Democrats like education reform too
Alan Stock at KXNT invited me on his show to talk about education reform and my commentary "Civil rights groups' education proposal misses the mark." Overall the interview was good, but on my drive home (this always happens) I realized I forgot to say something very important (in TV and radio interviews, or with any public speaking, my mind is always racing from one fact to the next so I'm bound to miss something). I realized I came down a little too hard on Democrats - the real problem I talked about was with congressional Democrats, which (like congressional Republicans) don't represent the views of all Democrats.
In reality, not all Democrats are against serious and meaningful education reform - I even did an entire blog on this subject. Not only are President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan both supportive of serious education reform, but the entire city council of D.C., plus the mayor, are in favor of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Furthermore, half of the African American Democrats in Florida voted to expand the "Step Up For Students" scholarship program. Finally, there is an entire group called "Democrats for Education Reform."
Education reform isn't a conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat issue - or at least it shouldn't be - I'm sorry I forgot to make this point.
That said, education is a real wedge issue with Democrats today. Democrats are stuck between the very powerful teacher unions who fork out millions of dollars every campaign cycle and constituents, especially low-income and minorities, who suffer from the sub-par public education monopoly the union hopes/prays (and pays so it) will linger for all eternity.
You can listen to my interview here, but remember, not all Democrats are against charter schools, vouchers, teacher evaluations and merit pay.
Read moreRough draft outline of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group's report
Here's the rough draft outline of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group's report (pdf file) prepared by Moody's Analytics.
Give the outline a brief scan and you'll find that it's a leftist's wish list, including gems like:
· Strategy: Review constitutional restriction on public funding of private enterprises;The above is just a sampling of the vision the leftists, union members and government officials have for your life.
· A metric under the goal of "Raising the quality of elementary and secondary education: Expenditure per pupil";
· Strategy under "Increase early-childhood education options: Expand requirements for early childhood education centers";
· An obesity rate metric;
· Strategy: Stabilize fire department funding. (Reminder: 75 percent Clark County firefighters make more than $100,000, not including over $40,000 in benefits.); and
· Metric: Decreasing the number of Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled by Capita (Their vision includes separating you from your car).
Which leads me to the question: Why is someone else (or a group of 20 people) setting a 20-year vision - for which taxpayers would foot the bill - for you and me and the entire state of Nevada?
I know this whole process has been a charade to give politicians, led by Sen. Steven Horsford, political cover to call for tax increases in 2011, but for them to assume that they have the ability, using government coercion, to tell everyone else how they should live their lives is appalling.
Live blogging the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group meeting: August 6, 2010
1:21 update - Thanks to everyone for reading. I'm going to be posting the handout from Moody's very shortly. The handout is the outline of the rough draft of the stakeholders group report. As NPRI has predicted -- before the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group even existed -- this outline is a wish list for union members and government officials.
Another meeting of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group. The agenda is here, and you can watch it live online here.
9:06 Lang starts off acknowledging that part of the tax study won't be accomplished. Says it doesn't concern the NVSG and its agenda.
9:08 Lang: No formal testimony previously on education, so that's what's on the agenda today. Lack of human capital (through education) holding back Nevada today.
9:09 Lang trying to justify spending more on higher ed. If you spend enough, eventually the feds or private endowments will pay for them.
9:11 Lang says UNLV is funded like Cal State schools.
9:13 Only 13 members of the NVSG and its alternates are here today. The NVSG has 19 members, Chairman Lang and several alternates. Given that it's summer, the low turnout is understandable.
9:16 The real question is where's Moody's? The only non-stakeholder person up front is Dave Ziegler of the LCB.
9:18 Presentation from the Nevada System of Higher Education laments that only 1 in 10 of Nevada's high school freshman will graduate college within 6 years of higher education schooling.
9:24 Random employment stat: Government jobs are the third biggest "employment by occupation" category in Nevada.
9:35 NSHE representative gives a pretty standard presentation -- we need to send more kids to college, etc... which is really code for give us more money. Also says she wants to create a "college-going culture."
This is the kind of generic rhetoric that is either worthless (over-broad) or just code words for give us more money (or as they like to call it: investment). Always easier to invest someone else's money.
9:38 Apparently Chancellor Klaich is presenting a statewide plan in the upcoming weeks for higher ed.
9:40 NVSG member Rene Canto Jr asks the obvious question -- how do you move beyond the platitudes? NSHE rep: I don't know. We're going to try new ways.
That sums up this presentation perfectly.
