than what the prevailing thinking is among educrats in the achievement gap issue. Which is why is not just rejected - it is summarily ignored. The go out of their way to avoid confronting this issue. I would guarantee you that you would be hard pressed to find a single person in the Tigard-Tualatin School District who has ever even heard of Abigail Thernstrom, much less read her book.
And this is not some fringe person - she and her husband Stephen are the nation's pre-eminent scholars on the U.S. racial experience. They co-authored the seminal book on racial progress in America, called America in Black & White, back in the mid 1990's. They are both Harvard based.
The education establishment actively excludes the conclusions and recommendations from their research from being heard, much less considered. I have a personal story to relate on this front.
In 2003, Abigail Thernstrom was coming to Portland to give a speech about her achievement gap book. I had met her some months previous at a conference, having already read both her books, and I struck up a conversation with her. That evolved into a friendship.
It just so happened that her visit was coinciding with a state-wide conference on the achievement gap in Oregon, sponsored by the Oregon Department of Education. What a great opportunity! The conference had no keynote speaker. What a happy coincidence that the very same weekend that Sup't of Public Instruction Susan Castillo was holding a statewide conference on the achievement gap, the nation's most learned person on that issue, who sat on the US Commission on Civil Rights, was not only in town, but was willing to talk to the conference free of charge.
Castillo had no interest whatever. She passed the offer down to an underling, who "offered" Thernstrom a table in the lobby of the conference to hawk her book. What an insult.
But it reflected the typical education establishment's reflexive insularity. They actively exclude any viewpoint that challenges their own dearly held political viewpoint, no matter how rigorous, no matter the stature of the person.
So when I read yet another article about the achievement gap in Oregon, describing yet another attempt at adjusting the schools' cultures to accomodate the various cultures of the student as it pertains to academic achievement, I just want to scream.
Abigail Thernstrom's message is still being excluded. And that is why I can predict with 100% certainty that this effort, just like the dozens before it, will fail completely. And that failure will be ignored, piled on the ash heap of good intentions and flawed premises.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Triple-A All Star Game Home Run Derby
The Triple-A All Star game is at PGE Park this week, and my son has been asked to do some catching duties during the festivities. During the game Wednesday he will be warming up the pitchers in the bullpen. Tonight he caught during the Home Run Derby.
It was really a fun event. There were two high schoolers in the competition, who qualified by winning a local home run competition. One of them, Kevin Taylor from Sunset, is a great kid and a great hitter - my son has played on teams with and against him for years.
Kevin Taylor went first. Mind you, he is a just graduated high school senior, trying to hit home runs in front of about 10,000 fans, and competing against the best home run hitters in Triple-A ball.
The picture at the right is Kevin batting with my son catching.
All Kevin did was hit eight balls over the fence in the first round. The six professionals went next - the best one of them hit seven! He qualified for the next round, which was the top four. He ended up narrowly missing out on making it to the final two.
My son caught for six batters in the first and second rounds, and then the whole final. There were some great moments. In the final, the big Yankee slugger Shelly Duncan hit a high arching bomb that would have been his second homer, but the ump called it foul.
The picture to the right is my son calling the ball fair, as Shelley Duncan looks back to question the call.
No question about it, says son. Fair ball. The other finalist was Portland Beaver Chad Huffman. My son figured Shelley Duncan just got homered on the call.
No matter, it's just an exhibition anyway. Huffman was a great guy too. It was good to have a local winner.
Every time Shelley Duncan came to the plate, the crowd would boo - Lots of Yankee haters in Portland, I guess!
Here's the winner, Chad Huffman, just about to swing at the winning shot. He had some impressive bombs out to left field, onto 18th street. One even hit the Max train!
Bullseye!
The players were terrific. They treated my son very well, and went out of they way to make him a part of things.
Here's a shot of Jeff commiserating with Duncan afterwards, discussing the bad call as so
me of the other all-stars who weren't in the home run derby hang out.
Pretty cool night for a soon-to-be college catcher, getting to rub it around with the soon-to-be major leaguers.
