Reminder: Pre-K doesn't give children a lasting head start
Today, in testimony before the Legislative Committee on Education, James Guthrie, Nevada's Superintendent of Public Instruction, offered his support for both all-day kindergarten and pre-K programs. While Guthrie has been great in a couple of key areas, like noting that education funding is a "phony crisis" and that teacher certification requirements need to be overhauled, he couldn't be more wrong about all-day kindergarten and pre-K.
Overwhelming evidence shows learning gains from pre-K are minimal, temporary
Joyce Haldeman, a lobbyist and associate superintendent for the Clark County School District, testified at a Senate Finance Committee meeting on March 14, 2011, that for "students [to be] ready to learn, early childhood [education] is key." Her statement was echoed by Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, who said Nevada needs to "invest in early childhood education."
This is seen most clearly in Head Start, the federal government's pre-K program. President Lyndon B. Johnson created Head Start in 1965 as part of his "War on Poverty," and in the last 45 years, the Head Start program has cost taxpayers more than $100 billion.
In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.In other words, the Head Start program produced only temporary gains.
Despite this evidence, Congress has expanded the Head Start program, although it did require a study on the impact Head Start had on student achievement in its 1998 reauthorization of the program. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services released this study - a gold-standard, random assignment study of more than 5,000 students - and concluded that:
In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade...While these results appear unimpressive, they are even doubly less impressive since the researchers used a relaxed standard to find the sustained benefits. As education reform scholar Jay P. Greene explains:
For students who were randomly assigned to Head Start or not at the age of 4, the researchers collected 19 measures of cognitive impacts at the end of kindergarten and 22 measures when those students finished 1st grade. Of those 41 measures only 1 was significant and positive. The remaining 40 showed no statistically significant difference. The one significant effect was for receptive vocabulary, which showed no significant advantage for Head Start students after kindergarten but somehow re-emerged at the end of 1st grade.
The study used the more relaxed p< .1 standard for statistical significance, so we could have seen about 4 significant differences by chance alone and only saw 1. That positive effect had an effect size of .09, which is relatively modest. ...I think it is safe to say from this very rigorous evaluation that Head Start had no lasting effect on the academic preparation of students.
Further evidence that pre-K does not produce lasting gains in student achievement comes from states that have universal pre-K programs.
Georgia started its universal pre-K program in 1992 and Oklahoma began its universal pre-K program in 1998. Since then, both states' scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress fourth-grade reading tests have roughly mirrored the national average. While many factors influence test scores, if pre-K were as important as its supporters claim, some level of improvement should be seen.
Some lawmakers, as did Sen. Horsford in the Senate Finance meeting, cite Florida's universal pre-K system and Florida's remarkable achievement gains since 1998 as evidence that pre-K works. Such arguments, however, show either ignorance or willful disregard of what actually happened in Florida.
While Florida's scores on the NAEP fourth-grade reading test have shown a remarkable increase since 1998, Florida didn't implement its pre-K program until 2005. The earliest those students could have impacted test scores on the fourth-grade reading test was 2010. Currently, NAEP scores are only available through 2009.
Aside from misrepresenting what happened in Florida, defenders of pre-K programs often rest their intellectual defenses on studies from three programs: the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, the Carolina Abecedarian Project and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. (The problems with these studies are explored in much greater depth here, pgs. 2-5)
The Abecedarian Project was much more than preschool. The program put infants - who were, on average, 4.4 months old - into a 40-hour per-week education center. The pre-K component of the program appeared to have no effect on learning:
Herman H. Spitz, a well-respected academic psychologist specializing in measuring intelligence among those with developmental disability, notes that the project's effect appeared by the time the children were just six months old. ...The Chicago program also poses problems for pre-K advocates. No random-assignment study, it involved "extensive interventions with parents" and included tutoring for some students through the third grade.This means that the actual preschool component appears to have had no effect whatsoever. Since current preschool programs and proposals do not begin within a child's first year, this study actually suggests that preschool programs are ineffectual, and hence should be neither passed nor expanded.
In his presentation before the joint Senate and Assembly Education Committees last week, Morrison cited the following quote:
You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time, have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of current reality, whatever they might be. [Emphasis added] - Jim Collins, Good to Great.The current reality is that government pre-K programs have no lasting impact on student learning. Until Nevada's educational establishment and political leftists reject pre-K and turn to proven reform, the state's education system will continue its brutal failures.
