9th Circuit Decision on Sex Education

The 9th circuit has done it again.

It made a decision (and wrote a legal opinion) that seemingly swerves off the road to run over the sensibilities of parents who are worried that the schools are trampling the values they want to teach their kids.

By now you all know the case. Intrusive questions of a sexual nature were asked of 7-10 year old kids as part of a psychology research project. Ten of the 54 questions asked about things of a sexual nature, such as whether the child worried about "Thinking about having sex," "Not trusting people because I think they want sex," and other completely unsuitable questions for a first grader. (You can see all the questions in the judge's opinion, linked above.)

There was a parental consent letter sent home prior to the questionnaire being given, but it didn't reveal that they would be asking questions of a sexual nature. Oddly enough, however, the letter did say, in effect, that if their children experienced emotional trauma from the questions, the district would help them find a therapist to help deal with the damage! I am not making this up.

The legal questions asked in the lawsuit hinged upon whether the 14th Amendment vested parents with a due process right that gave them exclusive reign over what their children are taught. It is a pretty narrow question. I'm no lawyer, but when I read the opinion, I come to two conclusions:

1) The question the parents asked the courts to decide was the wrong one;
2) The court's opinion is correct on the law.

I know this is not the take of most conservative commentators. I of course think that Palmdale School District's conduct is outrageous. If I was a parent, and read that letter of consent, I would have never consented, and I would have wondered why they were doing a psychological survey when they should be teaching my kid to read and do math.

But the legal question is basically "Do parents have the right to compel the schools to follow their own moral or ethical views on what should be taught to the kids?"

The court said "no," and I think they got it right. If parents did have such a right, how would that work? Parents have different moral and ethical views on a plethora of issues, and they often conflict. How could the schools possibly be an arbiter of such a "right?" They would end up having to teach each child a curriculum tailored to his or her parents moral views.

But for some reason the Judge's opinion contained an explanatory statement that went far beyond the question, and is sure to rankle my conservative comrades:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children . . ."

Now, here's the problem. I think the above statement is demonstrably false. Yes, parents do have this right. They can exercise it by home schooling, or otherwise filtering the information their child is exposed to.

But the CAN'T exercise it by forcing the public school to follow their moral standards.

I don't know why the judge put it this way. Later in the opinion he wrote a more limited explanation. He said the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children (which, coincidentally, was established in an Oregon case called "Pierce vs. Society of Sisters" which stemmed from Oregon's attempt to make private schools illegal, which was found unconstitutional in 1925)

"do not afford parents a right to compel public schools to follow their own idiosyncratic views as to what information the schools may dispense."

I think this is not a particularly controversial proposition. So, in this case, the courts got it right.

This is not to excuse the Palmdale School District. If I were the parents, here is the question I would have been asking:

If a private citizen were to corner my 7 year old daughter and ask her if she "Worries that she touches her private parts too much," or whether she "Thinks about touching other people's private parts," he would be sent to jail and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Yet we let our school officials ask these questions? I would have filed a complaint of sex abuse!

Any school official who thinks these questions are suitable for 7-10 year olds has something wrong with them. But the answer is not to give every parent veto power over the school curriculum.

No, the Palmdale case is just another illustration of the need for school choice. Parents resort to lawsuits when they feel trapped. They are forced to send their child to school, and in most cases they are assigned to their public school based on where they live. They are captives. If their values are trampled by things the school does with their children, they have little recourse other than to sue.

But what if they could just choose another school, one that had a better fit between their values and what the school taught and believed? A few things would happen. First, lawsuits such as the Palmdale case would be rare, because parents would just leave schools such as Palmdale that had such a perverted view of what their role is.

Second, school officials would realize that they can't do this kind of stuff with impunity. They would lose customers! Parents now have little recourse, but if we had school choice, they could vote with their kids feet, and it wouldn't be too long before people such as those who perpetrated the Palmdale questionnaire would be on the outside looking in.

It would be about time.

A very public shakedown

It is almost unbelievable that the below op-ed piece, which ran in the Wilsonville Times, could be written by an elected official in America. The reasoning it reveals is summarily collectivist, and is based on the philosophy that one person's need is a claim on another's assets.

I've inserted, in bold, my comments throughout the column.

By Wilsonville Mayor Charlotte Lehann

Ordinance rights a wrong

The City of Wilsonville recently passed an ordinance dealing with the displacement of homeowners who are evicted due to the closure of their mobile home park. [The ordinance requires the owner of the park, who wants to sell the property for about $8.5 million, to spend about $4 million relocating the tenants.]

The protections we put in place are similar to what governments must provide any homeowner when government condemns property for a new road or other public purpose: reasonable relocation costs and compensation for the value of the home. Whether the displaced homeowner owns a mansion or a modest mobile home, we are expected to make them whole. [The difference here, Mayor Lehann, is that when the government condemns property and pays to relocate the prior occupants, the public bears the cost. In this case you want to force that cost on a private person.]

Similarly, if homeowners are displaced by a park closure the landowner must pay the homeowner’s reasonable relocation costs, or if the home cannot be relocated, must compensate the homeowner for the in-place value of the home. [There it is. A bald faced shakedown. There is NO similarity between a government exercising the power of eminent domain and a private landowner selling his property. She is claiming the two are equivalent. They aren't.] The landowner is exempted from the ordinance if they reach a negotiated settlement with the homeowners.

Without these protections for the property rights of both the homeowner and the landowner, [Just exactly how does this "protect" the landowner's property rights? It's an outright theft of $4 million, and she tries to pass it off as protecting his rights? And what property right does the "homeowner" (which is a tenant on rented land) have in this case? This sentence is overtly Orwellian] there is a large transfer of wealth when a park is closed. The wealth of the homeowners is dest
royed and the wealth of the landowner is greatly increased. [She obviously doesn't understand the first thing about wealth creation. The landowner has an asset that has a use far more valuable than as a mobile home park. The renters own none of this wealth. There is NO transfer of wealth when the park is closed. What could she be talking about?]

In most mobile home parks homeowners have made space payments [Space payments? You mean rent?] for years or decades in addition to investing most of their life savings in the purchase of their home. [Yes, and in apartment buildings the tenants pay rent, sometimes for decades. That doesn't mean they own the apartment, or that they should get relocation money if the building is sold.]

With notice of closure, the expectation of a secure place to spend their retirement years disappears. Since older mobile homes cannot easily be moved and are usually not allowed to locate in other parks, the owner’s only major asset is immediately made worthless and is likely to be demolished without compensation. Sorry to point this out, but a mobile home that cannot be moved is not a major asset. [It is too bad that these people will have to figure out somewhere else to live. If Mayor Lehann thinks the public should help these people out, she is welcome to make that case and convince taxpayers to do something. But instead she wants to force the park-owner to pay the cost of her welfare dreams.]

In the meantime, the landowner is able to take advantage of decades of space payments [Rent!] and escalating land values to realize windfall profits at the expense of all those homeowners. [I love the rhetoric here. Windfall profits! Expense of homeowners! Where does their rent contract say that the park owner must rent to them in perpetuity?]

This is clearly unfair. [This is what I love about communists like Mayor Lehann. They always whine about unfairness, and their solution is to steal money from someone who has it. Is THAT fair? In their world, yes it is.] In Wilsonville’s case, as in many communities, homeowners in mobile home parks are predominantly senior citizens of modest means. They include many World War II and Korean War veterans, or their widows, who have carefully planned to remain self-sufficient in their retirement years, living independently on modest pensions and Social Security. [And again.... if she wants to help these people - and that may be a worthy goal, ask the public for the money. Don't steal it from some private person just because you have a gun.]

Some retirees supplement their incomes with part-time jobs nearby. Most are longstanding members of the community, including lifelong residents from Wilsonville’s pioneer families. Many of them continue to volunteer their time in public service at the library, Community Center, and local schools. [This justifies stealing from a rich guy?]

Loss of their homes can mean loss of financial independence, and along with it, loss of community, friends, jobs, and much of their social support system. It can also mean loss of the gardens and pets that are a large part of their lives. [That is all true.... so take up a collection.]

These are potentially debilitating losses for anyone, but for people in their 80s and 90s the stress can be truly life-threatening. That is why Wilsonville approached this issue from the standpoint of public health and safety.

After we watched the tragedies unfold in New Orleans, we cannot stand by and expect a physically and financially fragile population — stripped of their assets and without assistance — to manage mass eviction any more than we would expect them to manage mass evacuation.
What do we say? “Why haven’t you relocated? Didn’t you get the notice?” [No, you say "let's find some guy with a "windfall profit" who we can shake down so we don't have to pay to help these people from our own pockets.]

These people are not looking for subsidies, but if through no fault of their own they are suddenly left homeless and made dependent on public assistance then the windfall profits of the landowner will also be realized at the public’s expense. [OK so let me understand this argument. If he sells his park, and the renters have to go on public assistance because they are unable to find other accomodations, then it is his fault and he ought to pay instead of the public. In other words, he is duty-bound to operate his asset as a mobile home park even if there is a far more valuable use. So basically the Mayor's position is that he should be forced by law to be a charitable operation.]