And on Wednesday he'll be catching the pitchers in the bullpen. Fun stuff.
It was really a fun event. There were two high schoolers in the competition, who qualified by winning a local home run competition. One of them, Kevin Taylor from Sunset, is a great kid and a great hitter - my son has played on teams with and against him for years.
Kevin Taylor went first. Mind you, he is a just graduated high school senior, trying to hit home runs in front of about 10,000 fans, and competing against the best home run hitters in Triple-A ball.
The picture at the right is Kevin batting with my son catching.
All Kevin did was hit eight balls over the fence in the first round. The six professionals went next - the best one of them hit seven! He qualified for the next round, which was the top four. He ended up narrowly missing out on making it to the final two.
My son caught for six batters in the first and second rounds, and then the whole final. There were some great moments. In the final, the big Yankee slugger Shelly Duncan hit a high arching bomb that would have been his second homer, but the ump called it foul.
The picture to the right is my son calling the ball fair, as Shelley Duncan looks back to question the call.
No question about it, says son. Fair ball. The other finalist was Portland Beaver Chad Huffman. My son figured Shelley Duncan just got homered on the call.
No matter, it's just an exhibition anyway. Huffman was a great guy too. It was good to have a local winner.
Every time Shelley Duncan came to the plate, the crowd would boo - Lots of Yankee haters in Portland, I guess!
Here's the winner, Chad Huffman, just about to swing at the winning shot. He had some impressive bombs out to left field, onto 18th street. One even hit the Max train!
Bullseye!
The players were terrific. They treated my son very well, and went out of they way to make him a part of things.
Here's a shot of Jeff commiserating with Duncan afterwards, discussing the bad call as so
me of the other all-stars who weren't in the home run derby hang out.Pretty cool night for a soon-to-be college catcher, getting to rub it around with the soon-to-be major leaguers.
And on Wednesday he'll be catching the pitchers in the bullpen. Fun stuff.
Obama doesn't really believe in America
I've been taking a hiatus from my blog since the session ended. Not that there wasn't plenty to write about over the last two weeks - there most certainly was. But sometimes the muse just doesn't sing to me.
I've been observing President Obama over the last few weeks, especially on his trips and speeches abroad. One thing I suspected during the campaign, which seemed evident by his troubling history of nurturing long time friendships and associations with the most virulent anti-American types, is that Barack Obama really doesn't believe in the America that I do.
He doesn't believe in the IDEA and IDEALS of America. He doesn't believe in America's exceptionalism, in its role in the world as a force of good, nor that it has a moral argument to make against regimes it has opposed like Soviet Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
It is evident in the speeches he makes abroad, where he constantly fails to stand up for our principals.
Lynne Cheney wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that really encapsulates my discomfort about Obama's apparent disdain for America. Talking about Obama's recent trip to Russia, she wrote:
Is anybody else troubled by a commander in chief who doesn't really seem to believe that America is worth defending? If he can't even defend our country rhetorically, why would it be any different when it comes to the far more difficult decision to use arms?
I've been observing President Obama over the last few weeks, especially on his trips and speeches abroad. One thing I suspected during the campaign, which seemed evident by his troubling history of nurturing long time friendships and associations with the most virulent anti-American types, is that Barack Obama really doesn't believe in the America that I do.
He doesn't believe in the IDEA and IDEALS of America. He doesn't believe in America's exceptionalism, in its role in the world as a force of good, nor that it has a moral argument to make against regimes it has opposed like Soviet Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
It is evident in the speeches he makes abroad, where he constantly fails to stand up for our principals.
Lynne Cheney wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that really encapsulates my discomfort about Obama's apparent disdain for America. Talking about Obama's recent trip to Russia, she wrote:
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."This isn't just a one-time thing; it's a pattern. As Cheney points out, in Cairo, Obama said there was an equivalence between America's support of the Iran coup in 1953 and the Mullah takeover (and three decades of tyranny) since 1979. He also sat idly by and listened as Daniel Ortega ranted an anti-American screed in Mexico City, refusing to defend America against his attacks, and saying only he was glad Ortega didn't blame him since he was only three years old at the time.
