Today's P-I editorial repeats the trope: Washington state should increase education spending. The line about underfunded education has been repeated so long by educrats and employee unions, and parroted so faithfully by the liberal media, that few among us question the claim. (The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has a new video with interviews of average folks and policymakers being asked how much we spend on education. Most have no idea, but are certain it's not enough).
The eduschnorrers and credulous media rarely tell us how much we already spend, how current funding might be spent more effectively, how much more is "enough", what the requested increment will purchase, or how to gauge its success. The point is to demand more money, period.
P-I editorialist Thomas Shapley has recently announced he's changing jobs to become "media relations manager/press secretary for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction". The OSPI already has an "Assistant Superintendent of Communications and Education Outreach" in Jill Severn and "Media Relations Specialist" in Kim Schmanke (verify here). It's unclear how this self-described underfunded agency will serve the public better by hiring yet another presumably well-paid spokesman. But the appointment reinforces the lesson that a journalist who shills for a government agency places himself at the front of the line for a nice sinecure and pension, courtesy of the taxpayers.
UPDATE: Shapley e-mails:
I was hired as a replacement for, not in addition to, Kim Schmanke here at OSPI.So noted. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 03, 2006 03:37 PM | Email This
Oh well, we "ain't seen nothin' yet"" as the sideshow barker proclaimed. We are only beginning to see a well contrived and orchestrated barrage of press releases, TV and radio spots, newspaper ads and mass-mailings about the plight of education and the indentured servitude of teachers. There's another levy vote coming and tax schemes in the air. Nickels has only just begun flapping his jowls about the plight of education which only he can save - by altering checks and balances. Gregoire is making it priority one in her new budget - increased state taxation is looming. Soon Sims will chime in. Let's face it - the same incestuous lot has been making backroom deals and laughing at yet another scheme devoted to mind control and fleecing.
With Rice being called up to lend his "invaluable" and "trusted" leadership there must be a plan to resurrect Dixy Lee Ray. At least using of some of Dixy's old TV science shows with computerized editing and voice-overs - just like John Wayne in Coor's ads.
Besides, "It's for the kid!"
There has been a notable trend for 'journalists' who have washed out or been kicked out of various newsrooms entering the state work force. One gets hired and then they hire their pals. While nepotism is prohibited in state goverment, cronyism is alive and well and expanding in state government.
There was a time when a government agency public information officer knew their agency, knew how to give facts and was there to give the facts. The old-style public information officer was a part of the general state service, not a fancy executive level staff, and the task at had was to give honest and factual information. Not any more.
Now, the emphasis is spin, smoke and mirrors. The current regime wants ZERO bad publicity, so all agencies have placed increased money on hiring ex-journalists.
Agencies are all morphing public information offices into PR/News Room empires staffed by ex-reporters. The hope is if a press release is written in AP style, a busy newsroom will run it verbatim and not check facts or dig deep.
There is no tolerance for bad-press for any state agency from this current governor. All state agencies are building press offices, staffed by ex-hacks who write pretty and write liberal, all for the glory and the re-election and to gloss over any situation which might harm re-election.
ANY issue that might bring harm to a certain someone's position brings forth immediate inquiry from the Governor's office. The governor's office steps in and reviews agency press releases before they are let now, if the news is "not pretty".
You won't get the truth out of any state of WA press office. You will get nice fluff that is full of spin. You will get a lot of evasion and diversion from topic.
It can take years in place for a staff person to learn an agency and how it works. These ex-reporters (and because of fancy titles are making 90k plus a year to start) come and go and change positions every few years. The new way is to not know and make it up as you go.
No longer should there be trust in any 'news' from a Washington State agency. Guaranteed, it has been manipulated to serve the needs of the current regime, and written by good-old-boys washed out from the newsroom.
A sad waste of the taxpayers' money, paying all that for spin, manipulated statistics and made up BS.
But it reads real pretty.
Posted by: gudgeon on December 3, 2006 05:51 PMImagine the future of our public schools in such a scenario: while a substantial proportion of Evergreen State teens may finally be able to pass the math section of the WASL, they will lose the ability to differentiate between the letters "l" and "r", as they lush, remming-rike, to erect Lon Sims.
Posted by: Rey Smith on December 3, 2006 06:12 PMMoving right along to present day nonsense. A large percentage of PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS send their little darlings to PRIVATE schools. There is a message for anyone paying attention. So they hire more spokesmen (spokepersons, spokespeople) to tell us not to believe what we see or experience but to believe what they tell us. Reminds me of an old joke involving a wife catching her husband in an awkward position. Don't believe what you see; believe what I tell you. Guess incongruity creates jobs for the state. But who will pay? And how will they pay?