Oregon taxpayers shouldered part of the responsibility in the last legislative session by offering potential tax credits for both the landowner and the homeowner. But the landowner, the one who stands to gain the most from escalating land values, also bears some responsibilities to the homeowners who have purchased homes in good faith — some only days or weeks before receiving notice of intent to sell the park. [If he took new tenants days or weeks prior to selling the land, knowing that he was going to sell it, then they would have a bad faith case in a lawsuit. This can be dealt with easily under existing law without the need for the looters on the city council to shake him down.]

We fully expect to defend this ordinance in court, but we believe we are on solid ground. [Sadly, in Oregon the courts just might side with Wilsonville on this. If they can throw out Measure 37 on the thinnest of all possible legal justifications, they can concoct some legal sounding justification to allow a straight out looting of a private landowner's value for public benefit.]

In the three days since its passage, we have received at least 10 requests for copies from other Oregon cities facing the potential of mass evictions without compensation for homeowners in mobile home parks. [I'm sure this is true. I'll bet the League of Oregon Cities is helping spread the word of how to turn evil capitalists into unwilling charities.] This is clearly an issue that needs our attention.

Wilsonville Mayor Charlotte Lehan is serving her third term as mayor. She first joined the City Council in 1992.

It really is quite sad that we have elected officials that think it is OK for a local government to do something like this. If this is OK, then any city anywhere can basically co-opt your property and use its value for whatever purpose they think fulfills someone's need.

Here's a quote I love, quite valid here:


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783

Too Much Going On

I haven't posted in a while. So many things going on:

• Measure 37 tossed with the most ridiculous judicial "reasoning." Recall a possibility.
• Teachers strike in Sandy - The OEA shows its teeth.
• Alito nomination sends the left into a tizzy
• Libby indicted for perjury, lying and obstruction; Rove apparently in the clear, and no underlying crime was charged
• Wilsonville passes an ordinance that requires a mobile home park owner to pay relocation costs to tenants if he sells the property
• PDC scheming and scamming continues
• The Tram will cost at least three times as much as originally thought
• Regional income tax proposal is being seriously considered
• Iraq ratifies its constitution; Sunnis join the political process.

The world is sure an interesting place.

Reminisces on the White Sox

Blogs are all about self-indulgence, right? So it is OK to use it to reminisce.....

With the Chicago White Sox in the World Series for the first time since 1959, I can't help but think about my days in Chicago and how fortunate I was to get to know a man who arguably had the most significant impact on the sport of major league baseball than any other person - former White Sox owner Bill Veeck.

Bill Veeck was a giant of a man. He was larger than life in every respect. Most people have a passing familiarity with him, because he will forever be remembered for his most famous stunt - putting a midget to bat in a major league baseball game. That was indeed a fabulous story, but Bill Veeck the man was so much more than a showman with a genius for marketing stunts.

He was the most learned person I have ever had the blessing of spending time around.

I got to know him in the early 1980's. I was just out of school, working at a large bank in Chicago and attending business school in the evenings. I lived in Hyde Park, where University of Chicago (my alma mater) is located.

Bill Veeck had sold the White Sox about a year earlier to Jerry Reinsdorf. He correctly saw that the game of Major League Baseball was quickly becoming all about money, and he never had the resources to fund bidding wars for free agents.

The story of how he acquired the White Sox in the first place is a story in itself. It was actually the second time he owned the team - he bought and sold it a decade or so prior to when he reacquired it in the mid 1970's. It was typical Bill Veeck dealmaking. He never actually was all that rich - he would convince well-heeled friends to back him, create a consortium of owners, and he would be the public figure in the front.

Anyway, as I stomped around Hyde Park I'd see Bill here and there. He loved to while away Saturday afternoons in local bars drinking beer and holding court with whoever wanted to sit at his table and listen to his stories. In my senior year in college I worked at a fancy Hyde Park restaurant as a waiter, and Bill's daugher Marya worked there also.

She was a dear, and we became friends. Through her I met her sister, Lisa, and Lisa and I dated for the better part of a year.

During my time hanging around Lisa was when I got to know Bill and his lovely wife Mary Frances quite well. I spent many weekend days with him, and also many nights eating and drinking at restaurants all over town.

Going out to eat at a restaurant with Bill Veeck in Chicago meant that your table was a constant bustle of activity: people would stop by and chat, take pictures, and buy rounds of drinks for the table. It was not uncommon to have three drinks stacked behind each other as people would order our waitress to buy another round for the table - they'd just stack em up.

Bill would talk with anyone who came by. He loved people. He didn't care who they were. Everyone felt welcome to stop by, shake Bill's hand, and listen and laugh with everyone.

The best memories, however, are from the long Saturdays I spent with Lisa, Bill and Mary Frances in his condo, making Old Style empties and listening to Bill talk about his career.

His condo was on about the 30th floor of a building across the street from the Museum of Science and Industry. It had a great view of the museum grounds and Lake Michigan. Bill would sit on his couch, smoke cigarettes and drink beer. I fetched many a can from his fridge - the guy could drink, In fact he was a pretty famous alcoholic.

He was in awful physical shape from injuries he got in WWII. One leg was amputated, and he hobbled everywhere on his trademark peg leg. His eyes were bad, his hearing was bad, his other leg was shot up in the war also, and he had various and sundry other ailments about which he never complained.

On side of his wooden peg leg he carved out a little ashtray, and he would flick his cigarette ashes and stub out the butts in it. He was quite a sight.

He took a liking to me, as did Mary Frances. They told me all about his father, who was the GM of several baseball teams in the early part of the century. When Bill was a kid his dad was GM of the Cubs, right at the time Wrigley was built. As a youngster, Bill Veeck actually built the famous Cubs scoreboard that still stands today. He also planted the ivy that still covers the brick outfield wall that is the trademark of that wonderful stadium.

Mary Frances once broke out the family scrapbook. The whole family was on the cover of Life Magazine in the early 1960's. They showed me the newspaper stories they had saved when he put the midget up to bat, and told me all about how outraged the other team owners were about the stunt. He just laughed. It's a game, he would say.

He was guy who started all the promotions at baseball games. Bat night, poster night, kids night, ladies night, etc. He knew how to fill the stands. During games he never sat cloistered in an owners suite - no way. He sat in the stands. Actually, he would roam the stadium and talk to the fans, drink beer with them. He was a man of the people, and absolutley hated pretense.

There was nothing at all pretentious about Bill Veeck, even though he was the smartest man I ever met.

All his accomplishments, his storied career, all the stories he would tell about the people he knew in baseball - were only a small part of the man. He was also an historian. He knew more things about more things than anybody I have ever met. He read voraciously. He could cite chapter and verse about the battles and generals of the Mexican American war, the civil war, the history of Russia, and dozens of other historical events.

He was also an amateur etyomolgist. His vocabulary was unbelieveable and he knew the origins and roots of all sorts of obscure words. One of his prize possession was his dictionary. It was proudly displayed right in his foyer, on a table against the wall. It was a complete editon of the Webster, I think it was 12 volumes each about two inches thick, leather bound. He showed it to me once - opened it up to a page, and some common word (I forget what it was) had about a page and a half of definition, derivation, history, etc. He got a kick out of reading that kind of stuff.

I remember one of our long afternoons in his condo, watching a football game and drinking beers, listening to Bill and Mary Frances talk about the White Sox, and Mary Fraces said: "You know, Bill, Rob is the kind of guy you really wish you still owned the ballclub for."

I took that as the highest compliment.

The last time I saw Bill Veeck was a couple years after Lisa and I stopped dating. I went to a fall afternoon Cubs game, and after the game ended, exiting Wrigley, I saw Bill. Hobbling out of the bleacher gate exit, in a crowd of people, waving and talking to well wishers as he slowly made his way to the el station. His health had clearly deteriorated and his leg was obviously hurting him. Each step was pained.

But the larger than life smile was still on his face when I waved hi.

A few months later he died.

He was as great a showman who ever lived. But as a man he was about much, much more than a sports promoter. I will forever consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to understand why.

NAEP scores just out; Oregon about average

The NAEP scores were released today. For the uninitiated, NAEP stands for National Assessment of Educational Progress. They are snapshots of average achievement levels in each state. Every student doesn't take the NAEP - it is only given to samples of students, and only to 4th, 8th and 12th graders every few years. The results are, however, statistically significant indicators of a state's achievement, and can be compared state to state.

Of course comparing states is still tricky, because of differing demographics. Affluent states with fewer minorities will tend to score higher than poor states with large minority populations. Oregon has an advantage on the demographic scale. We have a mostly white population, relatively high income, and higher than average education level.

But despite our demographic advantages, we score just about average on the NAEP. In some areas, slightly above average.

Scores were released for 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math and 8th grade math . In general, all the scores were slightly down from the last time the NAEP came out, 2003. Compared to the first years Oregon participated, in the 1990s, most of the scores are up.

The exception is 8th grade reading, which for some reason has pretty much steadily declined since 1998.