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Is anybody else troubled by a commander in chief who doesn't really seem to believe that America is worth defending? If he can't even defend our country rhetorically, why would it be any different when it comes to the far more difficult decision to use arms?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Session over; virtual school bill passes
The virtual school bill finished its long shameful journey today on the last day of the session, as the house voted 31-29 to adopt the amendments made to the bill in the conference committee.
The bill had a total of 56 amendments, and by the time it got to the final form voted on today, it STILL had drafting errors and unintended consequences that the carrier had to pledge, on the floor prior to voting, to work to fix in the next legislative session.
The amended bill isn't anywhere near as destructive as it started. In its first version, it made it illegal for any K-7 student to attend a virtual school on line. Virtual charter school supporters were very effective in communicating their displeasure to the Democrats who were going along with this travesty.
In the four different floor votes on the bill, there was never a single Republican vote in favor. Democrats had a gun to their head by leadership. We constantly heard, all session long, that people had never seen a bill so many hated yet were voting for. Arm twisting doesn't begin to describe it.
The most shameful moment of all was Saturday's Senate floor session, when the bill passed 16-14. The bill's chief sponsor, Senator Devlin, gave the most insipid and self-aggrandizing floor speech I have ever seen.
He knew he had to explain to his colleagues why it was so important to him to deny virtual education to the thousand plus students who will not be able to enroll this year as a result of the bill. Of course, all of his colleagues KNEW the reason: he is a lap dog of the OEA and they wanted the bill.
But that explanation wouldn't fly on the floor. So he went on and on about how much he cares about education that he thinks about it every waking moment, and then he gave a tearful account of his own struggles in the third grade when bad eyesight made it so he couldn't learn to read. He was all choked up as the told this story - and anyone watching was thinking: "Then why do you want to deny today's third graders from enrolling in the school they want? What does your macabre display of overwrought emotion have to do with this bill, which will only deny kids what you were able to get?
It was amazing. I lost any respect I had for that man. He was nothing more than a shill for the OEA all session long, and he cared not a whit for the very real human cost of his desire to advance his own political career.
Senator Devlin is the worst type of politician. I will call him out every chance I get.
The bill had a total of 56 amendments, and by the time it got to the final form voted on today, it STILL had drafting errors and unintended consequences that the carrier had to pledge, on the floor prior to voting, to work to fix in the next legislative session.
The amended bill isn't anywhere near as destructive as it started. In its first version, it made it illegal for any K-7 student to attend a virtual school on line. Virtual charter school supporters were very effective in communicating their displeasure to the Democrats who were going along with this travesty.
In the four different floor votes on the bill, there was never a single Republican vote in favor. Democrats had a gun to their head by leadership. We constantly heard, all session long, that people had never seen a bill so many hated yet were voting for. Arm twisting doesn't begin to describe it.
The most shameful moment of all was Saturday's Senate floor session, when the bill passed 16-14. The bill's chief sponsor, Senator Devlin, gave the most insipid and self-aggrandizing floor speech I have ever seen.
He knew he had to explain to his colleagues why it was so important to him to deny virtual education to the thousand plus students who will not be able to enroll this year as a result of the bill. Of course, all of his colleagues KNEW the reason: he is a lap dog of the OEA and they wanted the bill.
But that explanation wouldn't fly on the floor. So he went on and on about how much he cares about education that he thinks about it every waking moment, and then he gave a tearful account of his own struggles in the third grade when bad eyesight made it so he couldn't learn to read. He was all choked up as the told this story - and anyone watching was thinking: "Then why do you want to deny today's third graders from enrolling in the school they want? What does your macabre display of overwrought emotion have to do with this bill, which will only deny kids what you were able to get?
It was amazing. I lost any respect I had for that man. He was nothing more than a shill for the OEA all session long, and he cared not a whit for the very real human cost of his desire to advance his own political career.
Senator Devlin is the worst type of politician. I will call him out every chance I get.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
House passes SB767
It was another weird chapter in a saga that has been fraught with bungling, mishandling, outright lies, and the most cynical political power plays that I have witnessed in almost 15 years of dealing with the legislature.