Now why did Rolls Royce pick Georgia over Washington to manufacture jet engines for Boeing planes built in Washington? Guess the freight is less than the costs of taxes and regulations. Less ask the Queen why? Does she know? Does she care? As businesses continue to keep out of Washington, taxes will rise on a per capital basis. Add increases brought to you by your friendly government and you have a double whammy. Imagine your property taxes increasing 2x. Not to difficult to imagine. That already occurred to many home owners. Oh well, how about 5x. Does that get your blood boiling. Now tell me again why the Democrats won. Please.
Posted by: snuffy on December 3, 2006 06:43 PMPosted by: GS on December 3, 2006 09:05 PM
IF IVAN and BRUCE show up on this thread, please
comment on the folowing:
118. 1. I never said that religion per se makes a student achieve. But, if a school which is religious produces results in terms of its students basic education, is the choice prohibited simply because the school happens to be religious? Basic education is defined in the RCW. That is a standard all schools should meet.
2. Point #1 is not pablum, studies have proved that children rise to meet epectations. There is a famous study of files getting mixed up. Students that should have been labeled underachievers were labeled achievers. They were treated as achievers by teachers and did better than expected on tests.
3. Guess I'm just stupid, even though I have an MBA in economics. This transfer of massive amounts of money from public schools is an interesting statement. Can you cite some actual studies on the economic impact. The Florida program was limited to those in failing schools.
4. Gee, the student loan programs and military college savings allow choice at religious schools. Has this choice increased religious divisions because some one is able to go to Brandeis or Seattle Pacific?
5. All a charter school is an insitutional structure which allows some licensing or granting authority to set forth specific conditions for the operation of the school. What the insitutional structure allows is the freedom to innovate. In many states they are exempt from many regulations, not the requirement to produce basic education standards, and they can do things like:
1. Longer school days
2. Longer school terms
3. uniforms
4. single gender classrooms
5. Discipline
6. Other innovations
I think the real issue is ideologues can't force their ideology on everyone, no matter what is best for children. The politbureau wants to keep control.
Posted by WVH at December 1, 2006 01:12 AM
33. Ivan and Others of Like Mind:
1. I do not accept the guidelines of Bush's NCLB.
Specifically, what don't you accept about the definition of a failing school? Cite specific examples?
What is your specific definition of a successful school? What elements are you looking at specifically?
What is your definition of a failing school? Define the elements specifically?
2. I oppose charters but I do not do so out of fear.
Why, specifically do you oppose charters?
Would you oppose a charter school district where every school is allocated a per pupil amount and how they use it to achieve basic education in their population of students as defined by the RCW is up to them? If so, specifically, why?
3. I am not a "progressive."
We finally found something that we both can agree upon
The Seattle Times has run a series on sealed files in courts. Sometime like that series needs to be done.
Suggest we think of closing the public school system, sell off the assets, including the properties and opt in to a private school system. Please keep in mind that "public schools" as we know them are a fairly new experiment less than 120 years old. If public schools were a private business it would have been bankrupt decades ago.
Being a senior citizen, I am compelled to pay taxes to support a failed system on the basis that it is good for the community. Now that is farcical. As being an employer I see first hand the results of the system. It is time that taxpayers opt out of the failed system. Private schools offer an try and true alternative. Competitive forces demand it.
Posted by: Snuffy on December 3, 2006 10:39 PMRight now we pay about 10,000 per student to be educated in the public school system.
As many private school families can tell you, you can get a MUCH better classic education at a private school for about that much money, and often times less.
If our taxes double, because bergeson cant figure out how to manage her own office - I say a public revolt is in order. Hopefully parents will remember how all this came down in two more years when she is up for re-election for her FOURTH tour of duty as head of our education.
I'd say 16 years of failure would wipe out anyone in the private sector; she deserves no less than to be forced out of education.
Posted by: Lauri on December 3, 2006 11:14 PMPolitics is the art of the possible. There is a social and economic interest in ensuring that all children have a chance for a basic education. The problem is lack of competition in public schools. It is impossible for the institution to fail, no matter how bad it is. The question is what does a government do best, provide direct services or monitor the provision of those services according to a standard. If it were possible to introduce competition, there would be some force to get the system to seek quality. A charter school district, given the political system, would be difficult to achieve, but it is more achievable than elimination of public schools. The moonbats are so intense that they don't want to allow a privately funded technology academy at Rainier Beach in Seattle because it might be a charter school in disguise. Rainier Beach is an educationally challenged school. If there is one things those kids need is technology training, so that they can compete. The problem is the moonbats.