I've already seen some press releases on the scores touting the fact that Oregon's scores are higher than the mid-1990's scores. That is all well and good, but it glosses over the troubling fact that there is an apparent contradiction between NAEP and Oregon's statewide test results over the last couple years on the math test. That is, the math scores on Oregon's test have gone up significantly, while the scores on NAEP have not.

NAEP tests in grades 4 and 8, while Oregon tests in grades 3, 5 and 8. The results are expressed in terms of the percentage of students who are "below basic," "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced" in achievement. Oregon's tests have three categories - "Does not Meet," "Meets," and "Exceeds" benchmark. To compare the two tests, let's look at each test's results for the percentage of students who are at or above the "Basic," and "Meets Standard" levels.

Between 2003 and 2005, 8th graders on the Oregon's math test did better by 2.5%, but on NAEP, they did worse by 2.5%. Fourth graders on the NAEP math test did better by 1%, but on Oregon's test the third graders grew by a whopping 7.2% and fifth graders by 5.0%.

What is going on? I've argued for years that Oregon's assessment system is not reliable and valid. In 2003 we released a study by an OSU economist that had compelling evidence that Oregon's math tests in particular had gotten easier over the years. This gives us one more piece of evidence that it has.

The Oregon Department of Education has consistently ignored the mounting evidence that something is wrong with its tests. The mainstream media rarely asks penetrating questions about their claims of validity. How long can there be such a stark divergence between Oregon's scores and the NAEP scores before they have to actually admit that something just might be wrong?

Don't underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to stonewall and obfuscate. In Oregon, it is an art form.

Robed Hypocrites

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.—

Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation…

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—

Read the above three clauses in Oregon’s constitution. The courts in Oregon are so inconsistent in how they treat these clauses that it would be funny if it weren’t doing so much damage to our state.

The recent Supreme Court decision that said live sex shows are protected speech had to somehow make the argument that a paid sex act constitutes “expression of opinion.” Just what opinion might that be? Any reasonable person who reads Section 8 must conclude that the framers were referring to written and spoken opinion, not lewd acts. Yet the courts are so in love with the free speech rights that they expansively interpret it.

Not so with our property rights. If they can do the mental contortion necessary to convince themselves that a live sex act is an expression of opinion, then certainly they could be equally protective of our right to property, say, by acknowledging that regulating the entire productive use of your land away in order to achieve some public purpose just might be a “taking.”

But no, the courts care not a whit about property rights, so they narrowly construe the definition so as to allow government to steal property value again and again.

Then look at the privileges and immunities clause – this is the main argument Judge James had when throwing out Measure 37. Imagine if she applied the same criteria she used to throw out M37 to the very land use laws she was trying to protect?

Having an urban growth boundary that restricts development outside – doesn’t that inherently grant some citizens (those who own the land inside the boundaries) privileges that are denied to others (those with land outside)? Of course.

Would the courts in Oregon EVER make this argument? Of course not! They don’t believe in property rights, at least they don’t believe in them when the “community” wants to steal them. So they won’t protect them.

They aren’t really judges – they are politicians with political viewpoints and are perfectly willing to use their offices to further their political ideology, regardless of what the constitution actually says.

We are in a sorry state with judges like these.

Oregon courts are a mess

Four recent decisions by Oregon courts have me shaking my head. Live sex acts are protected speech. Fraternal clubs have to accept women. Portland School District can't sub out its janitors. Measure 37 is thrown out.

Have we had enough? Getting Jack Roberts on the supreme court will be a start. But it's about a one-yard run on third down and 75.

When some piss-ant district court judge can toss out M37 (which 61% of Oregonians voted for) on the most ridiculous of legal pretenses, we are in trouble.

I love the part about M37 violating the "equal protection" clause of Oregon's constitution. It is unfair to the "group" of people who are more recent property purchasers, since they have the restrictive rules the other "group" (who bought their land earlier) don't suffer from.

First, this is a pretty expansive definition of "group." I'm guessing you could find thousands of Oregon laws that treat different people differently if this loose definition of class or group is allowed to stand. Second, if M37 is disallowed on this basis, wouldn't that invalidate ANY law that created a grandfather clause exempting a "group" of citizens to whom the law doesn't apply because they acted before the law was passed?

So the decision it seems to me, puts the court in an impossible dilemma between this new legal principle and an age old one - that of disallowing retroactive laws.

M37 is basically a grandfathering law. It says they can't change the land use rules on the land you already own. This decision basically says grandfather laws are unconstitutional because they always create two classes of citizens - one who is exempt from the law and one who is not.

So, this decision basically says all laws HAVE TO BE RETROACTIVE! Which of course violates what I always thought was another pretty established legal principle.

This is what happens when you have judges who are nothing but politicians in robes. This judge knew where she wanted to get, and so she concocted a legal basis to get there. But the lame-brain that she is, she failed to think it through and realize that her basis for the decision would invalidate a huge body of other laws.

Can we get Jack Roberts on the Supreme Court before this stupid decision gets up there?

Office of Unsustainable Economics

I chuckled when I read the story in today's Oregonian that five city bureaus are leasing office space in the private market while city-owned owned offices remain vacant.

Just another run-of-the-mill example of incompetence and perverse incentives we so often find in government budget management.

But I laughed out loud when I read the comments by the head of the "Office of Sustainable Development" when she justified the fact that her office is spending $25+ per square foot to lease swanky offices in the Pearl instead of occupying the vacant city-owned offices.

So all the greenies in the office go to work in the "uber-green Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center building, commonly known as the Ecotrust building."

Why do they need to spend all this money to be in the upscale office buiding: As the article says: "City employees can walk downstairs for a slice of organic pizza or pick up a new fleece from the Earth-friendly Patagonia store. "

from the article, Susan Anderson, head of the office says the expensive space is

"core to our mission" because it shows the office is committed to the environment. That's helped attract more private money to beef up the budget, Anderson said.

"If you dig even an inch deep, you can see the economic sense of it," Anderson said. "Could we do our work from someplace else? Sure. Could we do it as well? Probably not. That I'm pretty sure of."

Ok, let's analyze this just a little bit.

Greenies like Anderson don't understand a central tenet of economics, which is that a dollar represents a claim on resources. Spending dollars unnecessarily is the anithesis of "sustainability."

For her to say that she attracts more private money to the office because they show their commitment to sustainabilty by wasting taxpayer dollars is just, well, laughable on its face.

She says if we dig an inch deep we would see the sense of it? Reminds me of another saying about so-called environmentalists. Scratch a greenie and you'll find red underneath.

Solving school overcrowding

Lots of stories lately about the struggles growing school districts face building enough schools.

Districts like Beaverton are adding the equivalent of a school building worth of students each year. But land and construction costs are hugely expensive, and few districts have current bond issues sufficient to build the needed schools.

The only solution they can conceive is to ask the voters for a bond to build more brick and mortar.

This is the wrong answer for a couple reasons. First - school districts are demonstrably incompetent at building schools. The going rate for a 600 student elementary school is about $12 million. That is $20,000 per student-seat, or, if annualized comes to about $1,000 per student per year. High schools are even more costly. Plus, huge cost overruns are the rule in school construction. Projects almost never come in on budget. Prevailing wage regulations balloon the cost, and land prices are outta sight.

So you would think that school districts would be looking for any alternative they could find to building more school buildings. But they aren't.

What possible alternatives, you ask? Here are a couple:

1) Encourage parents to enroll their kids in a virtual charter school. The Oregon Connections Academy is off and running fast. If a school district wanted to take pressure off its facilities capacity, why not assist parents in taking advantage of this new and innovative program? The best part is that the district still gets 5% of the state funds allocated to the district for the student! In other words, for every student from the district they enroll in the virtual school, they get $250, and they do not have to educate him!

2) Did you know that there are several national charter school management organizations waiting to be invited into a district to start a school, and the companies will build the school building at no taxpayer expense? So a district like Beaverton, who is just about to ask voters for $200 million plus to build a bunch of schools, could simply contract with one of these companies to build the schools instead. They would have new schools without new taxes. Why is this not even on the table? Why doesnt' the Oregonian EVER ask this question in their stories about school bonds?

A case in point is Portland Public Schools, who are looking for ways to pay for the new school they want to build in the Columbia Villa housing project. They want to borrow about $8 million and patch the rest together from donations. This of course is at the same time they are contemplating which schools they will be closing in the next year because of enrollment declines!

Months ago I approached the District and the Housing Authority of Portland with an idea: Instead of spending public money to build the school, why not contract with an already approved but not yet opened charter school to build and run the school? Mosaica Education, which is the school management company behind the "Portland Arts and Sciences Academy" which the district approved back in 2001 has expressed its willingness to build the school at no taxpayer expense and run it as a charter.

No interest. I got the runaround for a couple months before I finally got a response, something on the order of : "Director Wynde says they want to pursue other options for the school."

Which I can only take to mean that the district would rather spend $12 million in public money to get something that they could get for no taxpayer dollars.

And they wonder why the public has a decreasing appetite for tax hikes?

Dr. John performs castration surgery

You gotta love it.