Here is the scene:
The bill as amended in committee before coming to the floor was still completely screwed up, and the Democrats knew it. The amendments they hurriedly moved into the bill in Revenue Committee were bungled. But instead of sending the bill back to committee to fix it, the Democrats did something a bit strange...
They decided to pass the bill as it is, but promise that it would go into a conference committee to be fixed. So the carrier of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Sarah Gelser, didn't really speak to the bill during her opening, she spoke to how the bill was to be amended in conference committee. And the members were supposed to vote on the bill just on the assurance that the bill would be amended as she said it would.
That is strange enough. But how do we know that the bill would be amended as Gelser said? What assurance does anyone have?
Among other things, Gelser said that the "time-out" for virtual charter schools would cap enrollment in existing virtuals at the levels of May 1st, 2009. That was different than how the bill currently read, which limited enrollment to the existing students on that date. That's a big difference - if enrollment is limited to existing students, then when a kid leaves the school, he can't be replaced, and the school will shrink.
The nature of virtual charters is that they do have a good bit of turnover, because lots of families use them for temporary solutions.
Rep. Matt Wingard asked Rep. Gelser for clarification on this point. He asked:
"Under the anticipated amendments that you were speaking about, will enrollment for Oregon Connections Academy be capped at the May, 2009 level until the moratorium is over, as my understanding of the current, or dash-29 amendments, capped ORCA at sts current students only, so if the student leaves, that spot is gone.?"
Gelser responded:
"My understanding, and we will receive further clarification in the conference committee, is that it is capped at the total number of enrollment on May 1st, 2009, but that all students currently enrolled in the school, are able to continue to attend, as well as are their siblings – brothers and sisters who may not yet be enrolled. So if a brother or sister wished to enroll, and they would cause the enrollment to be greater than what was in place on May 1st, 2009, that the total number capped from May 1st would not apply. Did that make sense?"
OK, there we have it. It is a BIG improvement in the bill. It is the difference between ORCA staying the same size, and perhaps growing a bit with sibling enrollment, to ORCA withering on the vine, unable to replace exiting students.
So after the floor vote (31-28,) Gelser let it be known that we could get from her office the amendments that would be moved into the bill in conference committee. Guess what?
The amendments (the SB767-C36) STILL limits enrollment to the existing students on May 1st, 2009! There is NO CHANGE in the language from the current bill on that point. It is completely contrary to what Gelser stated on the floor, in direct questioning from Wingard.
Unbelieveable.
Now, honestly, I don't think Gelser was lying. I think she was lied to by her leadership, and allowed to go make a fool of herself on the House floor as she carried the water on a bill she never sponsored and from all appearances never very much liked.
And the question now is will they fix this thing to read like Gelser said it would read? Or will the Democrat leaders who have engineered this travesty all along just continue the sham, force a vote on the dash-36 amendments in conference, and try to muscle the thing on the Senate and House floors, just like they have done all along?
If recent history is any guide, they will do the dishonest thing. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, after all.
Here is the scene:
The bill as amended in committee before coming to the floor was still completely screwed up, and the Democrats knew it. The amendments they hurriedly moved into the bill in Revenue Committee were bungled. But instead of sending the bill back to committee to fix it, the Democrats did something a bit strange...
They decided to pass the bill as it is, but promise that it would go into a conference committee to be fixed. So the carrier of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Sarah Gelser, didn't really speak to the bill during her opening, she spoke to how the bill was to be amended in conference committee. And the members were supposed to vote on the bill just on the assurance that the bill would be amended as she said it would.
That is strange enough. But how do we know that the bill would be amended as Gelser said? What assurance does anyone have?
Among other things, Gelser said that the "time-out" for virtual charter schools would cap enrollment in existing virtuals at the levels of May 1st, 2009. That was different than how the bill currently read, which limited enrollment to the existing students on that date. That's a big difference - if enrollment is limited to existing students, then when a kid leaves the school, he can't be replaced, and the school will shrink.