9:43 NSHE rep: We are very serious about making changes.
Okay, I'm convinced -- look they're very serious.
9:48 NSHE rep says Nevada is "very young," in regards to higher ed.
9:50 Doug Busselman: Why aren't we getting results from the money we're already spending.
Great question.
9:51 NSHE rep: We haven't done a good enough job in the state building the need for a college degree.
Reminder average college student leaves with $23,200 in debt.
9:53 Lang: No state regrets investing in higher education. Cites North Carolina.
Praises Arizona for raising sales tax rate for education. Praises Arizona State University.
"Made investments" continues to be standard code words for raising taxes.
9:56 Other reminder Lang works for an organization (UNLV) that would directly benefit from this "investment."
9:59 Elaine Wynn is calling in to give testimony on the Governor's Blue Ribbon Education Task Force (K-12), per Sen. Horsford's request.
10:02 Complains that once they opened up their meetings to the public only a few people showed up.
10:05 Wynn: A child born in Nevada has the least chance of succeeding of a child born in any other state.
Reminder: The failure of education in Nevada isn't the result of overspending, because over the last 50 years Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending over the last 50 years, but results have been stagnate.
10:07 Wynn says an agreement is in place to expand charter schools.
Hadn't heard that yet.
10:09 Still a lot of platitudes. Says Nevada will be targeting manufacturing in the future.
Wonder how those businesses will like Horsford's (rumored) new business tax proposal?
10:12 Wynn makes excuses about why Nevada's Race to the Top application didn't make the cut. Says there has to be a commitment to funding public education.
Is a 180 percent increase in inflation-adjusted, per-pupil funding not enough? How much more does the educational establishment want before we can hold them accountable for how they spend our money?
10:18 Marsha Irvin: What are the action steps? (Good question)
Wynn says staff will get back to her.
10:22 I think Lang is trying not to fall asleep. Can't blame him, so am I.
10:26 Any one have the link to the Blue Ribbon Commission's Race to the Top application? They say it's online somewhere.
10:31 Robert Potter (representing the AFSCME, of course) says we need better benefits to attract and hold teachers.
10:34 Wynn is close to saying good things -- Nevada has some bad teachers, there's no silver bullet solution.
10:36 Superintendent of Public Instruction Keith Rheault begins testifying. Notes that Nevada's State Board of Education's goals are very vague.
10:42 Rheault: Nevada can't say it values education.
Who is our state? Parents, community members, government? Don't know.
10:47 So many platitudes. Listing off a bunch of things he hopes will improve student achievement.
Hey, I have an idea! Let's institute the reforms Florida implemented 12 years ago.
10:56 Lang cuts him off and asks him to get to the long range goals (2030). And of course, the first goal is expanding Pre-K, which only improves student achievement for 1-4 years. (Give me a second to look up studies on this. Here's one example. Also here. )
11:06 Rene Canto is concerned about the Latino community and education. Anyone interested in minority student achievement should check out Florida's record.
11:12 Lang's worried that goals are too lofty!!! What?
Says we should aim to be 45th or 47th. Says it's an improvement.
My guess: Either this is a react to the last meeting or Horsford doesn't want the NVSG
11:14 Reheault says Florida is a model! Yes, yes, yes. Says reform mattered, but they achieved also because of higher funding. No, no, no.
It wasn't about the money, it was about how they spent the money. Read more here.
11:16 Lang asks for key policies of Florida. Reheault: Funded better, held schools accountable, online learning.
Hey, what about stopping social promotion, charter schools and vouchers or scholarships? (Read the full list of Florida's reforms here.) And if this state is the model for other states, why don't you, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, know all of their reforms? Why aren't you trying to implement them in Nevada?
11:21 Lang says final meeting will be in September.
11:22 Up next a report from a private Nevada University, Touro. They're here at the recommendation of Sen. Horsford. Nothing really to add. Sounds like a nice school of medicine.
11:37 Says Touro tries not to take any legislative money.
11:38 Touro says 135 students in each of their classes. University of Nevada School of Medicine has about 50.
11:39 Lang asks what the committee can do to help. Touro rep says state system can't address of the state's needs. Needs regs and laws that encourage the development of private education. When Touro started they couldn't have a nursing program, because of state regulations.
Basically Nevada needs to stop making it illegal for private colleges to have certain courses.
11:43 Here comes Moody's to talk about how the voting will work. There rep was here (right in front of me actually, oops), but I don't think he was taking notes.
Lang again talks about limiting goals.