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2006 11:17 PMYour a. - n. points are excellent and reflect mature and experienced thought. I suspect you might have seen a prior thread wherein I questioned whether private tuition equates to actual costs. Per chance some private schools bank a portion of tuition in some sort of endowment fund. They might pay for staff sabbaticals with some of the tuition. Maybe massages for the custodian. Who knows what they spend their money on? That's between them and their customers - their parents.
Frankly I don't care how private schools spend their money the same as I don't care how much parents, who are customers of those schools, wish to spend. I do however care when private school tuitions, shown simply as price tags, are used as a blanket comparison of public school funding - which is shown as a publicly disclosed budget item. I especially care if those price tags are going to be used as an inducement for higher taxes. Your points reflect factors that must be considered if and when true comparisons are made.
In doing my homework I came across private schools offering "before & after" programs "available to all students at no additional charge." These of course are outside the normal school day. It's safe to say such programs' costs are factored into tuition. And before I hear we need similar programs in public schools let me direct anyone saying so to the extended day programs Boys & Girls Clubs offer in conjunction with public schools - at an out of pocket cost for Mom & Dad. I like the idea of Mom & Dad paying for extended day programs the Clubs offer. A pay-as-you-go option used quite a bit by dual income families. And before the shouts of "That's unfair to single moms!" ring out sliding-scale or case-by-case subsidized extended day should be considered. Let's face it - extended day programs are babysitting, plain and simple. But that won't alter the momentum building for all day kindergarten and extended programs the districts, state, and unions want - at an additional cost to all tax payers
You are so off base, I wouldn't know where to start. You're applying minority samples to the entire Executive Branch ... as if the history of agency flacks started with the 'election' of Gregoire.
While I won't vouch for Shapley, I know several ex-journalists who moved to "The Dark Side" and became better journalists because of it.
The hope is if a press release is written in AP style, a busy newsroom will run it verbatim and not check facts or dig deep.
That statement is absurd, and anybody with a hint of working in/with the press knows it.
You are so off base, I wouldn't know where to start. You're applying minority samples to the entire Executive Branch ... as if the history of agency flacks started with the 'election' of Gregoire.
While I won't vouch for Shapley, I know several ex-journalists who moved to "The Dark Side" and became better journalists because of it.
The hope is if a press release is written in AP style, a busy newsroom will run it verbatim and not check facts or dig deep.
That statement is absurd, and anybody with a hint of working in/with the press knows it.
Every parent gets so disgusted with the government school system that they all leave to private schools. Then, and only then, will they have enough money for public education - plus the annual COLA needed for the teachers and administrators (as long as they are union)
Posted by: Right said Fred on December 4, 2006 01:51 PMA friend of mine is a super in a district N of Seattle, and in his district a beginning teacher with 2 kids and 1 wife gets federally subsidized hot lunches @ school for the 2 kids.
Welfare for school teachers.
Pffffbt.
Posted by: Jim on December 4, 2006 02:04 PMschool lunches/breakfasts? sounds like deadbeat parents. how many of those kids have snappy new x-box games yet no $ for a P&J sandwich?
again, my district has about 30+% school lunch rates yet only a 6% poverty rate in the city. 500% rate differential? i smell illegals, fake "needs" or a broken system overdesigned for too much social good. prove me wrong, someone on the inside.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 4, 2006 03:06 PM1. It is not the responsibility of the state's taxpayers to make sure everybody is financially comfortable ... no matter what life decisions they may make on their own.
2. Blame the unions for the plight of beginning teachers. Just a few short years ago, the Legislature (with the GOP in a 49-49 tie in the House) passed pay raises for teachers with a 15-percent increase earmarked for beginning teachers. Fifteen percent.
Know what happened to that 15 percent specifically intended for new teachers? It sure didn't go where it was intended. Nope. Since all the money comes into the districts in one pot, it was negotiated at the local level ... and those beginning teachers got the same percentage raise as the 20-year teachers, the deadwood and everybody else who sucks at the K-12 motherpig teat.
Spare me the sob stories about underpaid teachers. They knew what they were getting into when they became teachers, and the union goons do what they want to further their own self-interests anyway.
You people don't DESERVE a good educational system until you learn how to read and add.
You people? Arrogant much?
Posted by: jimg on December 4, 2006 05:00 PMFor working a part time job, having all those weeks off a year, plus summer - what kind of pay should they get?
I know most public school teachers dont even send out homework anymore (it hurts kids' self esteem) and their benefits package is pretty darn good. PLUS, they cant get fired.
Where in the private sector could you get that kind of job security? Most workers have to perform, but not our WEA union members.
While our kids struggle, our neighborhood principal at Eastlake HS is making a comfy six figure income.
For anyone who wants to get a look at teacher salaries in their area, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has it posted on their website. We pay their salaries with our tax money, so it is legal to publically post it.
Posted by: Lauri on December 4, 2006 08:53 PM