Democrats meet in their pow-wow this weekend in Bend in a desperate search for their soul, and have to listen to a scathing critique by the guy who is chiefly responsible for the sorry state of their party - former guv Kitzhaber.

If that wasn't bad enough, a few Stockholm Syndrome sufferers actually are pushing Kitzhaber to run for governor again, apparently thinking that if you want to solve big problems, who better to turn to than the person who caused them?

And the best part: Kitzhaber wouldn't say no. He gave the usual politicians' "no-plans-at-this-time" non-denial. You could almost hear him enjoying being wooed again.

This is funny on so many levels. First - it shows how bad off the D's really are. At a time when the Republicans have severe electoral liabilities both nationally and locally, if they had their act together and had some idea about what they stood for and how to solve some of our biggest problems they could rout the R's in the next election.

But instead of looking forward, they look backward to the failed leadership upon whose watch most of the current problems came to roost.

Second: Kitzhaber's refusal to put speculation to rest about running again completely neuters Governor Ted. It was Kitz who recruited Ted to run in the first place. Now his non-denial implicitly encourages speculation that he will run against him. Talk about castration! Does Kitz have any idea how weak that makes Kulongoski look? Does he care?

I am none-too-optimistic about the state of the Republican party these days and its chances at achieving an electoral majority any time soon. But with an opponent like the Oregon D's, well, things may not look so hopeless after all!

What, that's not business?

I loved it. What a perfect illustration of the problem.

Sunday Oregonian, Business Section. This is the Sunday newspaper, mind you. The issue where the most comprehensive and in-depth articles generally run, because people have far more time to read than the typical weekday.

Grand total of ONE real news story in yesterday's issue. One. And what's it about? Local business trying to expand struggles with the added expense of land use requirements? Nope. Local business develops new niche market for its product? Nope. Local business tries to deal with increasing traffic congestion, making it more expensive to deliver their goods? Nope.

No indeed, the only news story in yesterday's Sunday edition was about how low income homeowners are struggling to fill the gap between the cost of heating their homes and what is available from the government subsidies.

In other words: "We need more government."

What a wonderful example of the malaise that has gripped Oregon's business culture.

States don't have rights.

I hear it all the time, especially when the Supreme Court is looking at issues such as Oregon's Doctor Assisted Suicide law. Discussions of "states rights." Does Oregon have the "right" to allow this practice, or, conversely, does the federal government have the "right" to stop us?

I cringe when I hear the question posed this way - and I think that conservatives are more guilty of it than liberals (probably only because conservatives tend to care more about the issue than liberals, the latter being far more comfortable with a vigorous federal government.)

But here's the problem:

States don't have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights.

Ok, maybe this is just semantics. But I think semantics are important, because words should mean something. When we allow misstatements like "states rights" to become accepted in the media, courts and political culture, we allow the denigration of what rights actually are in the first place - something that government cannot restrict you from doing. If the body politic doesn't properly understand what rights are in the first place, how will it know if and when the government is violating them?

God knows we see plenty of politicians totally mis-use the term "rights." Hillary Clinton thinks that health care is a "right." Others think you have a "right" to a living wage. References to these bogus rights are everywhere - "patient's bill of rights," "taxpayer bill of rights," etc.

I understand why liberals don't mind if the popular political culture completely destroys the original meaning of what rights really are. The more they can sell the idea that rights are something the government must do for you (rather than what it cannot do TO you) then the more they can create the welfare state they have pushed for all these many years.

But conservatives should correct them at every turn. We cannot allow them to change the meaning of the very concept that is at the core of our Republic.

Rights are things that the government can't restrict you from doing. They come from our creator, and the government's role is to secure them.

All those other things - education, health care, welfare, - those are societal privileges.

So when you hear conservatives utter the words "states rights," make sure you don't let it go uncorrected. Just tell them:

"States don't have rights. They have powers. Only individuals have rights."

(Heck, do it to liberals too. They won't understand what you are saying, but you will get to enjoy the puzzled look on their faces.)

TalkFest - the real reason you must go

Yes it's TalkFest time again - the annual gathering where KXL brings in its nationally syndicated hosts and they take stage for an evening of political chit chat. It's this Friday at the Rose Garden.

This year Lars will be joined by both Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow. That's a pretty high powered line up.

But there's an even better reason to go to the show:

My 17 year old daughter Jessica will sing "God Bless America" to open the festivities.

She's got a beautiful voice, and the song brings it out wonderfully. So, if Tony and Bill don't float your boat, come for the REAL star of the show!

Imagine the headline: "A capitalist, but a friend of Nazis"

Did you catch the long and prominently placed obituary in the Oregonian about Ben Brostoff?

He was a Polish immigrant who came to the U.S., made a fortune in the pizza business, but was always enamored with communism. He took trips to Russia and China to admire their governments, which apparently never lost their shine to him even after the collapes of the Soviet bloc.

The article is written in a very positive tone. Almost like: "isn't it charming, this guy who made millions selling pizza was an open communist sympathizer all his life."

Why is it that it is considered OK to have cozied up to communism? The Soviet communists murdered tens of millions of people. It is the bloodiest government in the history of the planet - yet for some reason it is considered cute to be a communist.

Hitler never aspired to the kind of bloodbath brought about by Stalin. Yet I doubt a successful businessman who admired Nazi Germany would get a glowing obituary in the Oregonian.

Closed PPS schools still vacant.

Remember the five elementary schools that PPS closed despite great controversy and opposition last spring? The plan was to lease out the facilities and make some money. Turns out, according to this story in the Tribune, that months later, four of the five buildings are still vacant, because the market wouldn't pay what the district was asking.

Well, Duh. A few years ago I looked into leasing one of the district's vacant facilities. They wanted $12 a square foot. That's about twice what school facilities are worth.

According to the story, the district thinks the newly closed facilities are worth $9-12/SF, but only one of the five buildings has found a tenant, and that is the Multnomah ESD. Great - one tax funded entity leases from another. Big net gain for taxpayers.

The district facilities guy is even quoted as saying that if a tenant needs access to the facility to make leasehold improvements, that they have to pay the rent during the time it takes to make the improvements! That's not how it usually works. Little wonder they can't find tenants.

I would happily lease the Applegate site from them for $6/sf for one of my Arthur Academy Charter Schools But the district wants more.

Actually, I think that PPS should let us use the facility for nothing. Arthur Academy is a public school educating PPS students. School buildings were paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of educating public school students. By what moral standard does the district charge money for public school students to use a facility for the purpose taxpayers intended?

I've asked this very question to Vicki Phillips, Julia Brim Edwards, David Wynde, Bobbie Regan and Dilafruz Williams. Not one of them would answer it.

So they not only want us to pay money to lease the public school facility that we want to use to educate Portland Public School kids, but they are also way off the market in their asking price!

Could it be they don't want to do anything that might help a charter school succeed?

Call me a cynic.

Just 2%... and our schools would be great. (We promise)

A local anesthesiologist wrote a piece for the Tribune that called for a 2% sales tax as a dedicated funding source for schools.

Click through to the link and read the column. It's really pretty funny in the over-the-top assertions that he makes, which he apparently thinks the reader should take on faith.

Here is what he says will happen if we send the extra $2 1/2 billion or so to schools:

"The quality of public education soars. The best teachers in the country compete to work in Oregon. Students learn more, learn faster and stay interested longer. Literacy rises. More literate high school graduates seek jobs with high potential, or plan for higher education. Welfare use drops. Recreational drug use declines. Teenage pregnancies go down. Prisons slowly empty as fewer criminals enter. New businesses look favorably on Oregon for relocation sites. And all of us enjoy safer streets."

Wow! A panacea! More money for schools will solve all our problems. Peace and prosperity will reign!

I just wonder - is the guy really that gullible? Or is his wife a teachers union boss?

Why use private dollars when we can spend tax money?

You may have seen the article about the new school that Portland School District wants to build in the Columbia Villa housing project.

They need a 550-student elementary school for the new neighborhood, and their plan is to close down nearby Ball Elementary, because it is in need of substantial repair. The problem is the District doesn't have the money to build the school.

So they have tried to put together a creative financing package that includes a bank loan, fundraising, tax credits and about a million dollars from the city of Portland. Last week the city said "No Dinero."

So they are stuck. Turns out that NOT building the school will cost them a million dollars or so since they will have to do the repairs to Ball, and bus the kids from Columbia Villa there.

Here's the punchline: they could have a brand new public school built on that parcel of land using no taxpayer money, but they turned down the offer.

How? Well, Portland School District approved a charter elementary school a few years ago that never opened because it could not find a facility. The charter school would have happily built the school on the Columbia Villa site, and offered to work with the district and the Housing Authority of Portland to make it happen.

The district had no interest. They would rather spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a school rather than get the school for free. Why?

Well that would be a good question for the school board.

Penn & Teller on PETA

I didn't even know Penn & Teller, the offbeat comedian duo, did political stuff.

But you have to go watch this video exposing PETA for the radical violent hypocrites they are.

It's about 15 minutes long. Must see.