- Florida's decade of education improvement proves reform works
- Hispanic student success in Florida
- Why Florida succeeds where Nevada fails
Read moreNevada elections primed to get James O'Keefed
James O'Keefe and the team at Project Veritas have done amazing work exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in states where photo identification isn't required to vote. A member of his team was even offered Attorney General Eric Holder's ballot!
In the Project Veritas investigations, an undercover reporter goes into a polling place and claims to be someone he isn't, usually a public figure or dead person. Since no photo identification is required, a poll worker looks up that name, verbally verifies the address and then offers the undercover investigator a chance to sign the poll book, which would lead to the reporter, wrongly, being given a ballot. Right before he signs, the undercover investigator mentions he forget his identification. The poll worker insists it isn't necessary, but the reporter - not wanting to commit voter fraud - insists he wants to go get it and leaves.
As I voted yesterday in Nevada's primary, I realized I could have been starring in an O'Keefe video. I walked into my polling place and told the elections worker my name and address. The worker found my name and gave me the poll book for me to sign.
I signed the poll book - which contained my file signature right next to where I was signing! That makes signature verification a joke, because you can see what the voter's signature is supposed to look like.
I had my wallet out to show my I.D., but none was requested. I even asked if I needed to show photo I.D. and was told, "Nope."
I don't know of any instances of in-person voter fraud in Nevada, but that doesn't matter. I don't know someone who's had his car stolen after he left it unlocked and running while he went inside a grocery store, but I'm not going to leave my keys in unlocked car, because I know what could easily happen. That's the problem here. It would be easy to commit voter fraud. I could have easily done it yesterday and you could have easily done it, too.
When it's that easy to cheat, when having fair and honest elections is foundational in our system of government and when people have millions of dollars at stake in the results of an election, it is imperative that election results be beyond reproach. And they aren't right now. Not even close.
When workers have a choice, public-sector union membership plummets
Why is the Clark County Education Association so afraid to let teachers know that teachers can drop their CCEA membership between July 1 and July 15? Because when public employees are given the choice, many, many individuals choose to leave the union.
Gov. Walker's reforms ended compulsory dues. Today, if Wisconsin state workers want to remain in a union, they have to say so and opt into automatic payroll deductions.This is why union bosses in Nevada have taken away the voice of teachers and only allow teachers to leave CCEA by submitting a written notice between July 1 to July 15 (details here on how to do that). In contrast, a teacher can join CCEA at any time.
Guess what's happened in the year since Gov. Walker's reforms took effect? According to The Wall Street Journal, overall Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has declined by more than half, from 62,818 members in March 2011 to 28,745 this past February. Among state employees, the drop has been even steeper. Its AFSCME membership has fallen from 22,300 to just 7,100 in that period.
While the larger issue - eliminating these drop-period restrictions - is something the Legislature should address, there is something you can do right now. Let teachers know they have this two-week window to leave CCEA and save $768 a year. Let teachers know there are alternative professional educator associations that are cheaper and provide better benefits, like the Association of American Educators. Let teachers know that a generic opt-out letter is available here.
Let teachers know that for just two weeks - they have a voice. They have a choice. And during the next legislative session, let's work to give teachers a voice for the entire year, not just for two weeks.
Thanks to collective bargaining, it's impossible to stay fired in Clark County
(***Not applicable in Clark County***)
It's possible to get fired, but after you're fired an arbitrator will reinstate you - with back pay - even while finding you manipulated the system for personal gain.
Behold the wonders of binding arbitration and collective bargaining.
Another Clark County firefighter fired last year over alleged sick leave abuse will get her job back.There's no use rehashing the particulars of this situation or any other ludicrous situation that comes from binding arbitration, but I can't resist this one fact. After cracking down on sick leave abusers, like Dillingham, sick leave use dropped by 80 percent, yes, 80 percent, among Clark County firefighter battalion chiefs.
An arbitrator ruled Friday that former Battalion Chief Renee Dillingham, who was fired after emails appeared to show her creating a special roster for sick leave, is to be reinstated with full back pay.