11:45 Steve Cochran with Moody's says the deadline for draft report is August 30. Passes out a rough draft. Will try and get a copy and post the pdf online when I get back to the office.
11:48 Moody's mentions "systematic inquiry" has been helpful, which if you remember last time was Lang's slang he coined in order to avoid the Open Meetings Law. Although if the conversations were just with Moody's and one person, I'm not sure if that's a violation. Will check on that.
11:51 Just received a copy of the rough draft of Moody's report for the NVSG and yep, it's a wish list of government spending. Doesn't have 5-, 10- and 20-year goals yet. Just a broad overview.
11:55 Lang says NVSG members should give input offline, before the next meeting.
11:58 Rob Potter says his systematic inquiry interview is next Tuesday. Ziegler assures Lang these don't violate the open meeting law.
12:00 Keith Smith notes there's no 5-, 10- or 20-year plans. Says the NVSG should be focused on strategies not tactics. Lang says final report will include narrative providing rationale.
12:05 Ziegler updates the committee on the contract dates. Draft report from Moody's must be submitted no later than August 31. Final meeting must be on or before September 10. Final report for Moody's is due September 15.
12:07 Ray Bacon starts off public comment. Recommends NPRI's study on Florida. Available here and thanks for the plug. As a result, he says the educational climate in Florida has dramatically improved (via a Chamber of Commerce official in Florida).
12:12 Lang says his 5 minutes are up and Bacon wraps up.
12:13 Patrick Gibbons starts his comment. Has a lot to cover and is talking fast (he's only got 5 minutes!). But good news, the basis for his comments is here and you can read it at your leisure.
Goes into K-12. Notes pre-K has no long term benefits. But if they are going to do, recommends vouchers. Notes class size reduction is ineffective at improving student achievement.
12:18 And here comes a teachers union official. Says Nevada has a retention problem -- half of Nevada educators leave in 3 years. And of course, pay them well, so they'll stay in the state.
12:20 And meeting adjourned. See you in September.
As this is a live blog, please forgive any spelling errors.
Horsford now wants to cut $1.5 billion in spending
Another surprise takeaway from Tuesday's Las Vegas Sun interview with Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford:
"There has to be some combination of spending reductions and revenue to balance the budget," he said. "It should be almost a dollar-for-dollar equation."Ignore, for the moment, his call for spending cuts to be matched by a dollar-for-dollar tax hike - the liberal Democratic Senate majority leader just called for $1.5 billion in spending cuts. With a state budget of $6.4 billion after the special session, that means that the liberal Democratic Senate majority leader believes that Nevada's budget should be about $4.9 billion in the next biennium. Amazingly, just like yesterday, when Horsford announced he now opposes creating a corporate income tax, he's exactly right that Nevada needs a substantial reduction in spending (which would really just reverse Nevada's 29 percent increase in inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending over the last 15 years).
With the state facing an estimated $3 billion shortfall, Horsford, D-Las Vegas, proposed in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun that the state should cut programs or shift them along with their costs to local governments.
These spending reductions would total about $1.5 billion.
The next time leftists attack advocates of limited government for wanting to cut government spending, please remind them that substantially cutting government spending is a bipartisan position.
The next time you read or hear a news story about Nevada's "dire" budget situation, write a letter to the editor or e-mail the reporter and remind them there's a bipartisan plan - cut spending by $1.5 billion.
If you're a citizen or candidate defending your belief that Nevada's budget situation can be resolved by reining in out-of-control spending, remember that there's a bipartisan consensus supporting a budget of no more $5 billion.
Now, does Sen. Horsford really support reducing spending to $5 billion or, as it should be known, correcting Nevada's 29 percent increase in inflation-adjusted, per capita spending over the last 15 years?
I hope so, but the cynical side of me is skeptical. Why? Because there's been a fundamental dishonesty - due to confusion, ignorance or willful intent - in how the budget numbers have been cited and reported for the last six months and I suspect that many of the cuts Horsford envisions will be to spending that doesn't exist.
But I'm more than happy for Sen. Horsford to prove me wrong and, regardless, citizens, candidates, media members and elected officials should hold Sen. Horsford to the standard he created for himself - a $5 billion budget in 2011 - and should remember that cutting spending by $1.5 billion is a bi-partisan position championed by Nevada's own liberal Democratic Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford.
What does Nevada's budget situation really look like? Keep watching the blog and I'll discuss that soon.
