"Washington Learns" describes itself as:
[Mrs.] Gregoire's initiative to examine our state's education system--from early learning to K-12 to higher education--and find ways to improve it.It should really be called "Washington Taxes and Spends", because the main focus seems to be on proposing new ways to raise taxes and spend more money on the government education monopoly, learning outcomes be damned.
As it turns out, the Chairman of the K-12 Advisory Committee's Compensation Subgroup, Kevin Teeley, is a teacher union boss. Go figure.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 19, 2006 10:38 AM | Email ThisImprove -- Investment in the future.
Investment in the future -- Increase spending.
Increase spending -- Increase revenue.
Increase revenue -- Eliminate tax breaks for the richest.
Eliminate tax breaks for the richest -- It's for the children.
It's for the children -- You must hate the children.
You must hate the children -- Don't you feel guilty?
Don't you feel guilty? -- You'd feel better about yourself if you helped the children.
...helped the children -- With your money.
With your money -- You must be rich.
You must be rich -- You must have stolen that money somehow.
...stolen that money... -- You really should give it to those you stole it from.
...should give... -- tax the rich.
tax the rich -- across the board tax increase.
tax increase -- regressive tax.
tax increase -- write new tax codes to give improve the rebates to the poorest among us.
improve -- Um, I think we already covered this one.
In other words, bend over, grab your ankles, and hand over your wallet....
how about those annual school tax assessment pitches: "it won't amount to much of an increase" translation: rate-wise no--but your assessed value keeps climbing, so effectively yes; "needed improvements"--translation: 1--we never cut any programs, 2--apartment voters always say yes to free edu. bene's paid by homeowners and 3--more money for bureaucracy, not finally filtering to the desk;
finally--my favorite--the "school supply list" translation: bring in 1,000 pencils and $60 worth of other stuff your kid will never use in a year, to give away to deadbeat, freeloader parents who can afford cell phones and sattelite TV but not their kids' own school supplies;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 19, 2006 11:21 AMI hear you on that Jimmie. Especially scissors. Why is it that every year they need new scissors? I guess the scissor Gremlins come in and take them from all the classrooms during the summer.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 11:37 AMWhile examples of corruption (currently at 17 that Stefan has identified and documented) have the potential to extend their numbers indefinitely, it might be worthwhile to identify some examples of responsible governance that didn't just accidently align with the public interest.
While I can't identify any coming out of King County or the Governor's Office or Legislature myself, some examples (if they exist) might give people (those few really paying attention) some hope that corruption hasn't completely engulfed government at all levels.
Posted by: MJC on July 19, 2006 11:52 AMThe best we can hope for it that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation wins their case against them.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case and Rob McKenna is going to represent EFF.
Posted by: Dawn on July 19, 2006 12:19 PMThe problem is the many apartment dwellers don't realize that they pay property tax as a portion of their rent and that a property tax increase will probably result in a rent increase. I'd be all for renters seeing a break-down in their lease agreement so they can tell what portion of their rent goes to pay property tax.
And, you have at least one apartment voter that doesn't vote yes for every education benefit. In fact, I've never voted yes on any of them. Make that two, my brother votes the same way.
I'd really like to see a break-down of the property tax brought in from single family homes vs. the property tax brought in on apartments and other rented homes. It would be good for all those renters to see how much of the over-all property tax they actually pay.
Mark D
Posted by: Mark D on July 19, 2006 01:04 PMWe Eschew Achievement (WEA) has absolutely no incentive to provide real solutions, so it's time to provide one: if 90% of all students in a public school district do not score 70% or higher on a RECOGNIZED achievement test (such as IBST)within two years, then the mandatory union membership disappears at the end of the current contract. For the whiners who would say this would result in "teaching the test" this approach would at least show that the students could read and do math at grade level, which is much better than what is going on now.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 19, 2006 01:18 PMI guess I was trying to make two points.
First, as a renter, I always resent the implication that I'm some sort of free-loader and don't pay into the system because I'm not a homeowner. In fact, since I don't receive the mortgage interest deduction, I'm paying more into the Federal system then a homeowner with my salary is. Also, no child credit for me.
Second, that unfortunately, Jimmy is correct that many renters may vote for property tax increases. They may vote for them because they don't realize that they pay property tax..but they do. It would be a huge public service if renters were informed about this.
Also, I have to add that I do agree with just about every post I've ever seen Jimmy-how-ya-doin' make.
Mark D
Posted by: Mark D on July 19, 2006 01:22 PMThere are many reasons for this. Some of it is union self preservation, some of it is bureacrat self preservation, some of it is that the leftist teaching clique wants to keep their hands on a top down driven curriculum for future indoctrination, etc. But all of this ignores the students and parents as consumers of education.