Arbitrator Frank Silver wrote, "Her role with responsibility for the rules was not significantly greater than that of other battalion chiefs. Because, in addition to her involvement of the overtime rules, she participated, with the approval of Deputy Chief (Kenneth) Morgan, in manipulating the sick leave rules to avoid presenting a certificate of illness." He added that she should receive a written warning.
Collective bargaining for government employees is the root cause of these problems. Ridiculous arbitration decisions, like the one above, are just some of the many symptoms of the problem.
It's time to repeal NRS 288, the collective bargaining statute for government employees, and return some sanity to Nevada's governments.
Why does CCEA President Ruben Murillo want to silence teachers?
On Tuesday, I wrote a commentary informing teachers in the Clark County School District that they have the ability to opt out of the Clark County Education Association by submitting a letter to CCEA between July 1 and July 15. (A generic opt-out letter is available here.)
I also listed some reasons teachers may want to leave CCEA and save themselves $768 a year, including the fact that the union bosses at CCEA are enriching themselves off of members' dues.
As the Las Vegas Review-Journal first reported, CCEA, in 2009, the latest year for which data is available, spent more than a third of its $4.1 million budget on just nine of its employees. John Jasonek, then-executive director of CCEA, took home over $625,000 - $205,745 for running the union and $423,863 for simultaneously running two union-affiliated organizations. All the nine employees each took in over $139,000 from CCEA and related organizations.Current CCEA President Ruben Murillo isn't too happy about NPRI informing teachers about their rights or that union bosses are spending teachers' union dues to live the high life. Here's what Murillo posted on his Facebook page.
Even though it's common for union bosses to have fat-cat salaries, these salaries are staggeringly high. Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator, an organization that evaluates nonprofits, called the CCEA salaries "out of the ballpark," the Review-Journal reported.
Exorbitant salaries for union bosses while teachers are struggling financially. That's how union bosses spend teachers' money.
What's so ironic here is that NPRI wants to give teachers a voice and let teachers know what their options are - to let them know that options even exist. Union bosses, like Murillo, are the ones who are silencing the voices of teachers by allowing them to leave CCEA only during a two-week window in the middle of summer vacation.
For instance, if a teacher wanted to leave CCEA right now, he couldn't. It's not allowed under the CCSD and CCEA contract. Currently, that teacher has no choice, because of the union rules.
Imagine you joined a CD club, and the club didn't live up to your expectations. You tried to cancel, but were told that you could only cancel during a two-week period at the most inconvenient time of the year. You'd be outraged - and rightfully so. You have a right to join an association and to leave that association. Forcing someone to belong to and fund an association he doesn't want to be in is morally wrong.
That's exactly the situation facing thousands of teachers in Clark County. They want to leave. They joined the union, but they aren't happy with something. These teachers want to leave. Many know they can spend their $768 a year better than a union boss using that money to push his salary to over $625,000 a year. Teachers want to leave.
But Murillo doesn't want teachers to have that choice. Murillo doesn't want teachers to have that voice. If teachers had that choice, Murillo might not make over $139,000 a year like he did in 2009.
The good news is that, even with union bosses' attempts to silence teachers, teachers are about to have a chance to make that choice. CCSD teachers can opt out of CCEA by sending an opt-out letter to CCEA from July 1 to July 15. A generic opt-out letter is here. More information is here.
The hard thing will be informing teachers that this choice is available. The union has made opting out as inconvenient as possible.
If you know a teacher in CCSD, I urge you to forward him or her this information and this generic opt-out letter, and let that teacher know about the chance to save $768 next year. Let teachers make the choice. Give teachers back their voice.
Great news: Oil lobbyist is now a 'green' job according to the Obama administration
One of the many problems with government picking the winners and losers in the economy is that bureaucrats will manipulate data to make any government-jobs program look like a success.
For instance President Obama promised to create millions of green jobs. But, as GOP Rep. Darrell Issa makes a government bureaucrat admit in this hilarious video, Obama's idea of a "green" job isn't always so green.
More details from Fox News.
Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs - a major initiative for President Obama.The solution to this isn't to try and have the government pick different winners and losers in the economy; the solution is for government to create a low and uniform tax and regulatory burden and allow individuals to choose the products and businesses they want.
"It's about politics. It's always been about politics," said Issa, R-Calif. "If you work at the Salvation Army, that's a green job."
When Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin balked on what qualifies as a green job under the agency definition, Issa responded, "Just answer the question."
"Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels -- is that a green job?" Issa asked.
