[Rhodes22-list]Public Schools, was Public Radio and TV

Thu May 26 05:13:08 EDT 2005

Slim,

We get in about 6pm and leave about 6am.  I'll watch
open time or try and swap one of my DC trips with the
captain on a MSP trip.  Maybe I can catch the train
out to the mall and catch your gig.  More on that
later. Brad

Now as to public schools;  I'll bet Phillip is not
against public schools, he just doesn't want to
experiment with his own children.  If throwing more
money at the public schools fixed the problems then
the Washington, DC district would be leading the
nation because they have the highest per pupil
expenditures.  We've had this discussion before, and I
fall back on my previous comments about my oldest
son's Catholic school.  Father Tribou told the parents
on day one "this is a meat and potatoes school - four
years of science, math, english - that's it!  If you
have some other ideas Father David will give you your
money back at the door!"  I'm not one of those
self-proclaimed experts you cited but I can tell when
something is broken. Sending your child to a private
school is not selfish or elitism, its the only
responsible thing to do if you live in a
non-functioning school district.

Here's a WSJ article that de-bunks the cries of
unfunded mandates.

April 28, 2005 

 COMMENTARY  

Sue First, Teach Later

By MARTIN R. WEST and PAUL E. PETERSON
April 28, 2005; Page A18

The National Education Association, its affiliates in
10 states, and a ragbag of school districts have just
filed a federal lawsuit alleging that No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) is an unfunded mandate. If the NEA's
complaints sound hauntingly familiar, it's because
Americans have heard them before -- 40 years ago, when
Southern segregationists did their best to evade the
desegregation requirements of Lyndon Johnson's
original law offering federal aid for education.

Then, recalcitrant school districts complained about
an unfunded mandate. Then, they objected that the
dollars did not cover the full cost of desegregating
their schools. Now, resistance comes from those who
claim to represent public-school employees. Now, as
much as then, the resistance is woefully misguided.

There are two things wrong with the NEA's claim that
NCLB is an unfunded mandate: The law is neither a
mandate, nor is it unfunded. The nonpartisan General
Accounting Office dismissed the mandate claim last
October. The law only provides funds to those states
that wish to receive them. Any state that wants to
reject the dollars -- and the rules that accompany
them -- is free to do so. That no state has yet taken
this route provides an on-the-ground basis for
rejecting the complaint out of hand. As for funding,
the law does contain this clause: "Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to . . . mandate a State or any
subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any
costs not paid for under this Act."

Placing this clause at the heart of its complaint, the
NEA offers up three arguments. The silliest says
congressional appropriations fall short of amounts
authorized. Never mind that federal aid to education
reached a historic high in 2005, when spending reached
$12.7 billion. That number, says the NEA, still falls
short of the $20.5 billion that had been authorized in
2002.

This misleading argument attempts to turn a ceiling
into a floor, an architectural feat that would leave
no room for congressional discretion. As all lawmakers
and union leaders well know, congressional
authorizations limit -- they do not compel --
expenditure. Neither Johnson, nor Carter, nor Clinton,
to say nothing of Reagan, signed education
appropriation bills that reached their authorized
limit. Indeed, virtually every federal program is
funded below its authorized level. Were the courts to
accept the NEA claim and compel all appropriations to
equal authorized limits, the federal deficit would
immediately balloon to levels beyond the wildest
imagination of the most unabashed Keynesian.

To acquire a patina of credibility, the lawsuit also
claims that money appropriated does not cover the
costs of the new activities that are required, namely
designing and administering statewide tests in
reading, math and science, as well as offering school
choice and supplemental services to schools that
persistently fall short of performance standards. But
as the GAO and other outside observers have also
shown, testing is one of the best bargains in
education. Nationwide, cost estimates have run as low
as $9 per student, on average, for the type of tests
currently used, and nearly all independent estimates
of the costs of testing come to less than $50 per
student out of the approximately $10,000 per student
currently being spent on their education. To devote
one half of 1% to obtain information about how well
one is doing is money well spent. Moreover, it is but
a token share of the more than $1,000 per student that
states, on average, receive from the feds.