No one spends someone else's money as wisely as they do their own. It would be best if we gave kids and parents a choice in which school they attemded both from a geographic and a economic angle. Then, there would be instant competition amonst schools to vie for students.
As it is now, it is the exact opposite. Often students are located by school administrators based on their geography, or worse based on their color. Smart parents with some or a lot of money don't bother to waste their time with this system and simply send their kids to private schools where they are better educated. Or, in some cases, parents care enough to keep intamately involved in their public school, watching over the adminstration and curricula like hawks to get the most of the public education.
Overall though, the system is broken and the losers are the kids. Cradle to graduation funding and more bureaucrats and and union paid teachers and administrators will not solve the problems with the system. The real wisdom lies with the students who are the only ones who can tell us what they want to learn, demand the dedication of a teacher and what the best way is to spend their education dollar.
The left will fight this at all costs, but eventually market forces will continue to expose our educational system as a failure. Hopefully then we can look back at leftists like Gregoire and remember who caused the failure.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 19, 2006 01:34 PMno--no insult intended to you--sorry; i've been on both sides of the tax fence and kidless fence & renter and owner; and i know about rentals covering many costs & taxes; perhaps I should have said renters do not see it as direct/visibly and get as incensed as an owner who sees the itemized tax bill; example--you can bet that the apartment owners' accountants are paid to constantly fight for lower valuations and protest taxes vigorously to pay their absolute mininum--i know--i've assisted with such work; nothing wrong with that; freeloading isn't meant of renters, just their unrealized consequenses of their votes;
but that does not solve the prime problem to me--efficient spending and performance audits; like anything, most people pay for good services; they just dont like rat-holes of endlesss cost, endless excuses with no REAL gain in results; thanks for your view;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 19, 2006 01:46 PMA couple of thoughts from me:
I'm 43, single, with no dependents, and have lived in an apartment all my life. I (and hopefully other) apartment dwellers are certainly aware that property taxes do affect us.
As far as raising taxes for schools, I always vote no on local school levies.
And something that relates to what JCM wrote (Post 2.), is that when some people find out I voted no on a school levy they label me as, "Someone who doesn't care about our children's future."
That really angers me, since (at the risk of sounding self-righteous) I give money regularly to private charities designed to help at risk youth, and spend a fair portion of my spare time mentoring and counseling youth, and volunteering in various community programs. I do care about our youth, I just don't have faith in our public school system in it's present state.
Getting back to voting on levies, even if it were true that only homeowners were paying for public schools, voting yes just because someone else is footing the bill for something is irresponsible and unfair in my opinion.
I vote no on school levies for two main reasons:
1) I believe that the public school system has become inefficient, and much less effective than it could be (I work with youth regularly, from both public and private schools).
2) People are being literally taxed out of prosperity; too many taxes, too much government spending with no accountability, bad priorities, wasted tax dollars, etc.
And on a rehtorical note, for those who scream about tax breaks for the rich (and I'm not rich), please tell me why government taking a little less of the money someone has worked for is evil?
Perhaps your parents never taught you that just because someone has a lot of something (regardless of what it is) doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to some of it.
Posted by: MB on July 19, 2006 02:13 PMLandlords are free to break out the rent into covering taxes and other. But in the same way as taxes are passed on, so is the mortgage deduction, as it takes less rent to make the desired profit.
On the other hand, pricing is probably more related to what the market will bear - whether making a profit or loss. So if top dollar is already being obtained, and property taxes go up, rent cannot go up accordingly.
Posted by: Fred on July 19, 2006 02:41 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/education/15report.html?ex=1310616000&en=abe96106c55b306f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Didn't hear this on Faux news did you?
Posted by: Danw on July 19, 2006 03:53 PM
WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The Education Department reported on Friday that children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools. The exception was in eighth-grade reading, where the private school counterparts fared better.
The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores in 2003 from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools, found that fourth graders attending public school did significantly better in math than comparable fourth graders in private schools. Additionally, it found that students in conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind their counterparts in public schools on eighth-grade math.
Posted by: danw on July 19, 2006 04:00 PMWhite House is two words.
Buried.
Place a hyphen between late and Friday.
You also need to learn when to use a comma, a semi-colon, and a colon ... and when to capitalize when using them.
So, Danw. Private or public schools for you?
Posted by: jimg on July 19, 2006 05:01 PMme too--i choose to give or not generously to particular focused and agreeable charities that i think make a difference; as for your volunteering, great--you are a bigger man than I; i appreciate walking the talk, so i take a back seat to you; and i agree--why punish the wealthy--is it some twisted reverse-guilt work ethic? i've found that wealthy people do, in fact, give to charities AND have the MEANS to do so; the poor can not (or are expected to) give their last dime; appreciated your views;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 19, 2006 05:19 PMStudents in private schools typically score higher than those in public schools, a finding confirmed in the study. The report then dug deeper to compare students of like racial, economic and social backgrounds.