"Yes," replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and "the guy who puts gas in a school bus" are all defined as green jobs.
He also acknowledged that an oil lobbyist, if his work is related to environmental issues, would also have a green job.
(h/t HotAir)
NPRI's Geoffrey Lawrence comments on union-backed margins-tax initiative
Today, the Nevada State Education Association has filed its margins-tax initiative, which would institute a 2 percent tax on business income, after certain deductions. Here are NPRI's thoughts on this destructive initiative.
NPRI's Geoffrey Lawrence comments on union-backed margins-tax initiative
LAS VEGAS - Responding to news that the Nevada State Education Association and the AFL-CIO will file a 2 percent margins-tax initiative tomorrow, Geoffrey Lawrence, deputy policy director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, issued the following comments:
This margins tax would be a disaster for Nevadans. Despite misleading rhetoric from the Left disparaging 'corporate greed,' all taxes are ultimately paid by individuals and families. A business margin tax will only further squeeze struggling private firms, dampening their ability to hire and suppressing growth in wages. This pain will be felt by families across Nevada.Lawrence also cited Tax Foundation research that shows how a margin tax is more destructive than alternative tax instruments yielding the same amount of revenue. The Tax Foundation concluded that: "There is no sensible case for gross receipts taxation, or modified gross receipts taxes such as a Texas-style margin tax." Lawrence continued:The coalition of government unions seeking to increase the burden on Silver State families do so simply to fatten their own pocketbooks. Once again they offer the by-now-laughable claim that they'll deliver a higher quality of education if Nevada families will just fork over the extra dough - even though Nevada taxpayers, in the last 50 years, have nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending. And what did taxpayers get in return? Just more stagnation in educational quality as these very union bosses twisted arms in the Legislature to protect the status quo and block the reforms that Nevada's children need.Given these union bosses' prolonged efforts to prevent parents from being able to select better educational opportunities for their children, coupled with the unions' work to keep ineffective teachers in the classroom, their claims about educational quality ring especially hollow.Listening to union bosses, one would never know that Nevada now spends more on a per-pupil basis than most of its neighbor states, while getting lower test scores and graduation rates. That's what U.S. Department of Education data shows.And what about a business margins tax? Economists from across the political spectrum note that a margins tax - being a modified gross-receipts tax - is one of the most economically destructive tax instruments available.The Tax Foundation has noted that such taxes are "distortive and destructive," because they "pyramid," being assessed at every level of production. Thus, highly complex goods that require multiple stages of production are repeatedly hit with the tax - therefore bearing a significantly higher effective tax rate and distorting consumer behavior. If you want to completely block diversification of the Nevada economy, this is precisely the tax system you want.With Nevada's adult unemployment at 12 percent and youth unemployment rate at 28.8 percent, a margins tax is a recipe for prolonged economic depression in the Silver State.
Research shows that there is little to no correlation between spending and student achievement. Indeed, for the last 50 years, Nevada has tried to spend its way to better student achievement and has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending while results have stagnated.Lawrence noted that a Las Vegas Review-Journal investigation revealed that in 2009, the latest year for which data is available, the Clark County Education Association teacher union spent more than a third of its $4.1 million budget on just nine of its employees. John Jasonek, then-executive director of CCEA, took home over $625,000 - $205,745 for running the union and $423,863 for simultaneously running two union-affiliated organizations. Each of the nine employees took in more than $139,000 from the coffers of CCEA and related organizations.
If union bosses were serious about improving education and not just fattening their own wallets, they would whole-heartedly support an agenda of proven education reforms, like the ones proposed by Governor Brian Sandoval.
"This margins-tax proposal isn't any fix for Nevada's education system," said Lawrence. "It would only entrench the failing status quo, enrich the union bosses and hurt struggling businesses and men and women looking for work."
- Texas margin tax: Always a bad idea
- Don't mess with the Texas mess
- Tax Foundation: Nevada May Consider New Business Taxes
- Analysis shows little to no correlation between education spending and student achievement
Essential background on the NSEA and AFL-CIO's margins-tax initiative
Earlier today, Jon Ralston tweeted that the union bosses at the Nevada State Education Association and the AFL-CIO will be filing a margins-tax initiative. If passed, the initiative would institute a two-percent tax on all business revenue over $1 million after some deductions and collect about $1 billion every two years.