Ideological diversity not apparent in Nevada higher education
Nevada's universities this year faced real budget cuts - and by real, I mean they saw an actual decline in expenditures from the previous year. With fewer dollars coming in, the universities are not filling open positions. Some individuals even worry that qualified faculty will flee to universities in other states (although few states appear immune to budget cuts this year). Worse, some are worried that the universities might lose racially and sexually diverse faculty.
There can be no doubt that racism, and other -isms, still exist in America today. But the real culprit behind the racial inequality that persists has more to do with the fact that minorities are more likely to get a substandard education from our public school monopoly than whites. The quality of your education goes a long way in helping to generate the skills necessary to succeed in life.
Your skin color, or even sexual orientation, makes no difference in how competent you will be at your job - any job. Racial and sexual differences may provide unique perspectives on some things some of the time, but the same is true for political diversity, and that is not represented very well at most universities.
Typically, academics argue that racial and sexual diversity provide great benefits to the university's intellectual climate, but somehow, ideological diversity has no importance at all. Such reasoning has no intellectual basis, because it is merely an excuse to avoid looking at how un-diverse academia really is.
Looking at federal campaign donations from 2008 and 2010 at Open Secrets (analysis completed August 4, 2010), I compared donations from UNR and UNLV faculty to Republican, Democrat and independent candidates and affiliated organizations. Political campaign donations are an imperfect proxy for the ideological makeup of Nevada's universities, but it most likely provides a close approximation.
I found that, between UNLV and UNR, 91.7 percent of all donations and 91 percent of all dollars donated went to Democrats and their affiliates. Based on this data, UNR appears to have virtually no political diversity. At UNR, 98.8 percent of donors sent money to Democrats while 98.2 percent of the dollars went to Democrats. UNLV was "more" diverse, but not much - 84.6 percent of donations and 85.9 percent of dollars donated from UNLV faculty went to Democrats.
These results are similar to what University of Arkansas professor Dr. Jay P. Greene found when he examined political contributions at the nation's top 10 universities during the 2008 campaign cycle. Dr. Green found that 87 percent of donations at these elite universities went to Democrats while 91 percent of the dollar value of the donations went to Democrats.
Universities claim to be places of diversity and open-mindedness, but this is not true when it comes to political affiliation or ideology. I'm not suggesting affirmative action for Libertarian and Republican professors, but the universities should be more honest about how diverse they actually are. Universities should work hard to ensure ideological minorities are heard on campus and prevent the dominant (if not, at times, intolerant) left wing from issuing a heckler's veto on right-of-center speakers, events, protests or clubs.
Finally, we should consider whether the lack of ideological diversity among university faculty is due to selection bias, peer pressure, political litmus tests, intolerant discrimination or some other factor.
Obama and Reid's new economic plan: Same as the old one
Does this plan look familiar?
It should, because the plan - Spend! Spend! Spend! under the guise of recovery - has been what Obama and Reid have been pushing ever since they passed the $787 billion stimulus bill in February 2009. And the Reid/Obama plan has worked about as well as the plan that this cartoon - published in the Chicago Tribune on April 20, 1934 - is satirizing.
And if you think the New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, you need to read Great Myths of the Great Depression to understand how government action prolonged the depression, just like current government actions are deepening this economic downturn.
Major hat tip to Reno Hayek for the cartoon. If you're interested in a Nevada-based economics blog, be sure to check out Reno Hayek regularly.
African-Americans support charter schools; NAACP does not
Last week several civil rights groups, like the Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, attacked the concept of charter schools in a report (both groups have since distanced themselves from the report, but not necessarily from their attack on charter schools). But as it turns out, a majority of African-Americans now support charter schools.
Dr. Paul Peterson of Harvard University writes in the Wall Street Journal,
"Each year we provided respondents the same, neutral description of charter schools, followed by the question: "Do you support or oppose the formation of charter schools?" Those interviewed were also given the choice of saying they "neither support or oppose" charters.So why are civil rights groups ignoring their constituents? Dr. Peterson concludes,
Support for charters among African Americans rose to 49% in 2009, up from 42% in 2008. This year it leapt upward to no less than 64%. Among Hispanics support jumped to 47% in 2010, from 37% in 2008.
Opposition to charters is expressed by 14% of African-Americans and 21% of Hispanics. Twenty-three percent of African-Americans and 33% of Hispanics take a neutral position.
Among the public as a whole, charter supporters currently outnumber opponents by a margin of better than 2 to 1. Forty-four percent say they are in favor of charters, while 19% stand in opposition. Parents in general are even more supportive of charter schools: 51% like them, 15% don't."