So in other words they kept digging to find some way to make the numbers in the light they wanted. Typical NYT reporting.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 05:34 PMIn eighth-grade math, children in Lutheran schools scored significantly better than children in public schools
and this:
"In the real world, private school kids outperform public school kids," Mr. McTighe said. "That's the real world, and the way things actually are."
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 05:36 PM"The average private school mean reading score was 14.7 points HIGHER that the average public school mean reading score" AND "The average private school mean mathematics score was 7.8 points HIGHER than the average public school mean mathematics score" (Emphasis added)
Furthermore, the study mentions what it took to get the conclusions so eagerly mentioned in the newspaper article: "After adjusting for selected student characteristics.." This is a fancy way of saying we didn't see the conclusion the NEA wanted, so we fiddled with the data until we came up with the preconceived outcome.
However, you are in correct in noting that the NYT is a crazed commie newspaper, but sensible people have known that for years.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 19, 2006 06:15 PMI didn't leave out anything, I just put up the first couple of paragraphs with the link. Good for the Lutherans, I believe they believe the world is older than 6000 yo. As for Your real world reference, go figure. Those with the means are able to send their children to these private schools. Do you think that coming from money gives you a foot up in the real world, that the obvious lack of difference in the education quality does not.
Another tidbit with the link.
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent change of reaching the top 5% of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22% chance.
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5%) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5%). Their chance of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8%.
By international standards, the US has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the US is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the US.
The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/16/82457/6005
jimg....typical BS from the thought impaired.
Posted by: danw on July 19, 2006 06:18 PMFor those who don't really want to view the study, I think it is pretty interesting that the NYT ignores a very important conclusion mentioned in the study: "In both reading and mathematics, analyses employing UNADJUSTED NAEP scores indicated that the average private school mean score was higher than the average public school mean score, and the difference was statistically significant." (Emphasis added)
Posted by: Burdabee on July 19, 2006 06:25 PMJoseph McTighe, executive director of the Council for American Private Education, an umbrella organization that represents 80 percent of private elementary and secondary schools, said the statistical analysis had little to do with parents' choices on educating their children.
"In the real world, private school kids outperform public school kids," Mr. McTighe said. "That's the real world, and the way things actually are."
Two weeks ago, the American Federation of Teachers, on its Web log, predicted that the report would be released on a Friday, suggesting that the Bush administration saw it as "bad news to be buried at the bottom of the news cycle."
Don't let facts get in your way folks, if the statistics had shown that the privatization of our schools proved a higher quality education.
Don't you think the party of Wedge Issues, would have brought this out with the Gays and The Guns.
Do you think Lakeside, King's, and Annie Wright would still be in business if they posted that kind of student achievement? Get real. And before you yip about how only the rich can attend, this is exactly the reason we need a true voucher system. A $6000/year voucher goes a long way at offsetting private school tuition. (The $6000 figure is supposed what the Seattle schools spend per student, but judging from the crappy curriculum and mediocre teaching we had to deal with, the money obviously went elsewhere.)
Posted by: Burdabee on July 19, 2006 07:18 PM"Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent change of reaching the top 5% of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22% chance."
Well, duh. Children from low-income families are condemned to attend public schools.
Posted by: ewaggin on July 19, 2006 09:39 PMEven if the recommendation includes all these factors, they will not permit salary reforms to be free from the power of local union bargainers.
Historically when the legislature granted money for class size reduction, local bargainers turned it into a pay bonus for those who ask for larger classes. When the legislature granted money for starting teacher pay raises, local bargainers turned it into a percentage-based pay raise for all teachers.
Reform the salary allocation model all you want...the unasked question is "will collective bargaining also be curbed?"
Posted by: knowsabit on July 20, 2006 08:18 AMWashington State has got to currently have the most advanced and absolutely finest and finest possible school systems of anyplace on planet earth (that's here moonbats - ya know - like - the stuff that ya are standing on.)
Posted by: Bill on July 21, 2006 04:57 AMReduce class size? The've been reducing class sizes for 40 years and it hasn't helped!
Funny how they never mention that they are a UNION asking for more money from the public teat. They should be forced to change their name to Washingon Teachers Union.
People, please appreciate that we are discussing government schools managed and operated by unions protected and supported by the State Government. What do you expect?
Performance and achievement are oxymoron's as in government intelligence.
Private schools offer the only alternative to government schools. If more parents sent their precious children to private schools the government schools may have to shut down from lack of use and interest. It seems that Seattle is shutting down a few this year. Maybe a few more next year.
Save society by sending children to private schools.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 21, 2006 09:00 AM