Our formal press release is coming soon, but here's essential background information on this initiative, why it would harm the economy and do nothing to improve education in Nevada.
Texas margin tax: Always a bad idea:
In this sense, the margin tax can be thought of as a modified gross-receipts tax: The tax is based on gross receipts, but offers an array of possible deductions. Indeed, Indiana University tax scholar John L. Mikesell has appropriately referred to the margin tax as a "badly designed business profits tax . . . combin[ing] all the problems of minimum-income taxation in general - excess compliance and administrative cost, penalization of the unsuccessful business, undesirable incentive impacts, doubtful equity basis - with those of taxation according to gross receipts."Don't mess with the Texas mess:
The Tax Foundation calls gross-receipts taxation "distortive and destructive," because such taxes "pyramid," as they are assessed at every level of production. Thus, highly complex goods that require multiple stages of production are repeatedly subjected to the tax. This results in a higher effective tax rate on more complex goods, which distorts consumer behavior and leads to a loss of wealth.
Moreover, says the Tax Foundation, a margin tax is more destructive than alternative tax instruments yielding the same amount of revenue.
The Nevada Policy Research Institute recently interviewed Will Newton, executive director of the Texas office of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, regarding Texas business owners' experience with the tax.Tax Foundation: Nevada May Consider New Business Taxes:
NPRI: In Nevada, legislators are currently debating a margins tax, modeled after the margins tax in Texas. What do businesses in Texas, especially small businesses, think about the margins tax?
Newton: Small businesses in Texas are struggling mightily under the margins tax. After the legislature enacted this tax in 2007, many companies had their tax burden increase tenfold and a survey of our members showed that 40 percent of them saw an increase in their state tax liability of over 500 percent.
This money had to come from somewhere and a 2008 survey we conducted showed that, because of the tax, roughly 20 percent of small businesses reported that they would have to lay off employees and another one-third reported they would have to leave jobs unfulfilled.
The margins tax has caused thousands of individuals to lose their job and prevented thousands of businesses from hiring more workers.
Regardless of rate structure, all gross receipts taxes feature tax pyramiding, which distorts and interferes with business investment decisions. Sales, individual income and property taxes do not have the same tax pyramiding feature, making them more economically efficient. An increase in any of those taxes would cause far less economic harm than a gross receipts tax that raises the same amount of revenue.Analysis shows little to no correlation between education spending and student achievement:
There is no sensible case for gross receipts taxation, or modified gross receipts taxes such as a Texas-style margin tax. The old turnover taxes-typically adopted as desperation measures in fiscal crisis-were replaced with taxes that created fewer economic problems. Gross receipts taxes do not belong in any program of tax reform.
The following state-by-state analysis shows that there is no statistically significant correlation between spending and student achievement. This is seen when Fiscal Year 2009 spending on current expenditures is compared with reading and math scores on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)._____
These simple regression-analysis charts report the correlation of state education spending with student performance on the NAEP fourth-grade reading and math tests. Assuming a 95 percent confidence level, they yield R2 values of 0.03172 and .01822, respectively. Also called the coefficient of determination, R2 is one of the best means for evaluating the strength of a relationship.
In these cases, the correlation between spending and student achievement is, at best, only 3.18 percent and 1.82 percent, respectively. This extremely weak relationship is graphically demonstrated by the fact that the data points are not closely grouped along the regression trend line, but are literally all over the charts.
Some commentators, such as Agenda co-host Hugh Jackson, have claimed that because some top-spending states, like Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont, boast high test scores, a correlation exists between spending and student achievement. Liberals like Jackson, however, ignore the top-spending locales that boast low test scores, such as Washington, D.C., Alaska and New York.
When little to no correlation exists between spending and student achievement, such scores are exactly what you'd expect. Some top-spending states score well; others score poorly. The converse is also true: Some low-spending states score well, while others score poorly.
No doubt the union misinformation machine is already in high gear. Now you have the facts the cut through their spin.
Romney's education plan: Great ideas from the wrong level of government
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
For today's week-in-review email, Andy writes a great column examining Mitt Romney's proposed education plan.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney released his education plan last week, which you can read here.