The nature of virtual charters is that they do have a good bit of turnover, because lots of families use them for temporary solutions.
Rep. Matt Wingard asked Rep. Gelser for clarification on this point. He asked:
"Under the anticipated amendments that you were speaking about, will enrollment for Oregon Connections Academy be capped at the May, 2009 level until the moratorium is over, as my understanding of the current, or dash-29 amendments, capped ORCA at sts current students only, so if the student leaves, that spot is gone.?"
Gelser responded:
"My understanding, and we will receive further clarification in the conference committee, is that it is capped at the total number of enrollment on May 1st, 2009, but that all students currently enrolled in the school, are able to continue to attend, as well as are their siblings – brothers and sisters who may not yet be enrolled. So if a brother or sister wished to enroll, and they would cause the enrollment to be greater than what was in place on May 1st, 2009, that the total number capped from May 1st would not apply. Did that make sense?"
OK, there we have it. It is a BIG improvement in the bill. It is the difference between ORCA staying the same size, and perhaps growing a bit with sibling enrollment, to ORCA withering on the vine, unable to replace exiting students.
So after the floor vote (31-28,) Gelser let it be known that we could get from her office the amendments that would be moved into the bill in conference committee. Guess what?
The amendments (the SB767-C36) STILL limits enrollment to the existing students on May 1st, 2009! There is NO CHANGE in the language from the current bill on that point. It is completely contrary to what Gelser stated on the floor, in direct questioning from Wingard.
Unbelieveable.
Now, honestly, I don't think Gelser was lying. I think she was lied to by her leadership, and allowed to go make a fool of herself on the House floor as she carried the water on a bill she never sponsored and from all appearances never very much liked.
And the question now is will they fix this thing to read like Gelser said it would read? Or will the Democrat leaders who have engineered this travesty all along just continue the sham, force a vote on the dash-36 amendments in conference, and try to muscle the thing on the Senate and House floors, just like they have done all along?
If recent history is any guide, they will do the dishonest thing. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, after all.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
THAT"S the problem!
If you want to understand exactly how much the public employee unions are running things around here, read this story from Willamette Week.
The OEA used the State Department of Education's lawyer to draft its bill to kill virtual charter schools - even though several of the provisions of the bill the ODE lawyer drafted for the teachers union are directly contrary to the State Board's own position on virtual charters.
And the State Board of Education chairman, Duncan Wyse, sees no problem with this!
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, IS THE PROBEM!
So OEA, a private interest group, gets to use public resources to draft legislation that is directly contrary to the public interest as expressed by the State Board chair, and that chair says "no problem!"
No sweat. I always want my employees helping outside entities that are trying to subvert my policies. Especially if I am the government. And especially if that outside entity is the Teachers Union, because, well, they really are the boss around here anyway.
Stay tuned - this story is far from over. SB 767 passed out of the House Revenue Committee on Monday, with some amendments that were so hurriedly drafted that they seem to now want to change the bill again.
On Thursday, the ORCA waiver request is once again on the agenda of the State Board of Education monthly meeting. The subject of the Willamette Week article, Cindy Hunt, has been "advising" the State Board through nine months of inaction on ORCA's waiver, despite the fact that the Board's own rules put in place a 90 day deadline for acting on such requests.
Now, after delaying month after month, if SB767 passes as written by Cindy Hunt, the State Board's authority to grant ORCA a waiver from the 50% provision would be taken away, and if the Board happened to grant ORCA the waiver on Thursday, the bill would revoke it.
No, there is no problem at all here. Things are apparently working just as they are supposed to be.
The OEA used the State Department of Education's lawyer to draft its bill to kill virtual charter schools - even though several of the provisions of the bill the ODE lawyer drafted for the teachers union are directly contrary to the State Board's own position on virtual charters.
And the State Board of Education chairman, Duncan Wyse, sees no problem with this!
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, IS THE PROBEM!
So OEA, a private interest group, gets to use public resources to draft legislation that is directly contrary to the public interest as expressed by the State Board chair, and that chair says "no problem!"