Is it any wonder our kids don't understand economics?

I got an email this morning from a friend whose son is a junior at Wilson High School. He attended the back to school night, and couldn't believe what his son's economics teacher proudly displayed as the first assignment of the year.

His Email:

Wilson High School Back to School Night
Junior Year

My son's first period class: Economics

1st assignment due 9/26/05:

Using Art, Poetry, Music or some other approved creative medium, Illustrate your understanding of one of the following:

Economic Resources
Economic Questions
Production Possibilities Curve
Forms of Exchange

Current events assignment: 5 of these are due per quarter. You may do all 5 early in the quarter, but you may only turn in one per week late in the quarter. (In other words, if he waits until the last 3 weeks, he can only turn in three of these)

Clip an editorial article, and State the subject, the byline The periodical from which you found it. State the who, what when where why and how; state whether the article is fact or an opinion, [Duh! It's an editorial! - RK] and if it is biased one way or another [Editorials are SUPPOSED to be biased! - RK]. Clearly state your understanding of the subject. [What kind of an instruction is this? It's not just awkwardly worded, it is difficult to understand what it is she is looking for. -RK]

(The teacher said she would deduct points if she had to actually read the article. Remember, this is not Journalism, it is Econ)

This is no joke. We have all seen e-mails and snippets that kid about this, but this is for real. I sat there last night and was shocked.

His class is Economics...not Art, not English Literature, not Music nor Applied sociology.

It occurs to me that several of you may have some Ideas for how my son can best complete this assignment. With your help, I am sure he will get an A in this class.


My response:

You've run into a shining example of "integrated" curriculum. That's where everyone pretends that there's great educational benefit drawn from melding two or more disciplines into one activity or lesson, which almost always results in a completely contrived exercise in which the actual learning objective becomes secondary to the form of the product.

Part of the philosophy here is that every student has a different "learning style" and so it is tyranny to expect all kids to perform an academic exercise in the same way, with the same medium. So things like music and art are fine substitutes for mundane skills like writing clearly. If Johnny isn't a verbal learner, but rather is a visual learner or an auditory learner, it is wrong to require that he produce coursework using the written word. It is perfectly OK for him to, say, perform a rap routine to demonstrate his mastery of economics as it is for him to produce a well articulated essay.

There is so much wrong with this way of thinking that it is hard to know where to start. First, we all know, after all, that his employers are going to similarly adjust what they require from him based on his "learning style," right? What message are we sending our kids when we tell them the world will constantly adjust what it requires based on what their strengths may or may not be? Of course we tell them that they shouldn't worry about getting better at what is difficut for them, and they only have to do what comes easy. There's a great message for our youth.

Second, there is absolutely no good evidence that 1) there are really "learning style" differences and 2) if there were, there still isn't any valid way for a teacher to gauge what student's learning style actually is. It's all just assumption based on theory resulting is some of the most inane classroom procedures ever concocted - a wonderful example of which you have given here.

Finally - just look at the exercise. Forget for a minute the part about using music or art. Even if the teacher had asked them to write an essay about one of those four topics - consider how murky the assignment actually is. What is the teacher asking them to prove they know?

Demonstrate their understanding of Economic Resources? What does that mean? Economic Questions? WHICH economic questions?

How unfocused could it possibly get? This assignment means nothing because any and all responses could be valid.

I am sad to say that this is the kind of stuff that is predominant in our high schools these days. It is an utter and complete waste of time.

However, I do have a suggestion for your son as to what he can do for the assignment. He should demonstrate his understanding of "Forms of Exchange.'

He should compose a rap song, perform it as if he is 50 Cent, in which he proposes to give a street whore drugs in exchange for sex.

Perfectly valid demonstration of the economic principle of barter, one of the original "forms of exchange."

The Pledge

The recent court decision on the pledge was a topic on my radio show today. We've talked about it before, and treaded the usual territory about the meaning of the establishment clause.

I asked a question to my co-host, Marc Abrams, however, that seemed to distill the issue down to its essence.

Since our founding documents say people "are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," and that the government's role is to "secure these rights" - I asked if liberals would have a problem with students being taught that in our system of government, rights come from God.

He said yes, that would be a problem. Can't do it. He said it would be OK to teach what the Declaration of Independence says about rights coming from God, but that it establishes religion to teach that our Republic is actually based on this notion.

Such are the intellectual contortions necessary to not offend the ACLU these days. Nonsensical.

Global Hype

You knew it had to come.

On the heels of disaster, the agenda had to be moved forward. And you knew the Oregonian would be ready and willing, almost panting to help out.

So we see the big front page story in the Oregonian today:

Researchers Examine Link Between Hurricane Intensity, Global Warming.

Nice charts accompany the headline. They typical reader would take a look at the story, read a few paragraphs, and be left with the decided impression that yep, scientists say Katrina was caused by global warming.

The agenda is moved, another step in the long term effort to convince us all.

Turn to the back page and you'll find the entire page taken up by the text of the story. It almost demands that the typical reader not read it. Who wants to read all the scientific technicalities? We get the point - global warming brings big hurricanes like Katrina.

So, you can hardly blame the average guy for not seeing all the disclaimers:

"Scientists caution that it's unknowable at this point whether the damage these potentially more powerful cyclones will bring upon people would be from global warming - or the simple chance of where people choose to build and live."

"Hurricanes more powerful than Katrina swept the Gulf Coast long before global warming."

"Some climate scientists believe that natural cycles are driving the observed variability in hurricane freqauency..."

In fact, the story taken as a whole can be summed up:

"One researcher says global warming might increase hurricanes, but nobody is really sure."

Front page news, ladies and gentlemen, at least if you have an agenda to push.

They will never stop

Read in the Oregonian today that local school leaders are trying to figure out how to package an income tax for schools that voters will accept.

Former Portland Superintendent Jim Scherzinger is spearheading the effort. According to the story he sent out info to local school districts outlining different prospective rates and how much each district would receive from it.

He's trying to downplay how far along they are, but apparently they are considering having the Metro government be the taxing authority, and the rate would be between .2% and .5%.

This is pretty amazing. They want to get hammered again? Make our day. Put it on the ballot.

I have a different idea. Why can't we approach it this way? Want more money for schools? I've got a suggestion.

It occured to me one day when my local district was pushing a local option tax, and a neighbor who supported the tax said that she thought local districts should have the right to tax themselves more if they so choose.

I thought: you don't really want the right to tax yourself more - you can do that any time you want by sending money straight to the district. Rather, you want to force the people who don't want to pay the tax to pay the tax, using majority rule.

Yes, I understand that majority rule is how we decide such things inour society, but does it always have to be? Maybe there is another way that would raise money for schools without forcing a tax down peoples throats who do not support it.

Here's how it would work:

School district proposes to raise (just to choose a number) $10 million a year through an increased property tax. Only those who vote yes will have the tax added to their property tax statement. The more people who vote yes, the lower the tax assessment on each voter's property.

The district could propose a minimum level of support below which the tax would fail. The campaign, then would be to maximize the number of yes votes in order to distribute the burden among the most taxpayers. But a no vote won't pay the tax at all. Nobody forces anything on anybody.

What is wrong with this?

Portland Tree Police

Just in case you thought that the City of Portland was starting to get it...... I get the email below forwarded from a friend.

Is this really what we want our government to be doing? Were you aware that there is an "Urban Forestry Division" in the Parks and Recreation department?

Of course they don't say what precisely a Tree Liaison will actually do, other than "promote proper tree care" and be a "resource" for the neighborhood. How will that actually manifest itself? " Will they police the neighborhoods to make sure that people treat their trees properly? A cadre of local tree police, deputized by the parks and recs dep't?

Such nonsense, and it is on your dime.

Help care for trees in your neighborhood by becoming a Neighborhood Tree Liaison. A Neighborhood Tree Liaison is a local leader who promotes proper tree care and serves as a resource for his/her neighborhood on tree issues. To become a Neighborhood Tree Liaison you do not need to know a lot about trees.

You do need to have a passion for trees, desire to learn, and the commitment to help. This program offered by Portland Parks Recreation teaches you about tree care, and then works with you to develop tree projects in your community. The Neighborhood Tree Liaison class teaches; tree biology, pruning, planting, preservation, tree identification and common tree diseases.

Classes are hands on, and taught by leading professionals in the tree care industry. The first class is on September 17th. Registration is required, and the cost is $20. For the complete class schedule and to sign up and call Portland Parks Recreation at 503-823-1650 or visit http://www.portlandparks.org/TreeServices/NTL.htm.

Karl DawsonPortland Parks
Recreation Urban Forestry Division
503-823-1650
kdawson@ci.portland.or.us

Mainstream Extremists

One of the things that drives me crazy about Portland: complete wing nut extremists who are in positions of significant influence, but who somehow are considered to be solidly in the mainstream because of the piss-poor job old media does of telling the truth about them.

Today's best example: Rex Burkholder, Metro Councillor.