Most of Romney's proposals will sound very familiar to those in the education-reform movement. He notes that America's problems in education don't stem from lack of funding (p. 20). He wants to empower parents with real educational choices for their children as "a vital component of any national agenda for education reform" (p. 21). And he seeks to modify "No Child Left Behind" in order to redouble "efforts to provide transparency and accountability" (p. 27).
On the surface, these sound like great ideas. For years, NPRI has noted that there's little to no correlation between education spending and student achievement and has touted the benefits of school choice. So the principles guiding Romney are certainly sound. Yet our evaluation of the policy can't end there.
When you're considering the merits of a policy proposal, there are three important questions to ask. One, is the policy constitutional? Two, is this the lowest level of government that can enact the policy? And three, will the policy work?
Each question is important, but it's also essential to ask them in that order. Too often, federal politicians jump right to question three. So with all that in mind, let's look at Romney's plan.
Question 1: Is Romney's plan constitutional?
Since the United States Constitution doesn't mention any role for the federal government in education, the answer is clearly "no."
Question 2: Is this the lowest level of government that can enact Romney's policy?
Romney's plan addresses this issue in a subsection entitled "The Federal Role" (pp. 22-23):
As a former governor, Mitt Romney knows that states and localities are best-positioned to reform their education systems and must take the lead in implementing these core principles free of federal micromanagement. ...
Yet Romney also knows that the federal government cannot ignore the troubled state of American K-12 education. The federal government is uniquely positioned to provide financial support for the education of our neediest students and to require states and districts to tell the truth about how their schools and students are performing. Washington also has a critical role to play in enhancing competition among education providers by eliminating local education monopolies and supporting choice for parents and students. (Emphasis added)
Do you see the inherent contradiction here?
Imagine you're a parent who has set a 7:30 p.m. bedtime for your children. Then imagine that a politician decides that he is "uniquely positioned" to set all children's bedtimes and declares the national bedtime to be 7:30 p.m. Even though nothing would have changed for your family in practice, you'd still be outraged, and rightly so - because of the principle involved.
As a parent, it's your right to set your child's bedtime. And it's wrong for somebody else to usurp that right, even if the usurper agrees with you on the ideal time for a child to go to bed. Similarly, state and local governments have the right to set education policy free of federal mandates, even if those mandates are driven by sound policy ideas.
Question 3: Will the policy work?
This is the real tragedy that results when self-described conservative politicians decide that the best course isn't to shift power away from Washington, D.C., but is instead to "fix" the problem with a "better" federal solution. The federal solutions fail - and not only when they are based on unsound principles.
Eleven years after President George W. Bush signed "No Child Left Behind," nearly everyone wants the law changed substantially. And this is despite the solid ideas, like testing and accountability, contained in the program. The reason is that bureaucrats in Washington are simply unable to respond as effectively as more localized governments to the unique needs of individuals. So in this case, while Romney's policy ideas would work on a state or local level, the same ideas, implemented on the federal level, won't.
If he wins in November, let's hope Gov. Romney realizes that, while his education plan would be great for a governor to implement, it's not the right one for a president to push - for constitutional as well as practical reasons.
Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
Time to repeal the minimum wage: NV's teen unemployment rate is 6th highest in the country
Think Nevada's overall 12 percent unemployment rate is bad? The unemployment rate for Nevada's teenagers is a staggering 28.8 percent, which is sixth highest among the states. Washington, D.C., is worse than every state with a 51.7 percent unemployment rate for teens.
As the Employment Policies Institute notes, for teenagers the importance of a job, even a low-paying one, is substantial and long lasting.
Economists have shown that the value of a summer job goes beyond a paycheck. Research published in the Journal of Labor Economics found that high schoolers that worked part-time had a greater likelihood of higher wages and better benefits in future employment, as compared to their classmates that didn't have a job.While there are many factors in the teenage unemployment rate, one significant factor is Nevada's high minimum wage, as anyone familiar with basic economics understands. Even Paul Krugman has admitted that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.
As Milton Friedman describes in this video, minimum wage laws result from an "unholy alliance" between do-gooders and trade unions and result in higher unemployment for the least-skilled workers in society.
And indeed that's exactly what happened in Nevada, where the union bosses of the AFL-CIO were the primary backers of Nevada's minimum-wage Constitutional amendment.
Which means, not only have union bosses harmed the education of your children, union bosses have also decreased your child's chance of finding a job and their lifetime earning potential.
Thanks union bosses!