No sweat. I always want my employees helping outside entities that are trying to subvert my policies. Especially if I am the government. And especially if that outside entity is the Teachers Union, because, well, they really are the boss around here anyway.
Stay tuned - this story is far from over. SB 767 passed out of the House Revenue Committee on Monday, with some amendments that were so hurriedly drafted that they seem to now want to change the bill again.
On Thursday, the ORCA waiver request is once again on the agenda of the State Board of Education monthly meeting. The subject of the Willamette Week article, Cindy Hunt, has been "advising" the State Board through nine months of inaction on ORCA's waiver, despite the fact that the Board's own rules put in place a 90 day deadline for acting on such requests.
Now, after delaying month after month, if SB767 passes as written by Cindy Hunt, the State Board's authority to grant ORCA a waiver from the 50% provision would be taken away, and if the Board happened to grant ORCA the waiver on Thursday, the bill would revoke it.
No, there is no problem at all here. Things are apparently working just as they are supposed to be.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Senate did it
In a 16-14 vote, the Oregon Senate passed SB767. Now, the future of vitual charter schools will likely, quite literally, lie in the hands of their enemies.
Sure, the bill still has to pass the House. But we'd have to get 6 Democrat votes (and keep every Republican on board) to kill it there. That is a long shot.
What is disappointing about the way this played out is that the bill was so dishonest, so disingeneous, and everyone knew it. But enough of them went along because the power player in the building wanted the bill, and the Democrats were going to feed the beast.
It is this type of thing that erodes public respect for the legislature as an institution. When you see this kind of thing railroaded through, so brazenly tossing thousands of kids under the bus as a sop to a powerful interest group, the true motivations of many of the people involved is laid bare.
Most disappointing is those who often cast thoughtful, honest votes who just went in the tank on this one. Sen. Rick Metsger voted in favor of the bill. He saw all the testimony in the Senate Education Committee, and he even saw the railroad job that Sen. Devlin performed in the Rules committee. He knew what this was all about - he even said as much when the bill passed out of Rules. He publicly stated then that he reserved the right to vote no on the floor, because he was unhappy with the way the bill was amended in Rules.
Metsger is a good man, a likeable guy, and usually has at least legitimate reasons for voting the way he does. But today he was a bag man for Devlin. He cast the deciding vote. He sold the kids down the river. It is a shame.
Oh, they will all tell you their reasons. But these are nothing but rationalizations. The fact of the matter is, this bill will seriously cripple virtual charter schools in Oregon.
The bill creates a task force made up almost entirely of education establishment status quo defenders, whose job it will be to decide on a framework for governing online education in Oregon, and propose legislation to the 2010 special legislative session.
Think about that. Not only is the committee stacked with virtual charter opponents, but so will be the 2010 legislature.
So the future of each virtual school beyond the next school year is completely uncertain. What would you do if you had a child enrolled in a school that might be gone the next school year? What would you do if you WORKED at a school whose future was so uncertain?
Yet the Democrats in the Senate apparently don't care about creating this kind of uncertainty fo thousands of kids and hundreds of employees. That pales in comparison, I guess, to the needs of the OEA, COSA, OSEA, and AFT.
After all, these groups elect Democrats. So they must be pandered to.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sen. Vicki Walker and Sen. Joann Verger, both of whom voted against the bill. I don't really know Verger, but Vicki Walker is one of my favorites. She is tough, smart and fair. We of course disagree on plenty, politically. But I have long admired her toughness.
This is a sad day for the integrity of the Oregon legislature.
Sure, the bill still has to pass the House. But we'd have to get 6 Democrat votes (and keep every Republican on board) to kill it there. That is a long shot.
What is disappointing about the way this played out is that the bill was so dishonest, so disingeneous, and everyone knew it. But enough of them went along because the power player in the building wanted the bill, and the Democrats were going to feed the beast.
It is this type of thing that erodes public respect for the legislature as an institution. When you see this kind of thing railroaded through, so brazenly tossing thousands of kids under the bus as a sop to a powerful interest group, the true motivations of many of the people involved is laid bare.