"By casting their lot firmly with teachers unions, the leadership of the NAACP and the Urban League hope to preserve their power and safeguard their traditional sources of financial support. Not only is this is a cynical strategy, it ignores where African-Americans and Hispanics are on the issue. Thankfully, the Obama administration is paying attention to the needs of low-income, minority communities and not to their purported leaders."
For more on this subject, check out my new commentary, titled "Civil rights groups' education proposal misses the mark."
Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group to meet again this Friday
After a long hiatus, which included the LCB cancelling the tax portion of the tax study and deciding to pay Moody's $100,000 to complete a spending wish list for union members and government officials, the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group is meeting once again.
The NVSG will meet this Friday, Aug. 6 at 9 a.m. at the Grant Sawyer Building by video conference to Carson City. The agenda is here, and you can watch it live online here.
Or better yet, you can follow our live blog right here on Friday beginning at 9 a.m.
And in case you need a refresher, here's our live blog of its previous meeting and four problems with the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group.
I'll be interested to see the next draft report from Moody's, because the last preliminary executive summary got verbally trashed by Chairman Robert Lang, who, as he told us last time, is from New York, not Virginia.
There's no report on the agenda, but the agenda does include a presentation on "Strategic Issues and Initiatives Related to Education in Nevada."
Not sure how hearing new presentations are going to square with the LCB saying that a final report will be done by Sept. 15 or why new presentations are even necessary, but we'll be there to let you know.
For now, it just looks like taxpayers will be spending $100,000 for union members, government officials and favored private businesses to create a spending wish list that would only ADD to the $1.5 billion in new taxes that Sen. Steven Horsford wants to pass in the 2011 Legislative Session.
Read more:
Visions of tax increases
The stakeholder two-step
Puppetmasters on the throne
Nevada's future is at stake
A 'vision' of extortion and control
IFC to hide behind unelected stakeholders
Nevadans deserve honesty from IFC
Horsford now opposes a corporate income tax
I'm going to have a lot more on this Las Vegas Sun article featuring Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, but let's start with this nugget - and bit of good news.
But he [Horsford] also said he does not support a corporate income tax, which he had advocated in the past, calling it more volatile than he had previously thought.So let's review.
During the 2009 session, Horsford introduced legislation to study the creation a corporate income tax. During the same session, Horsford also said that Nevada needed to broaden its tax base and suggested creating a "net profit tax" (just a different name for a corporate income tax).
Horsford also initiated the now-defunct tax study to find ways to broaden and stabilize Nevada's tax base.
At some point between then and now, Horsford realized that a corporate income tax is the most volatile of the major taxes states use (see here for more evidence of the volatility of corporate income taxes from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, p72 on the page or p10 in the PDF).
And based on this new information, he changed his position and now opposes a corporate income tax.
Good for him.
In this case, Horsford did exactly what you would want a lawmaker to do. He submitted his policy position, a corporate income tax, and his goal, stabilizing Nevada's tax structure, to the available evidence. The evidence shows that a corporate income tax exacerbates revenue volatility, and so he reversed his position.
While there's plenty I disagree with Horsford about - starting with his call for a $1.5 billion tax hike in 2011 - he now has the correct policy position on corporate income taxes, and I give him credit for having enough integrity to publicly change his stance.
In this case, other lawmakers who have publicly supported a corporate income tax, like Senate candidate and current Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, should follow Horsford's lead.
Can you be fired for not spending your employer's money?
Only if you work for the government. Specifically, the Department of Education.
While ED [Education Department] officials said they understood the reason many districts were investing in equipment and technology, they expressed little tolerance for those who had yet to make significant use of their ARRA funds. When a caller asked, "What happens to unspent ARRA money after 2011," Policelli [Maura Policelli, ED's senior advisor for external affairs] shot back: "You will be fired."That's right. Don't spend the government's money, and you will be fired. No wonder we're facing a $13 trillion deficit. No wonder Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending in the last 50 years without improving student achievement. No wonder there's no correlation between spending and student achievement.
"You will literally be fired, whoever you are," she said. "You must spend this money. If your school district or state is not in a budget crisis, then that is excellent news for you. Most of you are, and we're trying to help you make sure you maximize those dollars in the best way possible. They simply must be used. They were passed by Congress during an economic crisis, and it is your obligation as stewards of taxpayer dollars to spend it wisely, appropriately and in any way possible to help defray the budget crunch a lot of you are facing." [Emphasis added]
Why do we have a federal Department of Education again?