The guy is a card-carrying member of the bike-nazi gang. He hates cars. He wants you to drive less. He makes sure that Portland roads are as congested as possible by "enhancing" major arterials such as Spokane Avenue in Sellwood with "traffic calming" devices. He's a dreamy-eyed social utopian who waxes eloquent about "community" and "happiness quotients."

He is an extremist, but nobody knows it.

A good example of his extremism: his recent post on the "Portland Transport" blog. I've pasted part of it below:

"Think of it if every residential street was only wide enough for one car to pass through at a time, going slow, sharing the road with kids and dogs and soccer games. Is there any reason traffic on a residential street should go faster than 10mph??? "

There you have it. Rex Burkholder wants the speed limit on residential streets to be 10 mph. And this guy is in the mainstream, treated as a credible adult.

I wonder what the people of Portland would think of Rex if he was actually able to implement his speed limit? After a few weeks of driving 10 mph I can guarantee you that 9 out of 10 Portlanders would speed up quickly if they saw Rex in the crosswalk.

Go read the rest of his post. It is amazing.

SAT Scores: Oregon Losing Ground

You don't have to investigate too deeply before you realize that the headlines we always see about Oregon doing well on the SAT is not really true.

For years we were told "Oregon is #1 on the SAT." A couple years ago Washington passed us up, so we were #2. For several years they never even bothered to report that this ranking was actually only for a sub-group of states - those states with more than 50% of the students taking the test.

After we badgered the Oregonian's education reporters time and again, they finally started putting in their story that they were excluding about half the states by only ranking those with 50% of graduating seniors taking the test.

If you include all states, Oregon was 25th last year and 28th this year. But it isn't valid to even rank the states this way. Go the the College Board web site and you will see that they say:

"Media and others often rank states, districts, and schools on the basis of SAT scores despite repeated warnings that such rankings are invalid. "

But Susan Castillo and the Oregonian disregard this warning and do it anyway. Castillo's press release today says: "Oregon still ranks second...."

Here is the real news, which you won't find being reported: Since the implementation of the CIM, Oregon's performance on the SAT has gotten worse compared to the national average.

Five years ago, Oregon's combined SAT score was 1054, and the national average was 1019. Since then, the average has grown to 1028 (increase of 9 points) and Oregon's score is exactly the same - 1054.

At this rate of travel, Oregon will be below the national average in a little more than a decade. A far cry from the rhetoric that surrounded the School Reform Act, which brought us CIM/CAM.

It's time for some honesty about Oregon's SAT scores. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that Oregon is just about average.

Flores Op-Ed Piece on Castillo

House Education Chair Linda Flores wrote this op-ed piece. She was one of the bright spots of the legislature this session.


Castillo Needs Reality Check

State Representative Linda Flores
(House District 51, Clackamas)

Oregon’s education system is much better off thanks to the 2005 legislature despite of what’s been reported. Even before the session ended our State School Superintendent was bashing legislators for what didn’t get done on her wish list. In many ways she has only herself to blame and now she’s asking Oregon voters to re-elect her.

Superintendent Susan Castillo says there were too many “missed opportunities”. She should call them “bureaucratic blockades” because her agency and its friends created them. Castillo is right about one thing she said: “turf and preservation of the status quo won out over what was best for students, schools and taxpayers.” Her turf and her status quo.

As Chair of the House Education Committee I know first hand the struggles we faced trying to implement the very reforms Castillo pretends to embrace, but in reality opposed.

For example, Castillo wanted a stable school funding plan. The Speaker of the House produced one and it wasn’t good enough for Castillo. She wanted more accountability and consolidation. The education bureaucracy fought hard and the result? Modest Education Service District reform.

According to Castillo we failed to make changes to the Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery programs. The House approved replacing that flawed system with a better, less expensive system to comply with federal standards. Once again, Castillo and her friends in the education establishment put a stop to that in the Senate.

As I said in the beginning the 2005 session did a lot of good things for Oregon schools. Things you haven’t heard from Castillo. We gave K-12 a 6-percent increase in state funding. We added two credits and an extra year of math and English in order to graduate. We allowed juniors and seniors to take college classes, paid for by their high school. In addition, we increased safety with stronger laws against child abuse and bomb threats in schools.

Some districts are still trying to make up from program reductions in recent years, but new test scores show significant improvement. I believe we have many hard working teachers and students focusing on basic skills rather than administrative tasks.

Yes, we have challenges ahead. Instead of taking up an entire day teaching kids the format for their next CIM test…teach them about Oregon’s rich pioneer history. Instead of two report cards on school performance, one for the feds and one for the state, why not consolidate? The list goes on and on.

Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement. It would be beneficial to Oregon if Superintendent Castillo and her allies would decide to partner to make progress. As a former legislator, Susan knows better than to block legislation, then turn around and blame the legislature for not passing it. As we prepare for the 2007 legislative session I am developing a long list of positive changes and I plan to keep pushing for needed reforms – for our children.

Bojack

On my radio show tomorrow (just a few short hours away) I will have as co-host Jack Bogdanski, of the ubiquitous "Jack Bog's Blog."

I've never met him. I'm a faithful reader and occasional poster on his blog, which Willamette Week tabbed the best local blog in their recent "Best of Portland" issue. I've always been impressed by his crap detector.

I spoke to him briefly on the phone after e-mailing him to invite him on my radio show. It was immediately obvious to me that he will be great on the radio.

Don't be surprised if you hear him on the radio a lot in the next few years.

He's a law perfesser up at Lewis & Clark. L&C is mostly known as one of the premier "environmental law" schools, which basically means they print a lot of lawyers who can't stand American-style capitalism. I don't think Jack is from that mold, but we will see tomorrow.

Hope you tune in.

Vicki Phillips and Steve Goldschmidt

Her gambit failed. That's my read.

Vicki Phillips fired Steve Goldschmidt and refused to pay his obscene severance package that was negotiated back when Ben Canada was the super.

Right after she did it she was on my radio show. I told her then that I admired her guts and I still do.

She was taking a chance. She basically dared Goldschmidt to seek arbitration to get his obscene severance paid. She hoped that he might be ashamed to insist that $325K or so be extracted from a district already in total financial disarray.

But looking for shame from a Goldschmidt reminds me of when Kevin Mannix said he would solve the PERS crisis by "sitting down with the unions in a positive way and talk about the long term public good."

They just ain't concerned about it.

So, Vicki Phillips miscalculated. If she is to be criticised at all, it's not for the gambit - but because she obviously didn't create much of a paper trail that would support her contention that Goldschmidt had a "gross neglect of duty." She's been around long enough to know that if you want to fire someone you have to document their performance.

And just a couple months prior Goldschmidt had a glowing review from Jim Scherzinger, who approved the $14K performance bonus called for in his contract. Kind of hard to argue he was incompetent after that.

(Easy, though, to argue Scherzinger's incompetence. Goldschmidt had been a problem at PPS virtually since he started. He makes about $130K before all the goodies such as annuity, car allowance and whatnot. Why would Scherzinger approve the bonus?)

So, while I admire her guts in looking Goldschmidt in the eye and making him sue to get his severance, she miscalculated, and that cost the district another quarter million plus whatever they spent in lawyers.

But for her the good news is she comes out a winner anyway. She looks like a fighter who will clean up the excesses of her predecessors.

And while that is probably true and certainly necessary, it is far from sufficient if she is serious about getting PPS on track.

And that is where I'm afraid Vicki Phillips is NOT being as bold as she should. We don't need any more "five year strategic plans." (See my blog post below.)

It is very disappointing that she is headed in this direction. Kudos for the Goldschmidt gambit, even though it failed. But PPS will only survive if it makes structural reforms, and I've yet to see anything out of Phillips that would suggest she is a reformer.

Virtual Charter School Ruffles Feathers

Let the games begin.

You may have read the front page Oregonian hit piece on ORCA, Oregon's first and only virtual charter school. The article was about what you'd expect from the O - time and again it chose phrases intended to invoke negative feelings.

Right off the bat - the opening sentence:

"SCIO -- This tiny Western Oregon farming town is about to become home to Oregon's first public school run by a private, for-profit company."

As if the most important thing about a new way of educating kids is the fact that somewhere someone might make money doing it. Smelling salts please.

I think it might be more important to point out that in a very short period of time ORCA has enrolled more than 650 students in its virtual school program, despite the fact they have been actively marketing for less than a month. Obviously there is a huge pent up demand for what they are offering.

Did the Oregonian bother to quote even a single parent who has signed his or her child up for ORCA? Nope. Apparently not really interested as much in what positive benefit might come from a new and innovative way to teach kids as they are in pointing out ad-nauseum that there might be profits involved.

As if nobody is making any money on traditional schooling. All the textbook companies, of course, are non-profit organizations, right?

And teacher unions.... they don't benefit financially at all from the current system, right?

OH WAIT! Maybe I'm on to something here. Turns out that the teachers ORCA hires will not be part of the teachers union. That means no annual alms to union bosses. If ORCA enrolls 650 students, then it will need 13 teachers. It plans to grow to as many as 3000 students, which means 60 non dues-paying teachers will be employed.

They can't let such a dangerous idea spread, which explains why the OEA put so much weight behind insisting that their lapdog Peter Courtney push through SB1071.