Most disappointing is those who often cast thoughtful, honest votes who just went in the tank on this one. Sen. Rick Metsger voted in favor of the bill. He saw all the testimony in the Senate Education Committee, and he even saw the railroad job that Sen. Devlin performed in the Rules committee. He knew what this was all about - he even said as much when the bill passed out of Rules. He publicly stated then that he reserved the right to vote no on the floor, because he was unhappy with the way the bill was amended in Rules.
Metsger is a good man, a likeable guy, and usually has at least legitimate reasons for voting the way he does. But today he was a bag man for Devlin. He cast the deciding vote. He sold the kids down the river. It is a shame.
Oh, they will all tell you their reasons. But these are nothing but rationalizations. The fact of the matter is, this bill will seriously cripple virtual charter schools in Oregon.
The bill creates a task force made up almost entirely of education establishment status quo defenders, whose job it will be to decide on a framework for governing online education in Oregon, and propose legislation to the 2010 special legislative session.
Think about that. Not only is the committee stacked with virtual charter opponents, but so will be the 2010 legislature.
So the future of each virtual school beyond the next school year is completely uncertain. What would you do if you had a child enrolled in a school that might be gone the next school year? What would you do if you WORKED at a school whose future was so uncertain?
Yet the Democrats in the Senate apparently don't care about creating this kind of uncertainty fo thousands of kids and hundreds of employees. That pales in comparison, I guess, to the needs of the OEA, COSA, OSEA, and AFT.
After all, these groups elect Democrats. So they must be pandered to.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sen. Vicki Walker and Sen. Joann Verger, both of whom voted against the bill. I don't really know Verger, but Vicki Walker is one of my favorites. She is tough, smart and fair. We of course disagree on plenty, politically. But I have long admired her toughness.
This is a sad day for the integrity of the Oregon legislature.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Union lies to its members about virtual schools
The OEA publishes a monthly magazine, The OEA Today. The June issue has a blurb about SB 767 in which they blatantly lie about virtual charter schools and what the bill does.
You would think that the OEA could manage to be honest when telling their own members what they are up to, but I guess they know if people - including their own members - were actually well informed about what the OEA actually does, that they would lose support fast.
Here is what the OEA says about virtual charter schools:
"Currently Oregon's virtual school providers are taking money that has been allocated to public school students and spending it instead on subsidizing home school students. This is a backdoor voucher scheme."
There is so much in error here, it isn't funny. All these schools are doing is using money allocated to educate public school students to educate public school students. The OEA doesn't happen to like the public school these kids and their parents have chosen (because the teachers are not unionized,) but these are public schools, NOT home schools.
How could this possibly be a backdoor voucher scheme? A voucher is a way to use public funds to pay tuition at a private school. Virtual charters are public schools. Their teachers are public employees. The students take all the same tests and are held to all the same standards as other public school students. To describe a virtual public charter school as a "backdoor voucher scheme" is just ridiculous.
The OEA knows this full well, but it thinks so little of its tens of thousands of members that it doesn't think they will realize they are being lied to.
But someone has to point it out.
You would think that the OEA could manage to be honest when telling their own members what they are up to, but I guess they know if people - including their own members - were actually well informed about what the OEA actually does, that they would lose support fast.
Here is what the OEA says about virtual charter schools:
"Currently Oregon's virtual school providers are taking money that has been allocated to public school students and spending it instead on subsidizing home school students. This is a backdoor voucher scheme."
There is so much in error here, it isn't funny. All these schools are doing is using money allocated to educate public school students to educate public school students. The OEA doesn't happen to like the public school these kids and their parents have chosen (because the teachers are not unionized,) but these are public schools, NOT home schools.
How could this possibly be a backdoor voucher scheme? A voucher is a way to use public funds to pay tuition at a private school. Virtual charters are public schools. Their teachers are public employees. The students take all the same tests and are held to all the same standards as other public school students. To describe a virtual public charter school as a "backdoor voucher scheme" is just ridiculous.
The OEA knows this full well, but it thinks so little of its tens of thousands of members that it doesn't think they will realize they are being lied to.
But someone has to point it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)