Nor are the law's choice and tutoring provisions
placing much of a fiscal burden on school districts.
The latest data from the Department of Education
indicate that less than 1% of all eligible students
have taken advantage of the opportunity to attend
another public school, while the costs of more popular
tutoring options have so far been covered in full by
Federal dollars.

So NEA's legal claim narrows down to the tired
argument that schools need more money to get the job
done, this time rephrased to say that more money is
required to bring all students up to state-determined
proficiency standards. But since the standards are set
by each state individually, how is this a federal
mandate? And have not public schools -- and teachers
unions, too -- long been committed to educating the
next generation? If not, taxpayers could be excused
for wondering where all their money went.

Spending on schools has climbed steadily for three
decades. In inflation-adjusted dollars, expenditures
per pupil in 1970 hovered around $5,000: Today, it is
over twice that. With all the extra money, classes are
smaller, those with special needs are given closer
attention, and average teacher compensation has more
than kept pace with the cost of living. Yet according
to the most recent results from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 17-year-olds score
no better today than they did in 1970. In other words,
the doubling of real expenditures has borne little
educational fruit. That is the scandal No Child Left
Behind is attempting to address.

The law has its deficiencies: Implementation of key
features is left to school districts, many of which
are dragging their heels. The blunt measuring stick
states must use to gauge schools' performance can be
improved. Choices given to parents in underperforming
schools remain limited. But those problems can be
fixed with a modicum of the goodwill that historically
has been the hallmark of our intergovernmental system.
Instead of joining efforts to improve a law designed
to help the most disadvantaged of Americans, the NEA
seeks to shut it down.

Yet educating the neediest of our young remains the
civil rights issue of our time. The Southerners who
resisted integration found themselves on the wrong
side of history. Fortunately, most Southern governors
have figured this out. It will be a great day for all
children when teachers unions do so as well.

Mr. West is a research associate at Harvard's Program
on Education Policy and Governance, of which Mr.
Peterson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government,
is director.

 URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111465878943419249,00.html

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use
only. Distribution and use of this material are
governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright
law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,
please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or
visit www.djreprints.com. 

--- Slim <salm at mn.rr.com> wrote:

> Philip,
> 
> Why are you against public schools?  I admit, there
> are many problems,
> mostly caused by union-bashing, fund-cutting
> republicans; but the public
> schools are our best resource, period.  Shouldn't we
> be giving our youth the
> best that we can?  Private schools cost money that
> most do not need to pay.
> The public system is as good as the funding.  Offer
> a decent wage and you
> attract decent teachers.  Where I live, Minnesota,
> the average life-span of
> a new teacher is three years before they find better
> pay/conditions
> elsewhere.  It's abysmal.  It's a very tough job.  I
> know - been there, done
> that.  Have you?  
> 
> It's easy to sit back and complain, but consider
> this:  The law requires
> specifically mandated curriculum but doesn't fund
> it, and so private schools
> have to send students to the public schools for
> whatever they can't provide,
> e.g., special ed, phy ed, science, or whatever.  And
> then the public schools
> have to take these students, for which they are NOT
> paid, and provide
> service because it's the law.  Private schools want
> to have their cake and
> eat it too.  It's just not fair because it puts the
> public schools in a
> deeper hole than they're already in.  If you want to
> send your kid to
> private school, fine, but don't send him to the
> public school for gym.  But
> you'll have to change the law first.
> 
> What really bugs me is that everybody thinks they're
> an expert, e.g.,
> legislators, governors, parents--none of whom have
> ever set foot in a
> classroom.  They keep coming up with nothing but
> educational gimmicks that
> do nothing but waste the valuable time and money of
> teachers.
> 
> Philip, teaching a kid to read is not rocket
> science, but it becomes
> Herculean without the proper resources.  If you want
> to see our public
> system collapse, we'll be putting our youth and
> therefore our country at a
> disadvantage.  Privatizing leads to nothing but
> discrimination and elitism.
> Is that what you really want for our country--even
> more of the "haves" and
> the "have-nots?"  Should we abandon our nation's
> entire educational
> infrastructure to accommodate you and yours?
> 
> Slim
> 
> On 5/25/05 10:06 PM, "Philip Esteban"
> <3drecon at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > I am totally against public education in its
> current form.  Any parent who
> > wants their child well educated will NOT send them
> to public school.  As for
> > PBS, if you do not detect the left wing near
> communist, praise Castro bias,
> > then you might want to examine your own leanings.
> > 
> > Philip
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On
> Behalf Of Saroj Gilbert
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:58 AM
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Public Radio and TV
> > 
> > 
> > Heavens, I don't even know how to respond to
> this.. may have to leave it up
> > to the eloquence of Stan...
> > 
> > Are you saying that public radio promotes
> communism and socialism?
> > Are you saying that public radio and TV promote
> control of individuals?
> > They are promoting the control of the point of
> view of the masses?
> > They are somehow disdaining individual freedom?
> > 
> > That they are biased in some way I would grant
> you... it is impossible to be
> > a human being or an organization of any kind and
> not be biased... you are
> > too... we all are.. it is the nature of being a
> human being...or group of
> > human beings...  I've been listening to NPR for
> years, and I never picked up
> > on this... hmmm... just dense maybe.. somehow
> intellectually defective?  I
> > find them innovative, focused on presenting
> representation of the arts in a
> > way that can't be found anywhere else, whether
> literature, drama, music.
> > 
> > Why don't you suggest they read Natan Saransky's
> book on Democracy.... they
> > no doubt would... maybe I should read it... I
> haven't...
> > 
> > However if you are concerned about control of the
> individual then you MUST
> > be against public education... that is the biggest
> and most incidious form
> > of it we have in this country..  I know I am.
> > 
> > Saroj
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ed kroposki" <ekroposki at charter.net>
> > To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:28 AM
> > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Public Radio and TV
> > 
> > 
> > Saroj:
> > Unfortunately your public radio and TV often
> promotes a control the
> > masses point of view.  Communism and socialism are
> political positions used
> > to control individuals.  Big business is corporate
> control of the
> > individual.  Public radio promotes the same thesis
> of controlling the
> > individual.
> > Individual freedom whether political, educational,
> business is
> > distained by your public media. Public Radio or TV
> promotes only the view
> > which represent their biased point of view.
> > Has radio reader ever read Natan Saransky's book
> on Democracy?  Have
> > they promoted writers who espouse individual
> freedoms?
> > They advocate just another form of bigness...
> > 
> > Ed Kroposki
> > Greenville, SC, USA
> > Addendum:  "As I would not be a slave, so I would
> not be a master.  This
> > expresses my idea of democracy.  Whatever differ
> from this, to the extent of
> > difference, is no democracy."  A. Lincoln
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
> Behalf Of Saroj Gilbert
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:01 AM
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Re: Commitment to war
> > 
> > So we can have a source of news that isn't
> massaged to meet the demands of
> > the corporate advertisers....
> > So we aren't bombarded by commercials...
> > So we can listen to the BBC...
> > So we can experience innovation that isn't
> dependent on commercially
> > dictated norms...
> > 
> > It is mostly subscriber-supported and grant
> supported anyhow... but you'll
> > notice more and more that it receives a lot of
> commercial support too so it
> > may not be able to maintain its independence.
> > 
> > Saroj
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Philip Esteban" <3drecon at comcast.net>
> > To: "'stan'" <stan at rhodes22.com>; "'The Rhodes 22
> mail list'"
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:09 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Re: Commitment to war
> > 
> > 
> >> Why, with hundreds of channels available are we
> funding public radio and
> >> television, but we are told we need our taxes
> raised 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html 