Perhaps they can't kill ORCA, but they can make sure that there will be no others.

Portland is Not Competitive and Doesn't Want To Be

Read this column by a friend of mine, Larry Huss. Larry was formerly the Oregon chief at U.S. West, and since his "retirement" has been active in the Oregon political scene. He writes a weekly column for the Medford Mail Tribune, which I have pasted here.

Larry nails it.


CHASING MEDIOCRITY

It appears that the Portland business community is having an identity crisis. First Tim Boyle, President of Columbia Sportswear, in a speech to the Portland business community, unleashed a sharp critique of the anti-business attitudes that are pervasive in the Portland/Multnomah County local governments. Boyle knows of what he speaks. He finally moved his business from Portland to Beaverton when local officials thought his corporate building site on the banks of the Willamette River would be a better fit for their county offices than for Boyle's business.

In a criticism of Boyle's speech, Randy Miller, chairman of the Portland Ambassadors program noted, "We're so collegial in Portland. It didn't exemplify the culture." And so what is the culture of the Portland business community? What kind of culture tolerates the loss of 30,000 jobs between 2000 and 2004? And what kind of culture then concludes that the best way to attract new business is to support not one, not two, but three efforts to increase taxes on business in Portland/Multnomah County?

Well, last Sunday's Oregonian contained an inescapable clue. John Barrows, a well-traveled and successful businessman, may have given us the answer. In a guest editorial, Mr. Barrows writes:

"Finally, someone's spit out what no Oregonian will admit: We're an also-ran and we don't much care."

Barrows continued, in explanation:"Oregon is an also-ran when [it] comes to education, business competitiveness and leadership. . .

"But let's be honest with ourselves: The policies and politics of Portland and Oregon are purposefully constructed to reflect the desires of the residents - low energy, uncompetitive and hard work adverse - at least compared to other states and cities that drive the American economy.

"Trust me, Barrows' list of Portland's shortfalls is thorough and accurate. But here is the stunning part - the part which helps define the culture of the Portland business community. Barrows thinks that's okay. He's a very happy camper. His analysis is not meant as a criticism but rather as a request to "don't worry, be happy." Barrows is an admitted "burn-out" from the corporate wars:

"I chose this lifestyle because I was tired of working so hard. I wanted to watch my grandchildren grow up because I missed my children's early years; I was working all the time.

"So let's just admit to ourselves what the rest of the country and the nation's business community already know: We're not competitive. We choose not to be...It's the lifestyle stupid.

"There it is folks - Portland's great solution-quality of life. When I was an active participant in the Portland business community associations, the business leaders eschewed issues like taxes, regulatory burden, and land use restrictions in favor of salmon recovery, bike paths and light rail. I would point to states like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah and Idaho that had robust and growing economies and ask, impolitely apparently, how Oregon intended to compete. The standard response from local politicians and business leaders was always - our quality of life. And while I grant you that the quality of life is worth a premium, it is not, contrary to their views, unlimited.

But there are two problems with Mr. Barrows' view of the world. First, while it may be fun to coast through life, it seldom provides you the financial means to build or enjoy the quality of life to which he refers - that is both on the micro and macro levels. It is also much easier for someone who has already achieved financial independence to proffer such foolishness than someone who is trying to find or hold a job to put food on the table.

Second, while Mr. Barrows' reggae attitude might reflect the attitudes of Portland's business community, he is dead wrong that it reflects the attitudes of all of Oregon. According to a July 26 report by the Oregon Employment Department's Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMSI), Portland remained a drag on Oregon's job recovery. While the state as a whole has recovered the 64,000 jobs lost during the recession, Portland is still 14,000 jobs shy of recovery-and that is after four years.

It appears from the report that Medford, Bend and Salem have shouldered the largest share of job growth accounting for over 25 percent of the total state job growth. And these statistics don't tell the whole story. When OLMSI refers to Portland, it really refers to the seven county metropolitan area, including Clark County (Vancouver) Washington which is experiencing unprecedented growth. Business has been fleeing Portland in droves and relocating to Washington (Beaverton/Tualatin) and Clackamas (Lake Oswego/Milwaukee) counties and Vancouver. The job recovery for Portland/Multnomah County is far less than its surrounding counties.

And so while Portland focuses on its quality of life through more skateboard parks, bike paths and light rail, it appears that the rest of state is focused on building quality of life through a good job.

But don't worry, be happy - it's all about the quality of life.

Why Schools of Education are Worthless

My friend and fellow blogger "Professer Plum" over at Educationation has a wonderful post that critiques the "Standards" that are used to evaluate schools of education by the #1 ed-school accreditation organization, NCATE.

It is not only on-point, but also funny.

Sadly, what passes for teacher education in this country, mostly due to folks such as those who run NCATE, is a very bad, sick joke.

Kremer & Abrams KATU Commentary is now online

My radio co-host Marc Abrams and I recently started doing twice weekly "Face2Face" political commentaries on KATU's five o'Clock news broadcasts.

KATU keeps an archive of all of the commentaries, available here.

Check them out - and drop me a suggestion for future topics.

Another Five Year Plan for the New Soviets

Remember the five year plans popular in the communist government of Russia? Every few years they would roll out another one, ever confident of its success, and never admitting the last one's failure.

A "Soviet" is a local elected council. In Russia, the Soviets were the instrumentalities that implemented their five year plans.

Well, the Portland School Board is trying to replicate the Soviet model. Five years ago, with great fanfare, at great expense, and with unparallelled hours of public volunteer involvement, the district developed its last five year "Strategic Plan."

It failed miserably to meet even one of its goals, so now Vicki Phillips is embarking on the next five year plan.

I'm pretty well versed in the last one. I volunteered to be on one of the seven planning teams whose job it was to develop a strategy to tackle one big challenge facing the district. I knew going in it was an exercise in futility, but I did it anyway.

Here is how they went about developing the Plan: A "Core Planning Team" made up of 25 or so well meaning but gullible education establishment folk and civic leaders met for a few days in a hotel in Vancouver to decide on the the "Core Values" that would be reflected in the plan. The group had a rule that governed the proceedings: "Consensus."

They defined "consensus" to mean that whatever the group decided upon had to be unanimous. In other words, any single person had veto power over any "Core Value" that the group proposed.

Right there I knew the process was doomed. To require unanimous agreement before any position can be taken is a prescription for banality.

Margaret Thatcher once said about consensus:

"the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?

And that is pretty much what we got out of the "Core Planning Group" after days of meetings. Go take a look at what the group came up with.

"We believe every human being has intrinsic value"
"Everyone has the ability to learn"
"Adult behavior is a powerful teacher for young people"

Bromide after bromide is all they could agree on - which was tragically and utterly predictable.

They also said that by 2005, they would meet the following "Strategic Objectives:"

1) 100% of our students will demonstrate significant growth every year toward achieving rigorous system-wide academic expectations.

Did they meet this goal? Do they even know if they met it? Have they even been trying to track the data?

2) 100% of our students will continually set ambitious learning goals, persist in pursuing those goals, and demonstrate evidence of progress.

I love this one... it is impossible to define or track - the perfect goal! How do you "continually set ambitious learning goals." Is it a third grader's job to set her own learning goals in the first place? Total nonsense.... but that's what you get from consensus.

3) 100% of our students will willingly and regularly contribute to the community.

This one I love. It's got such an Orwellian tone about it. "You WILL contribute, and you will do it WILLINGLY!"

Hard to believe, but it was otherwise intelligent adults who came up with this stuff.

But that was just the beginning. After the "Core Planning Team" crafted this nonsense, they had a big kickoff meeting. More than 600 well meaning citizens came, listened to a lovely presentation and then split themselves into seven groups, each which would hammer out plans and objectives to address one of seven challenges the Core team decided needed to be addressed.

I was on "Team 4 - The Achievement Gap."

The team was comprised of about 60 people. Our first big meeting was on a Saturday, scheduled to go for four hours. The first order of business was for the entire group to sanction the ground rules.

The facilitator sent out a sheet that stated that the group would operate on a basis of consensus, and it defined consensus basically as "Everyone might not agree to every detail of a decision, but commits to support the decision."

I raised my hand. "What it one of us doesn't agree that consensus is how we should operate?"

Hmmm. She thought about that for a minute, kind of stunned. I expanded: "It seems that "consensus" gives a minority of one the ability to veto any decision the group makes. So can a minority of one veto the decision to operate on a basis of consensus?"

Remember that Star Trek episode when the cyborgs were given a logical contradiction "everything I say is a lie" - and it literally blew their minds? That's kinda how the facilitator looked.

Of course all I did was mark myself as a troublemaker. She simply said: "Interesting question... anybody else have something to add?" And consensus was adopted.

It didn't get any better. The group met for a total of about 40 hours over 6 months. All the group-dynamics professional-facilitator garbage was rolled out. We spent time in breakout groups discussing issues and reporting out to the full group. We spent time sticking colored circles on statements written on butcher paper stuck on the walls. We spent time in countless pointless activities avoiding any inconvenient questions.

Here is the sum-total of the output from this charade, as it made its way into the final plan:

"We must increase our capacity to provide intense, immediate and innovative support for low-achieving students. The disparity in achievement has existed for too long, and the number of children at risk is growing. We must develop the capacity to do whatever it takes to help children achieve."

That's all. Just "increase capacity." What on earth does that mean? How will they know when they have done it? Seemed to me strategic objectives should be measureable. You want to narrow the achievement gap, let's measure it, track it, and use teaching methods that are proven to narrow it. Wouldn't that have some meaning?

But no, the group of 60 or so people operating on "consensus" decided we should attack the problem by throwing our hands in the air, and saying let's do "whatever it takes." So, five years later it is fair to ask: was this objective met?

Again - these were othewise intelligent adults, well meaning and trying to do the right thing. Their time was utterly wasted.

So here we are five years later, and Vicki Phillips wants to do it all again? I'm sorry, but that is very disappointing. She was supposed to be a leader. This type of exercise is an excuse not to lead.

The structure for the next five year plan looks an awful lot like the last one.

Well, the Soviets never learned, either. The fundamental flaw of the Soviet model was only apparent after it was piled high on the scrapheap of history.

Misplaced Ire

Multnomah County politicians and pundits have their knickers all in a twist at the evil House Republicans for killing the bill on the last day of the session that would have extended Portland School District's local option tax.

The tax raises about $15 million per year and is scheduled to expire soon. House Republicans defeated the bill in some last-minute shenanigans after it appeared it had passed. With $15 million snatched out of their grasping fingers, the Democrats are really steamed.

Let me suggest that the object of their anger shouldn't be House Republicans. After all: every other school district in Oregon has to ask its voters if they want a local option levy. That's how PPS got the tax in the first place - it was passed by PPS voters.

So if they want to extend the tax, they can simply put it on the ballot and make their case. Obviously, they don't think the voters would approve it.

Does that cause any introspection on the part of PPS administrators or Portland area politicians? None that I have witnessed. Last Sunday Randy Leonard was slamming Republicans on his radio show for killig the tax extension. Rep. Mitch Greenlick has a letter to the editor in today's O basically doing the same.

Maybe they should direct their ire at PPS voters. After all, apparently it is they who aren't willing to pay the tax; otherwise the district would certainly put it on the ballot. I'm hearing from those in the know that PPS polling shows voters are not about to extend the local option, the ITAX, or renew the expiring bond - leaving the district with a budget hole in the neighborhood of $80 million over the next year.

So they tried to get the House Republicans to agree to shove a $15 million tax that the voters obviously don't want right down their throat, then acted outraged when they wisely refused.

What a farce. Maybe they should be asking why they have apparently lost the public's trust so completely that they aren't even willing to renew existing taxes, much less vote new taxes in.

Update on SB1071 and Connections Academy

OK, sorry I didn't give the blow by blow of how the travesty of SB1071 became part of the legislative end-game. What is done is done. The whole sordid story would take thousands of words to accurately describe, and I am not sure it would be worth it.

I did however hear from a reader who called the Speaker's office multiple times during the last couple days of the session while this bill was in play, only to be told by the staff at various times that "as far as they knew, the bill was dead," and "they are doing everything they can to kill it."

Now, it is not hard for me to believe that the first of those statements is true. The speaker's staff quite often is in the dark about what is actually going on, especially the staffers who are handling public inquiries.

The second statement, however, is pretty sad. It is blatantly false, of course. If the speaker wanted that bill dead she had full authority to kill it. The only reason it survived was because she agreed to make it part of the deal she agreed to in order to end the session.

So it is pretty disappointing that a citizen would be told a bald faced lie when calling about a bill. Imagine the cynicism that breeds. Imagine how alienating it is for a faithful Republican to call the Speaker's office and be assured of something that he finds out later was baldly false.

Now - the good news:

Connections Academy will indeed open this fall, despite the language of 1071 that would require it to enroll half its kids from inside the Scio School District. We believe that Connections Academy is grandfathered, since it was approved before the effective date of the legislation. In addition, the record is clear that the only reason some of the key votes in committee were cast in favor of SB1071 was because the committee members were assured by the Oregon Department of Education that Connections Academy would not be affected.

If and when the OEA files a lawsuit claiming that ORCA must comply with this provision of the law (and in my view very well could happen) we will have this legislative history on our side.

So Oregon's only virtual charter school continues to enroll students. More than 400 have enrolled already.

I was extrememly dissapointed that SB1071 became part of the end-of-session deal, but even though it did, ORCA will continue. They can't kill something that easily.

I'll report further developments on this site.

Oregon's Test Scores

Good news on Oregon schools - scores just released on Oregon statewide tests went up significantly. The gains were systemic. All content areas and grade levels - except 10th grade which continues to pose a problem -- had significant gains.

What you won't hear is credit given for the test score gains to President Bush for his No Child Left Behind law that for the first time put real consequences on schools that don't meet test score targets.

Now, to be clear - I am critical of certain elements of NCLB. I'm on record with my specific criticisms. But I am not against the notion that schools and teachers should be held accountable to test score targets - and that is one of the central elements of NCLB, and one of the things that we hear the most caterwauling about from educrats.

And so I find it very amusing that these same educrats are taking bows for Oregon's test score gains as if they would have happened without NCLB, as if they would have had these same results even if there were no real consequences if test scores did not improve.

I'm still waiting for the first school administrator to publicly credit NCLB for providing the incentive that made these test score gains possible.

Minnis Sells Virtual Charter Schools out to the OEA

I still can barely believe it.

I will post the entire sequence of events when I have more time, but the short version is that Speaker Karen Minnis traded SB1071 for who-knows-what, knowing full well that the effect would be to give the state a monopoly on virtual schooling and very possible shut down the Oregon Connections Academy, the virtual charter school started by the Scio School District.

The OEA wanted this bill because they are deathly afraid of the ramifications of school districts creating virtual charter schools and competing statewide for students who could be taught by non-unionized teachers.

They got Senate President Peter Courtney to insist that it be passed without amendments as part of the session ending deal. Minnis agreed.

Why did she agree? Well, she obviously traded it for something, but we know not what.

But she made the trade without bothering to find out what the ramifications of the bill were for the existing virtual school. Her staff completely dropped the ball - I personally told them that the bill had major flaws that would have to be fixed if for some reason the bill became part of the end-of-session shenanigans.

Yet behind closed doors, without any input from anybody who understood the policy ramifications of the bill, and without even bothering to check on them, she sold the 275 kids who have signed up for the Connections Academy (and the 2500 or so who the school intends to serve in the future) right down the river.

When it was pointed out to her the result of her deal, she still refused to change course.

Pretty amazing.

I'll soon write out the whole sequence of events for those who are interested in the inside baseball side of things. It is a case study of the lunacy that legislative end-game politics has become.

End of Session Deal Might Kill Virtual School Before it Starts

We are days away from Sine Die, and this is riskiest of times.

This is the time that any and every bad bill that has been introduced all session long is possible trade fodder - as long as the Democrat or Republican leadership wants it bad enough to make it part of what they negotiate to get out of the building.

I'm in the middle of one of the sorry bills that seems to be part of this session's end game.

Background: You may have read about Scio School District's virtual charter school, which is ready to open this fall. I helped steer the school through the approval process. It has already enrolled 270 of its planned 500 kids for this fall, and it will serve as many as 3000 kids in a few years. It is truly innovative - they have figured out how to marry technology and education in a way no other school in Oregon has even contemplated.

But Speaker Karen Minnis apears to have agreed to an end-of-session deal in a trade with the teachers union that would kill this virtual charter school before it ever opens, leaving the 270 children who have enrolled in the lurch.

Here's the deal: Senate Bill 1071 authorizes the state to start its own virtual school. Ok, no real problem with that. But it also contains a poison pill for virtual charter schools such as the Scio school: the bill says they must get 50% of their students from inside the district boundaries.

Obviously this is an untenable requirement for a virtual charter school. The whole point is that on-line courses allow students to enroll no matter where they live.

So I wrote amendments to the bill that removed the offending provisions. Today, the bill came up in committee. Right before the hearing we got word that the bill was to be passed without the amendments, because it was part of an end of session deal by the Speaker.

A deal that would kill the only on-line charter school in Oregon and give the state a "virtual" monopoly on virtual schools.

Rep. Linda Flores wrangled a temporary reprieve that got the bill sent (with my amendments) to the budget committee. But nothing prevents the amendments from being removed in Budget committee, and if the OEA deal is to stand, that is precisely what will happen. Perhaps tomorrow.

To give Speaker Missin the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she did not know the ramifications of the "deal," she made, and now that she does, she will realize it is the wrong thing to do.

What will she do on Wednesday? Will she keep the deal with the OEA that kills the only statewide virtual charter school before it can even open? Will she let stand the provision that gives that state a monopoly over on-line courses in Oregon?

Or will she realize that the deal is a mistake and she can't send the 270 children in the Scio virtual charter school packing so she can gavel down sine die?

Stay Tuned.